"I suspect a condition of sale like this could easily be shot down in court." Nope.
I think if you do a little research you'll see that there really aren't any examples of post-merger legal actions against the government. The anti-trust laws give the government wide latitude to take these guys to the cleaners and pre-merger approvals have been well-vetted in the courts.
Any challenges would have to be of a fundamentally obvious constitutional nature (like if they FCC said ... as long as those *Jews* don't charge usage caps), they won't dare take it to court. Because if they do, the anti-trust hammer comes down hard.
What really bothers me is that one of the logical outcomes of this is that tech companies will demand to be released from liability for any future breaches. And the government will acquiesce, because that is how they will convince them.
So, not only will consumers be left holding the bag, they'll be completely on their own.
Nothing could possibly be a bigger threat to future online commerce than that.
"It isn’t a question of whether federal prosecutors are good people; it’s whether these people, trusted with enormous power, are exercising that power in the way they ought."
I wish he had worded it differently. I think what he means is exercising that power in a manner that places emphasis on both the rights of the accused and the public good. And does not place emphasis on the good of the DoJ or him or herself.
I would be overjoyed to see ANY example of comparable industries where some big event happened and they lowered prices. You certainly couldn't use "deregulation" of [insert industry here], as to my knowledge and despite promises to the contrary, no significant price drops have ever occurred.
You're not wrong regarding the government, but the problem is exactly what Mr. Fenderson is trying to get you to consider: that the only real option we have for a solution is to involve the government.
The government is the only party that can even be remotely argued as potentially working in the broader interest. You cannot possibly argue that the free-market will fix that or even the companies themselves. Their interests simply do not intersect with the broader market or consumers enough to encourage and nurture unselfish behaviors.
The "fighting words" concept and hate speech can be and usually are quite different. From the article you cited:
"...holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words".
So, the "fighting words" doctrine is more closely related to incitement than it is to hate.
But I know your point is more about whether fighting words are considered acceptable by the Supreme Court. And it is an important case, even though they have narrowed it considerably over time. John probably could have chosen a better example.
It is important though for us to understand as clearly as possible the limits on the first amendment. Thanks for the point, however late :)
Good points. I probably should have done a little more research before posting. My greater point, which you seem to agree with, is that the flaw in differentiating crimes and hate crimes is what it requires of the law and the judge/jury in terms of assessing the thoughts/motivations of the accused.
But that actually isn't the definition of "hate crime" or "hate speech". Those are speech or crime "[...] motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."
It isn't elementary, because it is, effectively thoughtcrime from 1984.
The crime itself is provable, it either happened or not. The "hate" portion, is based on a subjective assessment of motivation. I can use words to project my motivation, but they are not necessarily an accurate representation of my mind.
Because they cannot be proof of thoughts, a hate crime must therefore be punishing SPEECH. This is a problem.
My personal opinion is that we should punish ACTIONS, not a subjective assessment of someone's motivations.
I'm curious by the following, though: "UNC doesn't get to limit speech to only what's "constructive and respectful." Its authority doesn't extend past the First Amendment."
Did Tim say this because UNC receives government funding / is a state institution? I guess I'm asking if they are sufficiently established as a government institution to be governed by the 1st amendment.
As we know, the first amendment has no power over interactions between private institutions and individuals. There may be other laws perhaps.
This posting most likely has it right, but the settlement agreement refers to form 8300, which is not the FinCEN form associated with deposits, it is the form associated with the conversion of cash into other assets or services.
In other words, this maybe isn't about deposits, but about the conversion of >=$10K cash into other assets or the conversion of assets into cash.
We live within a county, not a city. When the developers around here get approval for housing subdivisions, they often include taking responsibility for the roads within the subdivision, which is handed over to an HOA.
All of the main roads and key streets are maintained by the county, just not the subdivision roads.
I do live in a neighborhood governed by an HOA and I don't know of any neighborhood anywhere nearby that isn't.
I would love to live without that burden, but I'm not sure how our neighborhood would resolve certain issues without one. For example, the streets in our development are not state maintained. Meaning, at a minimum we need some kind of community fund/organization to plan for and pay for street snow clearing and street repair/replacement. We also have playgrounds and tennis courts that have to be maintained.
I would also add that many condos and apartments have HOA-like restrictions/costs associated with them as well.
Hmmm, I don't agree with that. I think zero-tolerance principles are misguided and wrong.
The concept that public officials can never make substantial mistakes without resigning is a) contrary to the human condition, and b) contrary to our best interests.
For a), we're all flawed humans and we make mistakes--its part of how we learn and part of how we innovate and grow. That doesn't mean damn the consequences, but it does mean that we need our leaders and administrators to feel they have some ability to use judgment and take risks. Otherwise, we're led to b).
For b), it is in our best interests that public officials feel safe to admit mistakes. If every significant mistake results in scorched earth, we'll end up with the result we often see today: no one admits mistakes even in the face of overwhelming evidence because the personal cost is too high. I contend that a situation where the public official admits their mistakes, is possibly punished, but remains in place, is the best possible outcome. There is a limit of course, and that's what makes this hard, but zero mistakes should not be the limit.
Can I break up my currency transactions into multiple, smaller amounts to avoid being reported to the government? No. This is called “structuring.” Federal law makes it a crime to break up transactions into smaller amounts for the purpose of evading the CTR reporting requirement and this may lead to a required disclosure from the financial institution to the government. Structuring transactions to prevent a CTR from being reported can result in imprisonment for not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If structuring involves more than $100,000 in a twelve month period or is performed while violating another law of the United States, the penalty is doubled.