... is that the government has the power to tax.
With marijuana at least, the enabling legislation requires that all 'marihuana' sold have a tax stamp - and then a separate law prohibits the Executive Branch from selling the stamp.
The prohibition on growing it stems from Wickard v Filburn. I'm not even going there.
The smallest detected trace of The Devil’s Cabbage results in immediate firing, with no questions asked or answered. Despite the fact that it could have been a week or longer ago.
I've been around workplaces like that - including firings for false positives. "Negative on the confirmative test" simply is interpreted as "you must have cleaned up your act between the two tests."
There's also the issue that it's still illegal under Federal law. There is simply an Executive Branch policy not to bring prosecutions against users in States where it's legal.
The big telecoms want to make sure they get paid four times for hauling the same bits.
Charge the subscriber for bandwidth.
Charge the service provider for bandwidth.
Charge the subscriber a premium for access to the service provider.
Charge the service provider for access to the subscribers.
And they want to make sure that none of the four actually goes to building and maintaining the network, so they want to have the government tax both the subscribers and service providers to pay for that.
No, the Supreme Court equivalent of "oops, never mind" is "certiorari improvidently granted." This one is, "Ninth Circuit, what have you been smoking, and why didn't you share?"
Critical Race Theory is about realizing that everything we know is biased towards the majority race/ethnogroup.
It actually has a narrower definition. It's possible to accept the tenet that you stated while not viewing it through the Marxist/neo-Freudian lens espoused by Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, and the like. Foucault, in particular, offered a contrary view to Critical Theory in general. But you're not likely to hear about this until you're in an advanced course in social philosophy. This stuff isn't being taught in the elementary schools, whatever DeSantis and his like are saying. In their world, CRT has simply become a snarl phrase - expressing vehement disapproval but devoid of semantic content beyond that.
They're all HOA's in disguise. The more progressive ones are NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard, of course). The more reactionary are BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
"A gun was found". Who found it? Under what circumstances.
"A gun belonging to one of the officers at the scene was found?" "A gun obtained from the evidence locker for the purpose of exonerating the officers was found?" "A water pistol was found?" "A hot glue gun was found?" All the above make the statement not quite a lie, exactly, but the ice is thin.
It's puzzling that the police should be so perturbed that a citizen is posting a sign exhorting other citizens to comply with the law. Is that not a desirable outcome?
April fool.
Interesting to see the language referring to King Charles III (although technically he's, among other titles, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: there's no 'King of England' since the Articles of Union). It's been tradition to use 'the last survivor of the legitimate descendants of Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and of her other lands and possessions, Empress of India' et cetera, but maybe the genealogy is getting too complex.
Of course, the courts will dismiss the challenges to the legislation on the grounds of standing, because the legislation hasn't yet gone into effect so nobody has been harmed.
So what we'll see is that the tech companies will do ... nothing, and wait for Utah to make the first move. They have the resources to stand up in court. In the meantime, smaller players might be forced either to fold or geoblock the state (because the law, as you correctly observe, is impossible to comply with as drafted). Which is a win for the big players (FAANG) - it knocks out the competition.
Anyone have pointers to open-source geoblocking, so that I can make sure that nobody in Utah sees my website?
This issue OUGHT to be a bipartisan one - it's near and Deere to the hearts of the Republican Party's rural base. But the Democrats are for it, so the Republicans have to be against it. (And the Democrats' support can be at best lukewarm and performative, because they can't afford to offend their corporate masters.)
If you believe that there's no such thing as bad publicity, you might think that the name recognition is more important than the good reputation.
I suspect that Ms. Streisand might even have thought that way. At the time she filed suit, her reputation as an artist was beginning to fade into obscurity. Now, she's a household word in a fairly broad Internet community. To some people, the fame is worth it.
That's an issue with copyright claims in general, on both sides of the courtroom--actual damages are well-nigh impossible to assess. The law provides for statutory damages against copyright infringers. Fairness would suggest that it provide a statutory damage regime against fraudulent claimants. But it doesn't.
The legal fiction that justifies it...
... is that the government has the power to tax. With marijuana at least, the enabling legislation requires that all 'marihuana' sold have a tax stamp - and then a separate law prohibits the Executive Branch from selling the stamp. The prohibition on growing it stems from Wickard v Filburn. I'm not even going there.
There's also the issue that it's still illegal under Federal law. There is simply an Executive Branch policy not to bring prosecutions against users in States where it's legal.
The big telecoms want to make sure they get paid four times for hauling the same bits.
- Charge the subscriber for bandwidth.
- Charge the service provider for bandwidth.
- Charge the subscriber a premium for access to the service provider.
- Charge the service provider for access to the subscribers.
And they want to make sure that none of the four actually goes to building and maintaining the network, so they want to have the government tax both the subscribers and service providers to pay for that.No, the Supreme Court equivalent of "oops, never mind" is "certiorari improvidently granted." This one is, "Ninth Circuit, what have you been smoking, and why didn't you share?"
They're all HOA's in disguise. The more progressive ones are NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard, of course). The more reactionary are BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
passive voice
"A gun was found". Who found it? Under what circumstances. "A gun belonging to one of the officers at the scene was found?" "A gun obtained from the evidence locker for the purpose of exonerating the officers was found?" "A water pistol was found?" "A hot glue gun was found?" All the above make the statement not quite a lie, exactly, but the ice is thin.
It's puzzling that the police should be so perturbed that a citizen is posting a sign exhorting other citizens to comply with the law. Is that not a desirable outcome? April fool.
21st-century update?
Interesting to see the language referring to King Charles III (although technically he's, among other titles, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: there's no 'King of England' since the Articles of Union). It's been tradition to use 'the last survivor of the legitimate descendants of Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and of her other lands and possessions, Empress of India' et cetera, but maybe the genealogy is getting too complex.
Have we collectively fallen victim to Poe's Law?
Old saws: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go into administration.
A pox on all their houses
All the players here appear to be monopolists. Merging would-be monopolies will help ... how, exactly?
Of course, the courts will dismiss the challenges to the legislation on the grounds of standing, because the legislation hasn't yet gone into effect so nobody has been harmed. So what we'll see is that the tech companies will do ... nothing, and wait for Utah to make the first move. They have the resources to stand up in court. In the meantime, smaller players might be forced either to fold or geoblock the state (because the law, as you correctly observe, is impossible to comply with as drafted). Which is a win for the big players (FAANG) - it knocks out the competition. Anyone have pointers to open-source geoblocking, so that I can make sure that nobody in Utah sees my website?
And perhaps more important than any of your points: I don't want a stupid electorate making the decisions for the society that I live in.
I, caco in petasum. (Go, do something with your hat.)
Giving those with entrenched power the imprimatur over what others say is rather the point, isn't it?
This issue OUGHT to be a bipartisan one - it's near and Deere to the hearts of the Republican Party's rural base. But the Democrats are for it, so the Republicans have to be against it. (And the Democrats' support can be at best lukewarm and performative, because they can't afford to offend their corporate masters.)
If you believe that there's no such thing as bad publicity, you might think that the name recognition is more important than the good reputation. I suspect that Ms. Streisand might even have thought that way. At the time she filed suit, her reputation as an artist was beginning to fade into obscurity. Now, she's a household word in a fairly broad Internet community. To some people, the fame is worth it.
who’s gonna be able to prove significant actual damages?
That's an issue with copyright claims in general, on both sides of the courtroom--actual damages are well-nigh impossible to assess. The law provides for statutory damages against copyright infringers. Fairness would suggest that it provide a statutory damage regime against fraudulent claimants. But it doesn't.