I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert so I was wondering if there was a clear definition somewhere of what is speech and what isn't? I'm guessing it has to be decided by the courts?
The reason I ask is it seems that there's an argument that a photographer can deny service since what they do counts as speech, but a diner couldn't. I can see that there's not much "speech" in getting a burger, however there's a multitude of jobs on the speech to processing scale
Could a lecturer refuse to teach? They physically speak to teach people. How about if the lecturer was in say political science where it's more about the professor's opinion than say maths where it's hard fact, so not so much the professor's "speech"
Musicians? party organisers? artists? like photographers they try and come up with new products to fit their client's desires.
Does the line get drawn when the job involves creativity? In which case you could make an argument for lots of jobs to come under free speech - basically anything which isn't following a rigid checklist, so anyone offering a more bespoke service than you get at a macdonalds.
Um, the CEOs aren't there to represent your interests. They are there to represent their company's interests. There's only an intersection to the extent that they need to pander to your interests to gain your business.
Now your senator however, they *should* be representing your interests ...
There was a recent case of a small hotel owner trying to turn away gay couples, or at least deny them a double room, on the grounds of their religious belief.
They lost their case, and aren't allowed to let their religious beliefs impact their business.
Basically anti-discrimination trumps freedom of religion when it comes to offering services to the public it seems.
Although as others have commented - I sure wouldn't want someone photographing my wedding unless they wanted to be there. So many ways for the photos not to turn out properly without anything obvious being done which would open the photographer up to being sued. No way I would want to risk that!
Agreed, having paid for a temporary licence you shouldn't complain when it's revoked.
The problem is most people don't realise that they've only bought a temporary licence.
Partly because they're used to buying physical goods and partly because the online provider makes statements such as "watch and re-watch as often as you like" rather than "watch and re-watch as often as we like".
I'd like a magnetic domain though, where can I get one?
What she's offering in exchange for a meal is: - 2 facebook posts stating where they ate - 5 instagram photos during the meal - 2 newsletter adverts - 1 listing in dining guide
The first two are factual - basically "if we eat at your restaurant, we'll say that we did". The next two are normal business transactions, the restaurant could shell out $ to buy an advert and a mention in the listing, or they could pay by providing the blogger with a meal
She hasn't stated that she will provide a good review, just that she will make some factual statements, and will take a meal as payment for advertising space.
So basically by bundling a popular and unpopular channel together, they get people who don't want to watch the unpopular channel to subsidise those who do.
The problem is the only way that is sustainable is if nobody else is allowed to compete. Otherwise another company will realise that they can offer a package of just the popular channel. They will be able to do that for a lower price than the bundle obviously. Then the only people who still buy the bundle will be those who want the unpopular channel.
So they can only continue with their bundling practice by stifling competition, ie by interfering with the free market.
Also, since when were cable companies in the business of creating niche channels so that everyone's pet interest was covered? As far as I know, being corporations, they are driven by profitability. The way they increase their profitability is by increasing their revenue - which means making a new channel and forcing their customer base to buy it. Sure they can claim to be serving some small demographic's wants - but only at the expense of everyone else.
Why are niche channels on cable even required? Even the smallest niche can have video channels on the internet. Plus, smaller niches don't need a rolling 24hr feed by definition.
Not everything in "Video Games and Consoles" category is a video game or a console.
I've just had a quick look and I can see controllers, hard drives and vouchers for money off a console. So can I buy a controller from that category and then complain when I don't get a full console system? No. Because that would be dumb.
Same goes for many other categories - In the Vehicles-Boats section, I can see engines for sale.
The category is not a complete description of what you're selling - the post title and commentary does that. And indeed in this case it did, through the use of the word "photo".
The primary objective is ... combating terrorism and other criminal activities, such as human trafficking, child pornography, detection of dangerous situations (e.g. robberies) and the use of dangerous objects (e.g. knives or guns) in public spaces
OK, I'll give you that cameras, or people, watching could spot things like robberies, mugging, weapons. By watching behaviour it's possible to spot unusual activity such as people about to commit suicide, or presumably someone being kidnapped or trafficked.
However "child pornography ... in public spaces". Really? Is there much child pornography going on in public spaces? I doubt there's that much going on in the public internet (probably mostly on private networks), so I really doubt there's much going on in railway stations, plazas, etc around the world.
It seems that there's two core addictions: - physical addiction. Caused by an external chemical which forces the body to crave more. Drugs, nicotine, etc. - psychological addiction. Caused by the body's response to something (eg releasing endorphins during exercise) which can cause addiction to whatever triggers that response
Just as there's lots of drugs which can be addictive, there are lots of different actions which can end up being addictive if the person in question goes to extremes. as an example you get people addicted to exercise, shopping, committing crimes (eg kleptomaniacs), gamblers, and of course people who spend too long on certain leisure activities - TV, games, etc.
To the extent that an obsession with something impacts your ability to live a balanced life then some form of counselling would be useful. However as long as your obsession doesn't involve criminal behaviour (eg kleptomania), or causes wider problems (eg violent drunks) I don't see it as being a problem for the state.
But then as an AC above commented, another addiction seems to be creating legislation - and politicians have it bad.