It is also important to note that the 911 system is specifically designed to identify where someone is and dispatch help. That may actually dissuade someone from calling a suicide prevention hotline. There is a lot to consider, but these two call centers are serving a very different purpose and have some conflicting needs.
From the FTC website: When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. So, the FTC does and will investigate truth in advertising violations on Amazon's website. Did you file a complaint with them?
"a third of white extremists responsible for attacks were inspired by others who had carried out similar attacks"
ok, well, they missed the end of the NYT study results because it continues with:
"professed a reverence for them or showed an interest in their tactics"
So, the NYT study indicates two thirds of white extremists responsible for attacks did so without any inspiration or interest in the tactics of previous attacks.
First, that has to make you question the study in entirety considering they were studying substantially similar attacks. Second, if you believe it, that would leave you with 2/3 of the attacks happening with no knowledge of the occurrence of previous attacks and the internet could not possibly have contributed.
"And it is hard not to think that this is not a good thing for the judicial process."
and it is really hard to read sentences with double-negatives and have them make sense.
I didn't. But then again, I didn't then go spouting off a bunch of garbage claiming any expertise on this topic either, so i guess it's ok.
So they are asking to re-authorize a program that they are also saying is not cost-effective, valuable, or compliant with constitutional protections.
Government work at it's finest.
"3 per cent took the rather extreme step of simply deleting her accounts"
That's a fantastic response. A big middle finger to the EU - in response to GDPR requests they simply ensure any response would result in nothing.
This must have been crafted by an engineer with a law degree.
"In a tiny sliver of fairness, several LGBT YouTubers have said in the past that YouTube routinely demonetizes and places the “restricted mode” status on LGBT-centric content even when the content isn’t sexual in nature" In another sliver of fairness, the "several LGBT YouTubers" are just as full of crap as Dennis Prager claiming that YouTube routinely demonizes conservative videos.
I searched for "free-range, organic porn".
I don't recommend doing that.
It is the "left's" master plan! Censor conservatives (because that's what they want to do), but at the same time censor left-leaning organizations to cover it up!
It's diabolical I tell you.
Ok, I have to say I don't understand the complain here.
Yes, NYPD screwed up and did not instantly take a vehicle off of the stolen car list, but that seems reasonable since they literally just gave the vehicle back.
In New York, it popped up as stolen and they literally called him and told him so. No big deal there.
In Connecticut, the vehicle was driven into a town that was literally responding to reports of someone with a similar vehicle waving a gun around, the vehicle plate indicated it was stolen, and they made a stop with a reasonable amount of officers, no MRAP, reasonably got him out of the vehicle without shooting him, left body cameras on, and once they determined that this was a mistake, they stood down.
I know it is fashionable to complain about cops being storm troopers these days, but let's please simply recognize that the Darien officers did exactly what they should have in this situation. While I do not think the police in this country are doing a great job all the time these days, let's not criticize them when they actually do the right thing - that makes the situation worse.
Let's say those statistics would suffice (although there are a lot of variables that would need to be defined). Do you have them? I have never seen verified statistics on this and would be curious to see them and any details related to them.
The game is holding onto their business model. Local broadcasting is big business on two avenues. First, OTA broadcasting by local affiliates makes a ton of money selling ads. The ads are targeted to a specific region (making them more effective) and the content creators and affiliates would have to really change things to deal with cross market promotion. Second, where people cannot get OTA broadcasts, the cable company makes a lot rebroadcasting these channels. The cable company pays the affiliate and the affiliate pays the content creators. Aereo changed the money flow and the advertising model enough that they would at least have had to adjust their processes. Just changing how local affiliates sold advertising could cost billions.
Only if there happens to be a megalomaniac in the District of Columbia bent on world domination. Then they might be closing in on the same market.
"it's not fair to let her take advantage of all the goodwill that DC has associated with that phrase over the past 80 years" You are absolutely right. Totally not fair. If trademark law was about fairness, you would have a great argument here, but it is about customer confusion. Are you under the impression that her work has anything to do with DC comics?
"Shoot Down FCC For Ignoring The Law, Making Up Stuff"
I don't think that is fair. The FCC is not making this stuff up, they are simply re-publishing it. In fact, you could argue that the same concepts of section 230 should apply since the telecom industry is really where all of this comes from and the FCC is effectively just allowing them to post their own content.
I hold the copyright on that string of numbers.
It works here with credit card numbers, but only if you include the full number, expiration date, and the three digit code on the back.
End all user content because it might be libelous, or copyrighted, or offensive, or interferes with their business model.
"Plaintiff puts this matter in writing after having fully explained it to a clerk of the court by way of phone call on February 19, 2019"
I am assuming that call went something like this:
Bonner: Excuse me, I would like to ask that the judgement in this case as well as all other information related to this case be considered confidential and not shared with anyone requesting it.
Court Clerk: Umm...That's not how this works. You cannot request I seal a case.
Bonner: Who can seal a case?
Court Clerk: The judge, but you cannot just call them and ask for a case to be sealed.
Bonner: Can I write the judge a letter?
Court Clerk: Umm...I guess so, but-
Bonner: Great! I'm going to write that letter right now. [Hangs up]