And the funniest thing about this is that businesses, including "big media", are amoral by definition. The only true goal of any for-profit business is to amass wealth. If it is a publicly traded business, then they have a fiduciary responsibility to their share-holders to amass wealth as efficiently as possible; if the business does not, the responsible management can be sued.
Notice that morality, and indeed even legality, don't come into that equation! Legality is usually an accepted factor, because it is easier, in the long run, to amass wealth when the business follows the law (or at least most of the laws). However, as we all know, even legality is often tossed by the wayside.
The sad thing is, "without actually winning a case against them" is not even the full absurdity. In the US, they can take your stuff without even *charging* you with a crime, much less indicting or convicting.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court often follows the Solicitor General's advice on cases (though, not always)."
Even if they didn't, what makes you think that SCOTUS will be any more technically capable to make a reasonable ruling than CAFC? None of the sitting judges gives me the impression that they would be willing to do the homework that Alsup did to actually understand the issue.
Mmm, evidently I must retract the Fox News statement. Just tried to refresh my memory about it, and it turns out the case was not what I (or I'm guessing many people) thought it was. The rest of my comment stands though.
What?!? Please show me where lying is defined in the Constitution and its Amendments as a non-protected classification of speech. Your statement is a classic example of what Ken is talking about! There are tons of lies you can tell that are perfectly protected speech! Fox News even won a court case stating that the "news" they broadcast did not have an obligation to be true!
Well, if you unshackle donations/cash/bribes from speech, you change the whole dynamic of the argument. In that case, I probably couldn't care less. It is the ability to buy elections using the argument that giving donations to candidates is protected by corporations' First Amendment rights that is truly at issue.
Why yes, I have, thanks for asking. Right now I'm studying the human condition. In particular, I'm studying a hypocrite who knows that large groups of people formed solely for the purposes of obtaining large amounts of money should not be granted the same rights as those already granted to individual humans in our society, and yet this hypocrite argues that it makes sense and is true and just because a bunch of rich people paid a bunch of slightly less rich people to say it is so.
No. That is some of the stupidest drivel I've ever read. The INDIVIDUALS who make up corporations have First Amendment rights. Giving corporations the same rights effectively gives the CEO/President/Whatever of the corporation the clout and speaking power of the voices of all its employees, many of whom will not agree with all of the CEO/President/Whatever's speech or stances. How in the hell do you justify that? Because he owns the company, he speaks with the company's voice?
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for living, breathing people. They never even dreamt of the concept of allowing an amoral money making entity have an equal say in our country's politics.
Lariat's argument might hold a little water, except that Netflix is not "pushing" content to its subscribers, it is only supplying requested content. Therefore, it is untrue to say that Netflix is eating up all the bandwidth; it is Lariat's customers who are eating up all the bandwidth, which is ok, since that is what they pay to do.
Also, the FCC's new rules don't even apply to wireless carriers, so hopefully Lariat isn't one of the sheep bleeting about how the new rules will hurt them.
Mmm... did you read the article? I agree, the sensationalist title is, well, sensational and overdramatic, but the reporting itself seems pretty much spot on. What portions did you have exception with?