What if the "hate speech" commenters sent the comment to the "victim" via an anonymous letter? Is the postal system similarly liable as the website? Will the postal system now have to read every letter to make sure they're not conveying hate speech?
My one concern with letting it expire right now is whether courts will dismiss current challenges to bulk collection as moot. I'd like to see the constitutional issues decided by the Supreme Court. Of course that may be a fool's wish if the Court were to uphold it, but I think a majority of the current Court would strike down bulk collection.
Or, hopefully current cases (especially for programs like PRISM, xkeyscore, etc.) could proceed as challenges to EO 12333.
It may be that having additional states like France and Canada build out NSA-level capabilities and enact US-comparable surveillance state power/authority could potentially be beneficial, generating pressure both within each nation (from their citizenry) and among nations (because, in addition to the US, now France and Canada can also thoroughly spy on other nations' citizens) for total encryption of the Internet.
"Yes. Is their decision not to carry GTAV inhibiting Rockstar's free speech? Yes."
Patently absurd. How has their decision affected Rockstar's speech or art in any way? These stores haven't prevented Rockstar from selling or disseminating their product in any way -- Rockstar is still completely free to do so. Which is of course OP's point that actual censorship is an act of government, prohibiting one from speaking.
In your stupid view, stores would be forced to sell whatever anyone wanted them to lest they violate [stores] violate their free speech rights.
Calling government's "notoriously retarded organizations" is itself about the most retarded comment I've ever seen on Techdirt. There's nothing about government as an organization that makes it inherently brilliant nor stupid.
Really, you don't see how a guy wearing a Pirelli calendar as a shirt might convey a certain inhospitable attitude of objectifying and demeaning women? What's bullshit is the notion that he should somehow be free from criticism over it.
Wut? Murder and theft are not, and have never been considered, freedoms. Freedoms/liberties, unless one is being entirely pedantic, are for people "against" their government, i.e. limitations on government authority.
Someone help me out with criminal law here -- couldn't some of these actions (particularly Schriro's deliberate tampering with the report to the US Attorney) be considered obstruction of justice, or at least some form of criminal corruption?
1. Record messages critical of RIAA over background of snippets of songs, preferably ones of the "F**k the Man" variety, and distribute online. 2. Refuse RIAA demands to remove. 3. Argue Fair Use in suit filed by RIAA. 4. Sue RIAA for costs and damages under anti-SLAPP law, arguing that RIAA knew it was fair use but used the copyright claim to silence critics.