Well, I think the point is that you have to consider it on a case-by-case basis; sometimes your neighbors are plotting to invade, but most of the time they actually aren't.
In the case of Spain and England, Spain didn't want to invade England but they were willing to if they thought England was going to invade Spain. As long as everybody reads Herodotus' version of the Peloponnesian Wars then was becomes unavoidable, but if consider the issue from base principles they might realize that often it is unnecessary.
The Cold War really proved the point; you really don't have to go to war just because the other side considered it. It is not a guarantee that they will invade, sometimes you can install a special hotline to talk out the problems when things get bad, and keep it down to plotting and scheming.
The Court does not consider the argument that something is new just because "on a computer." They've been very clear about that.
There is long-standing precedent here. You have to introduce the argument that there even is a new element, and say what that element is. Just saying "twitter" or "facebook" doesn't introduce anything new.
There have been cases, for example, where a city council is having a meeting in rented private space, and refuses access to somebody with contrarian views. That violates their rights. Can't do it. The government isn't allowed to make deny access based on content. There is no equivocation there.
The argument that it is even questionable is pathetic. The reason it is untested when combined with the word "facebook" is that the idiots who blocked facebook users and deleted comments merely stated in public they thought it was OK and maybe something new, and then they talked to their lawyers who told them they're idiots, and then they came out an apologized and reversed the actions to prevent the lawsuit by fixing the problem. Nothing about that situation implies that there is legal uncertainty. That's absurd.
Youth sports and party schools date to ancient times, so that one was easy.
He proposed just paying the schools directly, I don't think he would care if you used vouchers. That's the point, not everything follows a market. Not everything has the right feedback loops. Read the book.
Capitalism is the government regulating business to impose access and trust, which then allows Capital to move freely. But that doesn't work for education. If you want increased access, you pay for it via government because they're the only chance you have at a trustable third party. If you want ignorant masses, you don't.
You're just wrong. It isn't a word game, that doesn't work. You're talking out both sides of your mouth; saying they're not being prevented from speaking, then saying that they're being prevented from speaking to the government.
Maybe you didn't hear about the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, or equal protection under the laws.
But if the government, any part of government, singles out a citizen and denies access to something based on the content of that person's speech, that violates their rights. Word games don't change that, the precedent is clear and it is not a matter of legal controversy.
That's a pretty tortured construction. You have every right to abuse logic with such a bizarre hypothetical, but don't expect it to be taken very seriously.
My advice, try a hypothetical drawn from existing things in society. Sending a letter to the editor in care of a representative is not even a thing people do, and there is no reason they would want to. It has no parallel to the real situation that is happening on planet Earth being discussed here.
But if your Representative in some way convinced the publisher not to publish your comments, and admitted that he interfered because of the content of your speech, that would clearly violate the 1st. And if it was for some other reason, it would probably violate the 14th. But nobody worries about the 14th when the 1st is a slam dunk, because it is more strongly worded and has more weight when balancing.
You don't address the issue of the action by Trump being content-based, but that is way over 90% of the issue. Without addressing that, you can't say anything worthwhile.
No, there aren't any examples. And you won't find any.
You're welcome to go and find something different and come back and misrepresent it, and I'll explain it to you though.
Nobody said that you have a right to come back just because you attended in the past. What we're saying is that if you admit that you're keeping a reporter out because of something they wrote, that would be illegal. Nobody would ever admit that. But in the case of these twitter bans, there is no other interaction other than the content of their speech, and everybody else is still allowed to post. There is no fire marshal limit, or anything of the sort limiting twitter.
You're just blinding arguing a "side" without even understanding the civics arguments that are in proximity to you.
The mistake you make is worrying about what you think I might have meant, instead of just reading what I said and applying critical thinking.
Find the meaning that parses to something true. If you found it, great. If you didn't, then you might go into the meta-analysis of worrying about if you need more information, or maybe I'm just full of shit or fucking nuts. But if you can find a meaning that parses true, you're in error to have even gone meta at all.
No, no POTUS has gone on social media like this in the first place, so the context to do it hasn't even existed.
