Which raises the question as to why they didn't sue Frankel, but sued the NYT instead?
"You're the one asking for it; why don't you come up with something that satisfies the requirements? "I cannot, though I have tried at various times. The thing is, they keep trying, but they ignore the Constitution every time. So my challenge stands. Let them come up with something that satisfy's their need to control 'disingenuousness' yet does no harm to the root rules of our society. I would be happy if they could, as the electorate keeps depending upon statements made during campaigns to make their choices, but the elected keep pandering to large contributions to enable their reelections. For me, money should not equal speech as speech is evenly distributed (access to platforms recently became more so to the disdain of those who seek power), but money is not.
"Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage,..."
One could reasonably argue that lying to gain political office is to gain material advantage. That alone could eliminate around 99% of all political ads and speeches.
However, leaving Section 230 out of it, and going with the theme 'demonstrably false', let's see what legislation Congress can come up with that holds candidates to their campaign promises as well as their rhetoric while in office that will not only satisfy those of us who think politicians lie with impunity (and all the time), but also pass 1st Amendment muster.
While they are at it, how about promises made by private entities to gain monetary or marketplace advantages (tax breaks, etc.) that never come to fruition. Those are also demonstrably false and to gain material advantage.
From the Slashdot comments a suggestion about how to post comments to the FCC in order to minimize their shenanigans.
It is still the responsibility of the defamer, not whatever platforms, which includes search engines.
When one's channel surfing is limited to Fox News and MSNBC and web surfing to Breitbart and other conservative sites, then they stumble across NPR on the radio, I can see where they might think of those broadcasts as fake news or lies. If one has only been exposed to a single perspective for a long time, different perspectives might take on a eerie quality. When one looks into the abyss, the abyss looks back.
"...create a 13 member congressional commission representing interested parties—including law enforcement, communities subjected to surveillance, and privacy experts."
Let's see:
3 FBI
3 DHS
3 CBP
2 from communities subjected to surveillance and members of right wing groups
2 privacy experts
Majority rules apply and false positives are not counted as errors in any reports they make.
If the same person wrote the TOS and the merchandising blog, I can certainly understand the letter requesting the article deletion. This is one very confused person, or they are extremely self centered and have no ability to see the forest or the trees.
It appears that it is not clearly established that a significant number of judges and justices have any notion of the difference between right and wrong. It makes one wonder whether they could pass a reasonable person test.
Frontier's situation is just a symptom of the dysfunctional political system. FTFY
If law enforcement had better imaginations they would be in different careers. Hollywood could use some help.
Of course there is. The issue comes in priorities. Golden parachutes first, executive bonuses second, settling bankruptcies third (while cleaning out pension accounts and converting assets to fund 1&2), and leaving dregs to investors fourth. Then they think about the employees.
Ahhh, the golden age of Beethoven. Deafness could show independent creation, and as Beethoven showed us, does not preclude writing music.
Charlie Ergen says the shipping industry is sinking, but our ships are still barely afloat. So let us merge with all the others in the shipping industry to take advantage of economies of scale so we can go down together. How many shares of our fantastic new conglomerate would you like?
/s
Are you saying that the US does not recognize Chinese patents and China does not recognize US patents? Seems like a big problem for all those US companies that use Chinese manufacturers. I wouldn't think that those companies would turn over their IP without some protection. I am aware that whatever protection there is has been ignored and knockoffs have been made, but some action was probably taken.
And yet patents get enforce across borders. Is that because patent applications are filed in many countries? If so, what are the rules if the patent application in the US is filed three days prior to the one filed in China? Does China acquiesce to the US patent?
While true, that solution leaves a problem. The 1st Amendment allows politicians to say whatever they want during campaigns. Then when voters take them at their word, and the elected politician does a 180 on them when in office, the only way to correct that injustice is in the next election. Too late for my tastes. At the same time, I have no good resolution without doing harm to several entrenched systems.
One can believe whatever fits their agenda/control system/explanation of the cosmos as they see it.
Proving what they believe in to everyone not of their belief system is a different matter. 'God told me' is an easy, but un-provable explanation (how much respect is to be given is an eye of the beholder type of situation though 'political correctness' suggests that respect should be given, always). Even some scientific 'proofs' fail because at some later date something new is learned that overturns something believed to be true in the past. And we continue to discover new things every day.
In the end, proof needs more than 'God told me', while at the same time there is room for skepticism for some things that have already been 'proven'.
Re: Re: A Stern Talking-to