This is, uh, wrong. If you're involved the court to silence a company then, yes, the gov't is involved, and First Amendment absolutely applies
FCOL how many times have I read on this very site that Free Speech protections under the 1st Amendment apply to protecting individuals from government actions and not from other individuals? Countless!
And for the 3rd or 4th time in this very thread I NEVER SAID the government wasn't involved. I don't know why so many people are reading things that I didn't write. I said the government wasn't going after Gawker, as in the lawsuit wasn't filed by the US Atty. Certainly the government will enforce the court's decision but that's entirely different.
There are no free speech concerns here. This isn't the government going after Gawker. Gawker is (relatively) free to publish whatever it likes. However, along with the freedom to publish what it likes it must also accept responsibility, liability in this case, for what it publishes.
Of course... the only correct answer to a LEO asking to search your belongings is "if you have a warrant". I understand why he didn't refuse though, it's inconceivable to most people that the DEA can just seize property like they did.
Why would you make data caps illegal? Why not let different businesses offer different plans to match up with different customer profiles? Those who are OK with data caps can purchase plans with them, those who do not can purchase uncapped plans.
There's no incentive to clean this up (pun intended) because in gov't there's ultimately no cost for being wasteful; it's not like the EPA or any gov't agency will have his/her budget reduced because of this or any wasteful spending.
Precisely; in which case it would seem to make more sense for NN supporters to put their energies behind the removal of gov't monopoly support which would be more likely to kill two birds as opposed to fight for NN which will likely have unintended consequences.