Governors, including Pence, and police departments, have already been through this on Facebook; deleting unfavorable comments; getting called out on it; talking to their lawyers about it; and then stopping the practice and apologizing.
Cases like that not going to court doesn't imply it is unknown. While it depends on the actual situation, the government isn't personally paying for the lawyers and so generally will defend its position whenever it can win. These cases not going to court implies that the government would lose badly.
What you're saying is like the city saying it can regulate who is allowed to write letters to the editor of a local newspaper, because the newspaper is private. It just makes no sense at all.
All that matters is if the actions of the government were content-based and denied somebody some sort of access or participation. If so, then they're probably not allowed to do it.
It probably means that it is unwise to have any routine government communications on a social media platform.
Wrong formula. This is about somebody who already had access to a forum, whose access was retracted based purely on the content of their speech.
It is like a reporter getting kicked out because they wrote an editorial the President didn't like. To get away with it you have to have an excuse that successfully muddies the waters.
In the case of twitter, there is nothing other than the content of their speech that could have caused it.
You don't have a right of access to any part of the government, but if you've been granted access they have to observe your rights when later restricting it on an individual basis.
In many cases that is one of the things that taxi companies have to promise in order to hold a "medallion" (license); that they will serve all the neighborhoods that it covers.
I'm not sure how you're trying to connect "schools aren't teaching critical thinking" with "it's the fault of politicians trying to make education more readily available."
This is exactly what they're talking about when they reference a lack of critical thinking skills. No, they're not trying to connect the different ideas. Yes, that is the problem.
I don't agree though. I think most people who earn a degree are very practiced at the hands-on task of writing a paper including the keywords that the professor emphasized.
The claim that people "only" know the theory seems to imply that the theories are wrong. I favor the idea that many of the theories are actually useful, and if the students had bothered to actually learn the theory they'd have an easy time applying the knowledge. But instead, they've only practiced talking about the theory, which is a different thing than understanding it.
Well, like Richard Feynman described; he took a required philosophy class and only understood, "Ugga wugga wugga, wugga wugga ugga," but he still passed the class.
And philosophy majors usually agree that is what non-philosophy majors are likely to remember at the end.
Lots of people agree that students would be better off if they learned some philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily translate into useful dictates.
Or like my dad (a philosopher) said about Feynman's experience, "At some schools that's actually what they're teaching." Then again, he accuses Herodotus of killing more people than any evil dictator in history. Herodotus taught the idea that if you don't attack them, they'll attack you as if it was proven fact, and apparently nobody questioned that until Queen Elizabeth asked, "What if we don't start a war with Spain?"
Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, wrote a neat book called Wealth of Nations, and he included an appendix where he explains why higher education does not follow the supply/demand model and can't reasonably be capitalist.
It boils down to, nobody shops around and buys a slightly lower quality education than they think they can afford; everybody buys the education with the strongest reputation that they can afford, and so there is no price feedback. The cost is related to reputation rather than value, so the units don't even translate directly to Capital.
I attended a college that pushes classes on Critical Thinking, and we had to have credits from a list of classes purporting to teach it. Having been through those, I just don't think it is doable. The student has to want that part, and if they don't understand it going in, they'll just memorize what you ask for and get an A in the class.
This might be more doable in elementary school than college.
I am saying that MS was found to have harmed Netscape and others really bad using unfair practices, and to have engaged in unfair practices against Borland with less certain results. Clearly they were guilty of trying, and some say they succeeded. Others say they were kicking a corpse.
Almost everybody agrees that MS should not have been kicking Borland, regardless of if it was assault or abuse of a corpse.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think the point is that you have to consider it on a case-by-case basis; sometimes your neighbors are plotting to invade, but most of the time they actually aren't.
In the case of Spain and England, Spain didn't want to invade England but they were willing to if they thought England was going to invade Spain. As long as everybody reads Herodotus' version of the Peloponnesian Wars then was becomes unavoidable, but if consider the issue from base principles they might realize that often it is unnecessary.
The Cold War really proved the point; you really don't have to go to war just because the other side considered it. It is not a guarantee that they will invade, sometimes you can install a special hotline to talk out the problems when things get bad, and keep it down to plotting and scheming.
