While the filing by the government is hardly surprising, given they seem to have studied under the Carreon school of pseudo-law: 'When caught on your BS, double down!' what will be important is to see just how the court rules on this.
By the government's own argument, 'The redacted information contains no additional legal arguments, no case citations, and no discussion of statutory or other law.', there's no legally important information in the redacted sections, so removing, or ordering the removal of, those sections would seem to have no significant effect on their case at all(unless of course they do in fact contain information relevant to the case, in which case both sides deserve to have access to it).
To be fair, if I'd spent years doing everything I could to make an entire city(one already known for being dangerous) hate my guts, I'd probably be a little concerned for my safety as well, so having bodyguards would make sense in that case.
Now making the taxpayers(otherwise known as the same people who hate his guts, due to his actions) foot the bill for the bodyguards though... that's just adding insult to injury.
He's got money, if he's that worried for his safety he should either move out of city/state, or foot the bill for his protection himself.
Remember how Eric Holder insisted that the feds weren't going to keep intimidating journalists? Yeah, right.
They're just going by the government's latest 'logic', where not knowing about something means it didn't happen, so it follows that not having any records of an event means it also 'didn't happen'. /s
Sarcasm aside, I'm guessing that while the detaining and harassing weren't 'official', and thereby recorded, it's likely the DHS and TSA have been given 'suggestions' from up top to make any travel by big reporters from the papers that are covering government abuses as unpleasant as possible, just to show them what happens to those that don't toe the line.
Given they pretty flat out gave a 'Haha, no' when a judge told them to declassify the ruling/interpretation they were using to justify their spying, I'm going to guess that they won't really care what the judge says.
While perhaps tempting, I think something like that would just play right into their hands, given they've been trying so hard to justify their actions with nothing but scaremongering(because when you have no real evidence, emotional 'arguments' are always a good fallback) about how if they have to follow the law, the terro- I mean the criminals will win.
The shareholders can cause some problems, but as long as the company can get away with stonewalling them like this, I'm not sure what else they can really do that would cause a worry to the people who run and own the company.
Now tick off the government, or even part of it like the NSA by refusing to dance to their tune, and suddenly hugely lucrative 'contracts' and 'bonuses', in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars range might go to some other company more willing to 'work' with the government, while the agencies like the NSA just tap the company's network anyway, just without the 'perks' this time.
I have to wonder if the main reason for such a policy shift is the NYPD finding that handing out that information is exposing a lot more about their activities than they realized, or are comfortable with.
For example, the number of shots fired by officers compared to number of targets/bystanders/animals/unknown hit, is probably not something they are eager to have publicly known, given how bad it has been shown to be.
All solid points, though to be even more accurate I'd suggest calling them 'Corporate Privileges', not 'Rights'.
'Rights' implies they are for some reason owed such control, that it is their 'right' to have it, and that it would be inherently wrong to take the control the law gives them away from them, whereas 'privilege' describes it as it's supposed to be, a temporary revocation of the public's rights, in order to better serve and enrich the public through the increased creation of more works.
...and Canada to regulate to pursue legitimate public policy objectives such as the protection of health, safety, or the environment."
Funny they should bring up Canada as an example of how ISDS's are supposed to be good for countries, given Canada has been sued over refusing to let a drug hit the market when it failed to meet the standards in place, and has either been sued, or threatened to be sued(can't remember offhand) for refusing to let fracking companies go ahead with their actions without sufficient environmental/safety studies done beforehand.
Given both of these examples were enabled by the presence of ISDS clauses in treaties they'd signed in the past, maybe using Canada as an example of how such clauses are supposedly a benefit to a country wasn't the best move.
If they are, through greed, power hunger, or sheer gross negligence/incompetence making things worse, than not having them there at all would seem to be an improvement, there's always more people who would step up to replace them, and maybe having their predecessors kicked out like that would instil a better respect for the law and the people in them.
Yeah, pretty much every single founding father of the US would be considered high priority targets and suspected terrorists by the NSA and the rest of the government these days, which I'd say says a whole lot more about the current government than it does regarding the FF's.
You should be the last person calling for moderation of posts, given how many of yours would be deleted(though of course while you call for post removal here, you'd be screaming 'CENSORSHIP!' as soon as one of yours was removed).
Also, 'parody', might want to look that up, if someone wants to post using your preferred screen name(something you could have easily kept from happening by signing up for an account. Too late now though...) to make you look even more silly/foolish, despite how much you don't care for it, it's still protected speech.
'nothing to say on topic... just a mindless contrarian like an ankle-biter dog.'
Might want to look in a mirror before throwing such terms out at others...