What does that even mean? Maybe things have changed since I was in college, but I've always assumed that every college professor taught their classes from the point of view of their own personal perspective.
When I was in college during the Cold War years I had a Political Theory professor who was a card-carrying Communist. He even showed us his official "Red File" that he FOIA'd from the FBI. The contrast between my middle class upbringing and his radical views made it one of the most interesting classes I've ever attended.
This may not be the "real" Whatever. Whatever claims that he doesn't usually comment when not logged in. The last time Whatever claimed this, the possible impersonator also used a phrase similar too "(you can click report now... I don't care!)."
Besides, all those other sites you mentioned deal primarily with public or semi-public posts, not one-to-one or a small group like Snapchat primarily does.
It's basically the same license you grant Google when you use Gmail. By using Gmail you grant Google the right to use anything in your email and any attachments in the exact same way:
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services... Google Terms of Service
US sovereignty ends at it's borders. The law of the US isn't the law of the rest of the world.
That's true, but in this case we are talking about a US citizen having dealings with the US government (FBI). I don't recall any restriction in the Bill of Rights pertaining to physical locations.
In my opinion (but obviously not the opinion of our courts) the Bill of Rights limits what the US government can or cannot do and extends to anyone who has dealings with the US government, regardless of citizenship or physical location. The wording of the Bill of Rights is "persons", not "citizens".
Copyright is what makes it possible to keep that bigger organisation.
That isn't, nor has ever, been a reason for the existence of copyright.
Also, there is absolutely no requirement, legally, ethically or otherwise to provide customer support for someone who hasn't legally purchased your product.
If you have 1 million customers who paid for your product and 10 million who pirated it, you still only have the 1 million paid customers to worry about providing customer support for. Your whole argument seems to be based on a false premise that you would have to provide customer support for non-customers. That's a silly argument.
Idiots with cameras trying to "gotcha!" everything the police does are to blame. If you're going to fault the police for fearing for their lives, fault your fellow criminals for glorifying their own irresponsible behavior in masking their illegalities.
Go one step further back in your blame game. Why are people trying to get those "gotcha" moments of police? Because the police have been abusing their authority without any repercussions for quite awhile now.
Do you seriously think things like charging a suspect with assaulting a police officer for bruising the cop's knuckles with their face isn't abuse of authority and shouldn't be curtailed? How else is the general public supposed to fight against such injustices in a system rigged against them from the get go, except with undeniable proof like a video recording?
Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next.
You are looking for rights that copyright has never provided. For example, you could stop publishing and selling your dead-tree book anytime you desire, but that will not stop secondhand bookstores from reselling your book or stop libraries from lending out your book and it most certainly wouldn't stop people from reading the copies that already exist.
Most of the legal scholars I've seen who have looked at the problem say exactly the opposite: the only way to fix the campaign finance problems caused by the Citizens United decision (in a way that could not be trivially overturned by the courts under the precedent set by the Citizens United decision, at least) is a constitutional amendment doing away with the concept of corporate personhood.
When I said "campaign finance reform" I probably should have used a stronger term like "campaign finance overhaul". In my opinion, the only way to fix the FUBAR system we have now is to completely change how elections are financed. Something along the lines of every candate gets x amount of dollars to win a primary and more as they progress along in the races. I don't hold any illusions that any such thing would happen in my lifetime though.
I never said they should be denied "all rights". Corporations should be denied human rights, such as a legal recognition of personhood and the right to free speech, because a corporation is not a human being. This in no way interferes with the concept of ownership of property held in trust for the human owners of the corporation (the shareholders).
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I am seriously curious as the reason why you argue so stridently against this.
Are corporations the only group of like minded people you think shouldn't have First Amendment rights as a group? You aren't arguing that an entity like the NAACP shouldn't get First Amendment rights when they put out a statement from the organization as a whole, are you?
Then you haven't been paying attention to the real-world consequences that have come about as a direct result of that ruling.
As far as I can see, all of the problems arising from Citizens could be fixed with campaign finance reform, so I don't really see it as a corporate personhood problem myself.
Anyways, my original comment was directed at your absolute statement that non-human legal-fictional entities having Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous. If you deny corporations *all rights* (for example the right to own property) then corporations could not exist. What would you replace them with? Government ownership of everything?
Insofar as any argument that a legal-fiction entity that is not a human being has Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous...
Why? Corporations have always had some rights that could be considered "Constitutional rights" and not others. For example, corporations have (and have always had) the right own property and right to legally enter into contracts. On the other hand, corporations have never had the right to vote.
I don't think that the Citizens United did anything more than clarify that one specific right can apply to corporations. It's not this huge boogeyman you seem to think it is.
And not just from the IT guys. From the accountants and managers too. I work at a small shop for a guy who used to be an accountant. I've attempted to persuade him that going the GNU route on our workstations would be beneficial in the long run, but I'm always met with the attitude of "if it doesn't cost a lot of money then it cannot be of any value" from him. It's a pretty difficult mindset to combat sometimes.