All morality is based on the Platinum rule, not religion. Ironically, religious morality is not absolute (because the bible is unclear and contradictory). For example, where in the bible does it say to obey street signs?
However, a moral system based on the Platinum rule can be universally understood and is much easier to abstract to different situations.
Anonymous comments are the equivalent of washroom graffiti. If you found disparaging comments about you in the washroom, should you be allowed to get security camera footage and sue the person? Would you really want to, if you could?
Anonymous comments are usually given less weight, and therefore are less damaging, than comments from reputable people. So the "harm" they cause is negligible.
Anonymous comments are an effective way to speak truth to power, but unfortunately, they let the good in with the bad. I think we need to default to protecting the good and tolerating the bad.
No, as I quoted above, Bode is saying Comcast is skirting the law by changing Cohen's title. There is nothing in the law, as I know it, that says simply removing "lobbyist" from your business card allows you to lobby all you want and not be legally defined as a lobbyist. The rest of the issue I totally understand. Yes, spending 19% of your time lobbying is basically the same as spending 20% of your time.
What are you talking about? Bode is implying that Cohen is still lobbying 20% - 100% of the time, but since his title is Chief Diversity Officer, Comcast can skirt the law. This is an idiotic assertion. Obviously, Comcast just told Cohen to keep his lobbying under 20% and then he can "officially" not be a lobbyist. If Bode thinks something else is happening, then he should get Cohen charged.
if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying they have to register ... as a lobbyist. ... Comcast addressed these changes by simply calling Cohen something else.
No. Comcast addressed these changes by not having Cohen spend more than 20% lobbying. If you have proof that Cohen is spending more time lobbying (irrespective of what his title is), then get him charged. Otherwise, this whole piece reads like a chastised child.
I left Techdirt due to Tim's cop hating nonsense. Peaking back, I realize the insanity is just as strong as ever.
Do none of you seriously understand why a cop might not want people wandering around when then are trying to detain or arrest someone? A dozen people buzzing around a few feet away creates severe security issues. And having armed people buzzing around... good grief, that is just a recipe for someone getting shot.
Cops don't know who is friend or foe during a police situation. They don't need people jamming a camera in their face. This law seems totally reasonable, except, I guess on this site.
The shooting had nothing to do with police militarization. This was a beat cop with a clean record dealing with a belligerent man. My understanding is one round was fired in the cop car, which indicates a struggle.
The taxi monopoly kills people. Municipal governments that keep this protectionist crap in place while companies like Uber are available are contributing to drunk driving and its deaths. They need to be held accountable for it.
If the US has enemies, they are enemies the US created. You can't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians around the world, and not expect to create enemies. People whose family members are blown apart don't care if you were trying to be careful with your bombs.