This frankly sounds more like a problem on the part of incompetent police rather than the DA having their hands tied.Yes, I know this is TechDirt so everything must be the fault of the police, but no. In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascon has a blanket declination policy on property crimes. In his own words, "Property crime is what insurance is for, not the criminal justice system." So there's no point for the police to arrest shoplifters when they know the D.A. won't prosecute the case.
(1) The "serfs" and homeless aren't stealing from law enforcement, you boob. They're stealing from the merchants. (2) No conservatives are complaining about them stealing from law enforcement, either. (3) Many of the stores hit hardest by the lack of law enforcement/prosecution of thieves are small individually-owned businesses, not those evol, evol, "multi-million corporation" boogeymen y'all love to go on about. Not only are they individually-owned stores, but a significant percentage of them are minority-owned as well. So the very "marginalized communities" our D.A. pretends he's protecting with his hug-a-thug policies are the ones hit hardest by them. And they have to have a "do nothing" policy with regard to shoplifters or their insurance won't cover them and they'll be subject to not only being robbed directly by these savages, but sued by them after the fact as well when they find some shyster and file a claim that the employee injured them when he tried to stop their thieving.
Yes, heaven forfend we get actual law enforcement for all the taxes we pay. If I'm a merchant and I have to hire "competent security" because the police and the D.A. will do nothing, then I should be able to retain the taxes I normally pay for those services to pay for it.
They literally do news stories on it here regularly. How the merchants no longer bother reporting crime because it gets them nowhere.
Those 'concerns' are people who have their own 1st Amendment right to both free speech and to redress the government with their grievances. They don't lose their constitutional rights because they have money, nor do their rights become somehow 'less than' with regard to anyone else's rights.
Or crime could be "dropping" because people don't feel there's any point in reporting it anymore. That's certainly the case in L.A., where merchants are fed up with calling the cops on shoplifters only to be told "there's nothing we can do" by the police due to the D.A.'s blanket declination on property crime cases. So they don't even bother calling it in anymore. And if people aren't reporting hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes, suddenly the official stats look like crime is going down when in reality it's exploding.
Herein lies the issue. What’s “good”? That’s very subjective.Well, in this context, 'good' would be equivalent to 'popular', in that they'd be paid by the view. A lot of views by a lot of people would indicate a 'good' show in the sense that its creators would be paid handsomely for it.
So why don't you tell me what Cushing's point was in accusing the senator of prior restraint when there was no prior restraint. What point was Cushing trying to make by lying? Thrill me with your acumen.
I see your grasp of the difference between public officials, private companies and journalistsSomeone here certainly can't grasp the distinction between those things and it ain't me. There is no difference between a public official and a private citizen with regard to their personal, private homes. A person doesn't lose his/her private property rights the moment they're elected to office and journalist doesn't have any more right to trespass on a senator's private property than they do yours or mine.
If there ever comes a day when you can order an android that's indistinguishable from Kate Beckinsale, who will screw you or make you a sammich without complaint, and who will obediently go stand in the closet and turn herself off when you want some alone time... that will be the day when society comes to a screeching halt. No further progress will be made by the human species. I've said the same thing about a STAR TREK-level holodeck. That's a society-ending invention also.
Really? 'Cause "Muslim love" often comes with the extra gift of explosives, or being tossed off a building for being gay. But sure, it's the Christians who are the "no greater hate".
If you start putting liability on Google for the safety of the route it's sending you on, then they're going to start doing things like making sure they're not sending you through "the bad part of town", which in some American cities can be the equivalent of driving through Mogadishu. And that in turn will get them sued for being racist for geo-fencing minority neighborhoods and characterizing them as "bad" or "dangerous", even if they actually are those things.
Which is why the whole self-driving thing as zero appeal for me. The only reason I'd want a self-driving car is so that I could read a book or watch a movie or curl up in the back sear and snooze while the car drove for me. If I can't do that-- if I literally have to sit with my hands on the wheel miming driving-- why bother? I might as well just actually drive the car myself.
Yes, this is a problem. But how can you actually stop it? I mean, other than decreeing that no employee can be friends with or associate with any other employee, there's no way to regulate 'cliques' among deputies. Or secretaries or janitors, or IT nerds, for that matter. People generally form affinity groups wherever they go. You can ban them from having tattoos and whatnot, but that will just drive the behavior further underground. They'll still have their cliques and gangs, they just won't advertise it and they'll be harder to identify and prove cases against.
How exactly is that prior restraint, Cushing? The reporters are merely being put on a notice of 'no trespass'. Her homes are private property and reporters have no 1st Amendment right to trespass on anyone's private property. And a politician who enforces that with regard to her property is not engaging "prior restraint", FFS. This is the forum whose owners and contributors constantly beat the "it's private property" drum with regard to anyone suing Twitter or Facebook for censoring them, but now suddenly private property is irrelevant and kicking a journalist off your front lawn is "prior restraint"? Pick a fucking lane, guys.Fischbach, Rogers’ attorney, then notified all reporters in the room that the Senator did not want any of them visiting her property.Just more prior restraint.
Streamers like Disney+ have to pay rights-holders and content creators continually in many cases to keep their content on their platforms, but often that content is being viewed by too few people and isn't driving new subscriptions.Seems like the solution is to just change the way residuals are allocated. Instead of paying the creators a lump sum just for a show being available to watch, whether the show is watched or not, the creators should be paid by the view, something that is easily trackable and verifiable in this streaming age where computers keep track of every data point. Yes, that means some creators won't make as much if their shows aren't popular but that's the way it should be. Make good stuff, you get paid well. Make shit, or shows that only appeal to a tiny demographic, and you don't make as much.
Does this law specifically say it's limited to adult sites or sexually-oriented material? All I see is a prohibition on the distribution of "material harmful to minors". If that's the standard, then theoretically, even major movie studios and record labels can be liable under this law for providing violent R-rated movies on their streaming apps and rap music that talks about killing cops or beating ho's.
Dude, stop assuming I haven't given up on "news channels" altogether. It's all biased propaganda, one way or the other, and I don't consume any of it. And yes, you stupid fucking moron, minors who aren't even old enough to legally allowed to get a tattoo (even with parental consent) are being allowed to consent to life-altering, sterilizing procedures in the name of "gender affirmation".
Eh. The Canadians have been doing this for decades in Quebec with little to no outrage from TechDirt. Nothing really new here.