The Court does not consider the argument that something is new just because "on a computer." They've been very clear about that.
There is long-standing precedent here. You have to introduce the argument that there even is a new element, and say what that element is. Just saying "twitter" or "facebook" doesn't introduce anything new.
There have been cases, for example, where a city council is having a meeting in rented private space, and refuses access to somebody with contrarian views. That violates their rights. Can't do it. The government isn't allowed to make deny access based on content. There is no equivocation there.
The argument that it is even questionable is pathetic. The reason it is untested when combined with the word "facebook" is that the idiots who blocked facebook users and deleted comments merely stated in public they thought it was OK and maybe something new, and then they talked to their lawyers who told them they're idiots, and then they came out an apologized and reversed the actions to prevent the lawsuit by fixing the problem. Nothing about that situation implies that there is legal uncertainty. That's absurd.
Youth sports and party schools date to ancient times, so that one was easy.
He proposed just paying the schools directly, I don't think he would care if you used vouchers. That's the point, not everything follows a market. Not everything has the right feedback loops. Read the book.
Capitalism is the government regulating business to impose access and trust, which then allows Capital to move freely. But that doesn't work for education. If you want increased access, you pay for it via government because they're the only chance you have at a trustable third party. If you want ignorant masses, you don't.
You're just wrong. It isn't a word game, that doesn't work. You're talking out both sides of your mouth; saying they're not being prevented from speaking, then saying that they're being prevented from speaking to the government.
Maybe you didn't hear about the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, or equal protection under the laws.
But if the government, any part of government, singles out a citizen and denies access to something based on the content of that person's speech, that violates their rights. Word games don't change that, the precedent is clear and it is not a matter of legal controversy.
Upgrade your civics, man.
Police do not apologize unless somebody is about to take away their donuts. And even then usually not.
The Pirates of Silicon Valley was a great movie, but I think it only grossed $27.
We're handcuffed when it comes to phones.
You should work on speaking from the 1st person and owning your statements. Nobody forced you to try to speak for me.
How did that happen.
You sold your soul to Brandybrand(TM)
Why do we accept that.
You accept it because you're an idiot.
That's a pretty tortured construction. You have every right to abuse logic with such a bizarre hypothetical, but don't expect it to be taken very seriously.
My advice, try a hypothetical drawn from existing things in society. Sending a letter to the editor in care of a representative is not even a thing people do, and there is no reason they would want to. It has no parallel to the real situation that is happening on planet Earth being discussed here.
But if your Representative in some way convinced the publisher not to publish your comments, and admitted that he interfered because of the content of your speech, that would clearly violate the 1st. And if it was for some other reason, it would probably violate the 14th. But nobody worries about the 14th when the 1st is a slam dunk, because it is more strongly worded and has more weight when balancing.
You don't address the issue of the action by Trump being content-based, but that is way over 90% of the issue. Without addressing that, you can't say anything worthwhile.
No, there aren't any examples. And you won't find any.
You're welcome to go and find something different and come back and misrepresent it, and I'll explain it to you though.
Nobody said that you have a right to come back just because you attended in the past. What we're saying is that if you admit that you're keeping a reporter out because of something they wrote, that would be illegal. Nobody would ever admit that. But in the case of these twitter bans, there is no other interaction other than the content of their speech, and everybody else is still allowed to post. There is no fire marshal limit, or anything of the sort limiting twitter.
You're just blinding arguing a "side" without even understanding the civics arguments that are in proximity to you.
Nobody is claiming any misconduct by twitter. That dog doesn't hunt, that dog doesn't even exist.
Well, you're not even talking about the same subject as everybody else.
Everybody else is talking about something that President Trump did, not something that somebody at Twitter did. Clue up, stickman.
The mistake you make is worrying about what you think I might have meant, instead of just reading what I said and applying critical thinking.
Find the meaning that parses to something true. If you found it, great. If you didn't, then you might go into the meta-analysis of worrying about if you need more information, or maybe I'm just full of shit or fucking nuts. But if you can find a meaning that parses true, you're in error to have even gone meta at all.
