Apparently wherever and however the president "finds" something.
President is also supposed to institute things in an orderly fashion, and make sense within the order, and it should be reviewed properly.
And I would like to say i am amazed that others are contrary or throwing epithets around because _someone might want to support and encourage good behavior in entities with whose behavior one has disagreed in other cases_. As if they now _have us fooled_.
It's funny how much power the FCC can have when it comes to a little too much skin being displayed on television, but apparently power for little else besides selective spectrum policing if some other bit of government wants something done about someone.
This also seems to involve actual warrants, if the language is reliable, instead of the best of both worlds hybrid warrant-subpoena animal the FBI tried to play on Microsoft.
But another issue is that they seem to want to serve warrants to third parties as much as possible, instead of serving, you know, the actual person under investigation. Try serving warrants to large corporations for their own internal information, and see how long that can take. The only time they fight like hell for the information they want is when attempting to get third-party information and set legal precedents and the general climate. I can see why Google, or anyone else, would want this thoroughly examined. They can flip the win here back on cases like the Microsoft case. Collect the data so it is here, then hand it over.
the NFL has managed to get the world's advertisers to play pretend along with the league
A lot of them enjoy the same game. Or their business relations do.
Look, you can't say your prices are low than Best Buy! That's our trademark! Look, we don't even utter the The Game Which Must Not Be Named when we speak of the Big Game. It's like uttering god's true name, and you wouldn't do that, would you?
Her lawsuit doesn't even make sense, so good luck.
Fair use has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Acknowledging it is a parody is simply for those too busy or ignorant to recognize parody and opinion. They are flat out stating that there are no factual claims involved. Which is completely a defense against libel. More to the point, they are saying to the audience, never mind to courts, that Ms. Dehen isn't actually tweeting these things.
In general, it could be a bullying tactic. I don't see the specifics here indicating how it is bullying. But parody is commentary on the person or work parodied. Maybe she is also a bully. Maybe this is counter-speech on her positions. Her lawsuit seems like one a bully would file. Bullying rising to the level of a crime is another thing entirely.
It would be akin to me creating a fake Mike Masnick account, call it a parody account, and say unflattering, offensive or demeaning things about Mike Masnick.
Yep. Which you can do. You don't even have to make a reasonable parody of his positions.
I believe the courts are going to start looking at these type of lawsuits with a very fine and strong mirror.
The disorganized thinking, paranoia, and linking unrelated things... i don't know how she got through school unless it is all memorization and she barely passed. It is one of those cases that make me wonder if she needs help, in which case i would feel bad mocking her.
On the whole "lawyers don't seem to get Section 230, etc.", i sometimes wonder if it is a matter of throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks. If there are enough bad rulings, the law essentially changes. So between useful idiots and some who are probably calculating to make case law by bringing these stupid suits, they are trying to chip away at our rights. (No i am not implying a vast conspiracy, but it sounds rather paranoid now that i have said it. It's just how some sorts of people operate.)
Yes, Saudi Arabia, our useful ally and home of the sort of radical Islam that actually spawns Islam-flavoured terrorist groups, never seems to make the cut. And right now the US gov is too busy with it's Saudi-US killing spree to ban anyone from there anyway.
He promised a Muslim ban and asked how he could legally ban Muslims, multiple times. Never mind that Mike didn't refer to it as a Muslim ban, but the automatic argument against calling it a Muslim ban is telling.