Personally I believe the 303 Creative decision was the correct one and I believe that it was applied correctly in this case. Individuals are free to speak or not speak, to discriminate or not to discriminate as their conscience dictates. When it comes to businesses, public organizations, etc. then it becomes more nuanced. Speech strong protections, public accommodations, not so much. Everything else, that depends.
The vast majority of the comments here would be arguing positions 180 degrees from the ones they posted if this instead was:
”The Fearless Fund is a “’venture capital fund that invests in straight white male led businesses.’”
This audience, for the most part, would be cheering the court on in it's decision declaring it illegal.
and that's the major problem and the hypocrisy of many people, esp. those on the left.
They declare discrimination is bad, but still want to be able to discriminate against groups they dislike.
They declare that they want to increase diversity, but not if it includes groups they dislike.
They declare that they oppose intolerance, but will not tolerate and ideas or beliefs other than their own.
When something like this case comes up I believe it's very instructive to imagine it involves a group you personally find repulsive.
If you can't maintain the same arguments in that case, then you should revisit your position.
If you want black woman only funds, you have to be willing to accept white man only funds.
If you want black or native American or Hispanic preferences in admissions, you have to be willing to accept white or Asian preferences in admissions.
If you want black only graduation ceremonies, you have to be willing to accept white only graduation ceremonies.
If you want black only dorms, you have to be willing to accept white only dorms.
etc.
Personally I think the country as a whole is better served moving forward into the 21st century following Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision, instead of being dragged back into the segregationist 1900's.
Many on the left are dragging the country backwards, funds like this are dragging the country backwards.
You don't improve race relations, eliminate racism, by being even more egregious racists yourself.
It's still racism, it's still wrong, it won't fix or correct anything. Trying to change the definition of racism to exclude your actions from it's purview is only fooling yourself.
as recently declared by SCOTUS last year when they definitively declared affirmative action unconstitutional, and by numerous laws (see title VII, title IX, etc.) that make it illegal to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. it's illegal to discriminate based on a protected characteristic.
even if you believe you are 'helping fight an injustice',
even if it's against a disfavored group (straight white men).
just one of many things separating the US from the UK.
individuals have the right to say, or not say, what they want. to associate, or not associate, with whatever individuals or groups that want for whatever reason they want.
wills fall under the category of the individual and so completely outside of this ruling or discussion.
your attempt to torture an analogy in a vain attempt to justify your position is unavailing.
sorry, but the monies passed along in the wills of the rich are perfectly safe from your machinations. the Koch brothers are not worried in the slightest that any of their money will end up in your or anyone else's pockets excepting those named in their wills.
You do realize that you are arguing for programs that are only open to straight white men, right?
If this program were instead limited to straight white men and straight white men owned businesses, would your argument be the same?
really?
The SCOTUS rulings last year;
* Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard)
* SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC)
have already made it illegal to offer scholarships or programs based on sex or race.
as long as major based scholarships are available to both sexes and all races equally they are still perfectly legal.
A number of colleges and universities are either under investigation or facing lawsuits for their discriminatory programs.
Mike,
I realize that you seem to have an anti-Republican bias, and you are taking the opportunity to bash Republicans, but this issue isn't as one sided as you've painted it.
Please take a look at this excellent article over at Reason by the Volokh Conspiracy:
Progressive Lawyers Engage In Actual Judge Shopping In Alabama
where the writer has written a more balanced piece on this situation.
I hope it helps. If not for this article, then for others you may write in the future.
The POST (Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology) Act requires the NYPD to inform the public about any new use of surveillance tech 90 days ahead of deployment. It did not do this… not in this case. [emphasis mine]
Yet in the except you posted of the 2021 NYPD document you proved yourself wrong.
... and other situations with the approval of the Chief of Department
As long as the Chief gave his approval, it's not factual to state that the NYPD's use of their drones violated the 90 day notice provision. They informed everyone back in 2021. Last I checked that was definitely more than 90 days notice.