No, no POTUS has gone on social media like this in the first place, so the context to do it hasn't even existed.
Governors, including Pence, and police departments, have already been through this on Facebook; deleting unfavorable comments; getting called out on it; talking to their lawyers about it; and then stopping the practice and apologizing.
Expect the last part to be different here.
Cases like that not going to court doesn't imply it is unknown. While it depends on the actual situation, the government isn't personally paying for the lawyers and so generally will defend its position whenever it can win. These cases not going to court implies that the government would lose badly.
It doesn't matter who owns the site.
What you're saying is like the city saying it can regulate who is allowed to write letters to the editor of a local newspaper, because the newspaper is private. It just makes no sense at all.
All that matters is if the actions of the government were content-based and denied somebody some sort of access or participation. If so, then they're probably not allowed to do it.
It probably means that it is unwise to have any routine government communications on a social media platform.
Had you collected the story before determining the answer, you'd already know that @RealDonaldTrump is official White House communication.
Derptastic performance from the new kid.
Wrong formula. This is about somebody who already had access to a forum, whose access was retracted based purely on the content of their speech.
It is like a reporter getting kicked out because they wrote an editorial the President didn't like. To get away with it you have to have an excuse that successfully muddies the waters.
In the case of twitter, there is nothing other than the content of their speech that could have caused it.
You don't have a right of access to any part of the government, but if you've been granted access they have to observe your rights when later restricting it on an individual basis.
In many cases that is one of the things that taxi companies have to promise in order to hold a "medallion" (license); that they will serve all the neighborhoods that it covers.
I'm not sure how you're trying to connect "schools aren't teaching critical thinking" with "it's the fault of politicians trying to make education more readily available."
This is exactly what they're talking about when they reference a lack of critical thinking skills. No, they're not trying to connect the different ideas. Yes, that is the problem.
For the employees in academia, yeah, it is about professional teaching, or research if they're good.
And for students it is about job training.
Vocational schools are treated by both groups as remedial job training, not an alternative for people who could pass "normal" classes.
This disconnect ensures a mediocre result for all.
I've heard it said many times.
I don't agree though. I think most people who earn a degree are very practiced at the hands-on task of writing a paper including the keywords that the professor emphasized.
The claim that people "only" know the theory seems to imply that the theories are wrong. I favor the idea that many of the theories are actually useful, and if the students had bothered to actually learn the theory they'd have an easy time applying the knowledge. But instead, they've only practiced talking about the theory, which is a different thing than understanding it.
Well, like Richard Feynman described; he took a required philosophy class and only understood, "Ugga wugga wugga, wugga wugga ugga," but he still passed the class.
And philosophy majors usually agree that is what non-philosophy majors are likely to remember at the end.
Lots of people agree that students would be better off if they learned some philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily translate into useful dictates.
Or like my dad (a philosopher) said about Feynman's experience, "At some schools that's actually what they're teaching." Then again, he accuses Herodotus of killing more people than any evil dictator in history. Herodotus taught the idea that if you don't attack them, they'll attack you as if it was proven fact, and apparently nobody questioned that until Queen Elizabeth asked, "What if we don't start a war with Spain?"
Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, wrote a neat book called Wealth of Nations, and he included an appendix where he explains why higher education does not follow the supply/demand model and can't reasonably be capitalist.
It boils down to, nobody shops around and buys a slightly lower quality education than they think they can afford; everybody buys the education with the strongest reputation that they can afford, and so there is no price feedback. The cost is related to reputation rather than value, so the units don't even translate directly to Capital.
I attended a college that pushes classes on Critical Thinking, and we had to have credits from a list of classes purporting to teach it. Having been through those, I just don't think it is doable. The student has to want that part, and if they don't understand it going in, they'll just memorize what you ask for and get an A in the class.
This might be more doable in elementary school than college.
No.
I am saying that MS was found to have harmed Netscape and others really bad using unfair practices, and to have engaged in unfair practices against Borland with less certain results. Clearly they were guilty of trying, and some say they succeeded. Others say they were kicking a corpse.
Almost everybody agrees that MS should not have been kicking Borland, regardless of if it was assault or abuse of a corpse.