I guess the examples I used above are not quite right.
Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation. Neither does the state, county or municipality where my business is located. So I could actually refuse to serve someone based on their sexual preference, if I wanted to.
A better example:
I can refuse to print a "Black Lives Matter" sign because I disagree with the message. On the other hand, I cannot refuse to print a "No Parking" sign for someone just because they are black.
(Once again, I wouldn't actually refuse either of these customers)
Having multiple bakeries in one town doesn't let one private bakery off the hook when it comes to protected classes.
Don't confuse refusing service to someone with refusing to disseminate a message you disagree with.
As a purveyor of fine signage, I can refuse to print a "Gay Pride" sign because I disagree with the message. On the other hand, I cannot refuse to print a "No Parking" sign for someone just because they are homosexual.
(Just so you know, the above are just examples and I wouldn't actually refuse either because I personally don't give two shits about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.)
Looking into this a little further, it could be argued that Facebook holds a monopoly in internet communication and could be forced to relay messages they disagree with the same way that Turner Broadcasting was forced to carry channels they objected to. (see Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)) Personally, I disagree with this argument - I don't even have a Facebook account and I am able to voice my opinions just fine on the internet.
Playing Devil's advocate, what they are trying to say is that these services have become a social necessity and first amendment protections should apply.
When you post something on Facebook you already have First Admentmed protection. The govenment cannot tell or force Facebook to remove your post as long as what you are saying is protected speech.
The First Amendment has never been about forcing anyone to provide a platform for your speech. Newspapers have always held the right not to publish your letter to editor if they choose not to. Kinko's has the right to refuse to copy your flyer if they do not like your message. I work in the sign industry and I can absolutely refuse to make a sign that I personally object to. The First Amendment only applies to the government suppressing speech, not private entities.
...and citizens in America must learn to abide by police authority when confronted.
I was with you right up to that point.
After decades and decades of systematic abuse of authority by law enforcement personnel, your advice of "just bend over and take it with a smile" is piss-poor advice, in my opinion.
The resentment towards LEOs stems from the over militarization of police forces, the ingrained law enforcement culture of being "above the law" and the practice of using tickets, arrests and property seizures as funding sources.
The resentment of the public by LEOs stems from the fact that everybody carries a video recorder in their pocket and they are less likely to be able to abuse their authority without consequences these days.
None of those are the fault of the public, but yet you still advise that we "must learn to abide by police authority when confronted". That is not a solution, it's blaming the victims.
Provide "evidence" to sensationalism and non-sensical wingnut talking points?
Ok then, how about you simply express why you think this amendment is a good idea?
Thus far all you have contributed to this discussion is childish insults. Although I doubt it, it is possible you you might have an opposing viewpoint which deserves consideration, so let's hear it, Skippy.
The first amendment carefully only protects legal speech. It's one of the reasons first amendment arguments are a non starter in piracy cases, as the underlying piracy negated the first amendment protections.
To me that argument is ass backwards. As it is, copyright is already engaging in a first amendment balancing act that requires Fair Use to keep it from being declared unconstitutional. When you then use something that's already on such dubious footing to decide what gets first amendment protection in the first place, is like putting the carriage in front of the horse, in my opinion.
Publicity rights creates a set of speech which is not "free", and in certain circumstances as a result not protected by the 1st.
I don't think we should have publicity right laws.
But I will note that Lowery is upfront and honest about what he believes.
The problem is that Lowery seems to believe that the tech sector owes him something because he had a couple of songs that made the charts way back in the 90's.
Our first experience with Lowery on Techdirt was him swearing up a storm in the comment section and demanding that Mike give him equal exposure on a platform Mike created and pays all the bills for. Fun times:
The 1st Ammendement has no guarantee of "anonymity".
While not actually articulated in the Bill of Rights, the right to anonymity has always been in integral part of our Free Speech rights. Our courts have consistently upheld the right throughout our history, the most recent being in 1995:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [...] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
Haha. Mike Masnick doesn't know what a "front group" is. Totally hilarious.
Apparently, you are the one who doesn't know what a "front group" is.
Here is SourceWatch's opinion of the Copyright Alliance:
The Copyright Alliance is a 501(c)(4) front group created and operated by associates of former Sen. Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) and his lobbying firm, The Nickles Group, LLC. Formed in 2007, the Copyright Alliance claims to represent a broad cross-section of copyright stakeholders, with an emphasis on the interests of creative individuals such as photographers, visual artists, songwriters and performers; however, the makeup of its board, the corporate backgrounds and political connections of its founders and staff members, and its advocacy track record reveal that its true purpose is to promote the interests of prominent telecom and entertainment corporations. Strong evidence revealing the Copyright Alliance to be a front group for Nickles is found in the form-990 tax returns and financial reports to the Department of Labor filed by member organizations which show that dues and contributions are being sent directly to the Nickles Group LLC offices at 601 13th Street NW, Suite 250 North, Washington, D.C. 20005 Source
If you are running a Linux distro with the GNOME desktop you should check out the program I wrote. It creates GNOME Network Manager OpenVPN connections from the free VPN server list provided by the VPN Gate Project.
Any artist or creator that happens to be aware of you dislikes you.
I am a creator and I think most of Mike's arguments are spot on the target.
I also happen to think it's pretty silly for people to blame the messenger. Mike didn't create your problems, he has only written about them. As a matter of fact, Mike has attempted, many, many times to offer up solutions for creators to earn more only to be called "Pirate Mike" because those solutions aren't "the way we have always done things".
It's really fairly simple: "The world is always changing, so adapt or die." That axiom never changes.
Both of you either need to prove your position or just be quiet.
I've never stated any position on this at all, so I'm not sure what I would need to prove. All I've stated is that what you have thus far put forth as proof doesn't actually prove what you are claiming.
You, on the other hand, have asserted your position, so the responsibility falls to you back up your claims. That's how a debate between adults works.
$118M in patent royalties in 2014 for UC alone and 86 new startups. Hard enough?
Not really. Without a comparison, that "86 new startups" number is meaningless. Without the patents, there might have been 200 new startups using UC's knowledge and all of them would be employing people and paying taxes too.
Interesting choice of words to describe a blog with 3/4 of a million unique readers a month, but whatever.
But if you can only tolerate sychophants who blow smoke up your backside and echo your worldview...
As a casual observer of this entire exchange, I will say that if I was serving on a jury concerning this, you would most definitely lose the case. You have backed up your assertions with very little supporting evidence and the evidence you have supplied doesn't really back up what you are claiming.
Talk is cheap. Hard verifiable facts are what actually sways people.