government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website
Because the former would require significantly more resources - manpower, money - and harm the political donations and kickbacks from a major industry - Hollywood - and embarrass more wealthy and powerful people - again Hollywood - than the latter.
While it would be a significant political statement from those providers, it would not be technically effective to prevent access.
They could just use the standard mechanisms that are advised for downloaders or geo-block defeating or people behind regimes like China's Great Firewall - VPNs, proxies, etc.
Of course, that could open up another can of worms. I seem to recall a case (details escape me, therefore I could be completely, utterly wrong) that was reported here on TD a while back, where someone was convicted, I think under the CFAA, for bypassing those types of blocks. The accused had received C&Ds to stop accessing a service and the IP blocks were then regarded as technological access control measures (so maybe it was the DMCA?), therefore bypassing them was a breach of something-or-other.
Any website that went over to requiring a facebook account to comment on I stopped visiting. Perfect example was Techcrunch, when they went to requiring facebook I stopped visiting entirely. Even after they reversed that requirement 2(?) years later, I still don't visit the site , with the exception of reading the articles there about their policy reversal, but apart from that I've never been back. I don't trust the judgement of people who'd make such a stupid decision in the first place.
I won't pretend that there are no potential conflicts of interest here, but under legal ease can "accept" be construed to also include buying something?
I think that would depend on whether it was finalised because he was president as opposed to because of the normal process.
For example, if a normal billionaire (is there any such thing?) offered to purchase something (a trademark, a national treasure - e.g. Mona Lisa, Terracotta Army, Tower of London, Ayers Rock, Yellowstone, Chichen Itza, Sphinx, Acropolis, Mecca, Kremlin, Valley of the Kings) but they are all turned down - except for a private purchase by a billionaire who also happens to be the POTUS. That I think might fall under the emoluments clause,
"bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified,"
agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified";
are not the same thing.
At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
nuclear bombing of Nagasaki
fire-bombing of Tokyo
fire-bombing of Dresden
carpet bombing of various European cities during WWII
Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.
Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn't give the results in a common semantic framework.
If the volume of those calls are greater than normal background noise in that area at that time of day (construction work, trucks driving past, kids playing, crowds at sports events, aircraft flying overhead. etc) then make a noise complaint to the appropriate authorities.
If it isn't any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?
In the comments to various stories on this topic on this site and many other, I frequently see commenters decrying the mere audacity of the courts to review an EO - "How dare they, they don't have the right, it is unreviewable!".
Therefore to me, the most important sentence in the entire ruling is the conclusion of section IV. Reviewability of the Executive Order on page 18 (emphasis mine):
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.