At some clubs, the strippers PAY the club for the right to dance. They give customers a "reason to buy" through paying more attention to better tippers and the general understanding that without tips these people won't continue stripping.
The line about "blood type was changed after receiving a bone marrow transplant" is very misleading. It actually makes the article sound stupid, because it is no big deal for this to occur. The big deal is that it happened with a LIVER transplant.
Re: Re: Censorship is not copyright, they both start with C but after that they are different
Mike, it's really semantics, but copyright is kind of a form of censorship (arguably). For the sake of more clearly making your point, I would suggest better adjectives. Instead of labeling this as "blatant" censorship, I would suggest using the words "unreasonable", "unacceptable", "unconstitutional", etc.
Not every time, but just here and there to clarify that some censorship (i.e. restriction) is okay, but this is not. I understand language, and how it is common to use "censorship" to mean specifically the bad kind of restriction, but it isn't universal. Using these other words could drive your point home more effectively.
Personally, however, I find it quite simple to understand the difference between SPECIFIC censorship (which can be constitutional) and the BROAD censorship in question here (which is clearly unconstitutional).
Again, you are wrong. The government can censor you from falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it can censor you from displaying child porn, it can censor you from distributing copyrighted material, etc.
Freedom of speech and expression goes far here, but it is not - nor should it be - absolute.
I'm reminded of how someone once flipped out on me when I said they needed to provide a good reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage - he snapped at me for "calling [him] a bigot". I had to point out to him that discrimination is discrimination, but we accept it if there is a good reason for it. You're not a "bigot" for discriminating against children getting married, but it's still discrimination.
Same thing with "censorship" here. As you say, "plain and simple", it is being done. That isn't up for debate. The debate is whether or not it is acceptable.
This is actually a three stage distinction in my book:
1. Market dominance (e.g. Google)
2. Dominant market CONTROL (e.g. Microsoft)
3. ABUSE of that dominant control (i.e. anti-trust issues)
So, in my opinion, Google is not a monopoly (though any size company can still act anti-competitively in an illegal manner). Microsoft is a monopoly (more or less), but that doesn't matter until they abuse that position.
You know the database at turnitin.com must have all kinds of these unattributed Wikipedia quotes in its papers. Heck, I wonder how often students are accused of plagiarism by them just for quoting the same wiki article as someone else.
Seems to me that they need to open up their database or their business is illegal.
I would consider any "lock in" of existing US [case] law as a "change" to the law. It is important to not mice words in issues like this. Call it as it is: it may not change laws, but it CALLS for CHANGES in the law.