You might want to double check your article so that you don't accidentally contradict yourself in the future.
Mike,
Thanks for the informative take, as usual.
At one point you were commenting on a suggestion that the internet could be regulated just like tobacco. You wrote:
"One of those is protected by the Constitution. One of those is not."
I hope you remember that sentiment when you or one of your writers call for obviously unconstitutional firearm restrictions. A favorite is to state that since we regulate automobiles, we should regulate firearms the same way.
Just like this bill wants to violate the first amendment "for the children" far too often are the calls to violate the second amendment "for the children".
When the next tragedy is trotted out by one of your writers as a reason to regulate firearms, "for the children", I hope you remind them of your simple statement:
"One of those is protected by the Constitution. One of those is not."
Mike,
Thanks for the update.
This looks like it has the potential to be something really interesting and dare I say, possibly even useful.
Take care and do keep us informed on this front.
Tim,
Not too bad of an article, we all knew that there was no way that Fox would let this go to trial.
Unfortunately it seems you couldn't resist a racist and sexist dig at the end.
In your statement ending:
"...as it sought to make inroads into a supposedly underserved demographic: white male right-wing crackpots."
you pretend that there are onlywhitemale right-wing crackpots. I can assure you that there are plenty of Black, Asian, and Hispanic ones as well.
Right-wing individuals come in every race on the planet.
Oh, and the Women for Trump are just one example of many that there are plenty of right-wing women as well.
I realize that you believe most people on the right are crack-pots, and some have demonstrated that you might not be that far off, but there is no need to make racist/sexist statements that are easily disproven.
It's not a good look for a journalist.
I realize that techdirt makes a little bit pushing various things, but this particular item doesn't even describe what it is. Most external HDDs are SMR (shingle magnetic recording) a terrible technology that makes drives way too slow to be useful and causes them to fail much sooner.
In this day and age, folks should probably be using a SSD, USB stick, or even a micro SD card for amounts under 1TB or a fast CMR (conventional magnetic recording) HDD once you get into the 5+TB range.
As a technology focused sight, you are doing your readers a disservice pushing devices that aren't even fully described, most likely to hide how poor of a product they are.
Hopefully techdirt, you will do a better job vetting the products you push in the future.
Does that mean that you are in favor of prepubescent children having unrestricted access to violent content and hard core pornographic content?
Seems like an odd hill to choose to die upon....
here's a crazy thought,
how about we simply don't give young children cell phones with internet access?
I would think that would be a much simpler thing to implement than some sort of half-baked content filtering regime.
I can think of no reason that a kid under say 15 needs an internet enabled cell phone. We've gone though all of human history without the need and I don't see why that has to change now.
As an added benefit, school teachers everywhere will rejoice.
Karl,
It's a shame to read that you have gone so far to the left.
It's not that DeSantis didn't publish a bit o' propaganda, he did and the reporter was correct to call him out on it.
It's that the majority of your article reads like a pro-left hit piece where the article title was just an opening to vent your belief that it's only the right that's the problem with this country.
There's equal amounts of shite coming from both major parties. The Democrats usually have a better story economically, but a much worse one culturally. While the Republicans are a disaster when it comes to economic issues but, with the exception of the far right (the actual far right not what the left claims is far-right, which is anything that isn't far-left) the Republicans are actually closer to the majority of the country culturally.
Most of the technical stories here are quite good, and as Mike's written (see recent story regarding Newsom and Wallgreens) both sides are equally capable doing wrong. Perhaps you might want to have a sit-down with Mike and learn to leave your obviously strong personal opinions at the door.
just a suggestion.
Actually it's true.
The only way to collapse the probability equation and arrive at a certainty, is to request service from Comcast. It's only at that point that you can arrive at a singular answer.
Until then you both can, and can't get service at that location.
Comcast lying about broadband coverage, or anything for that matter, is like saying:
water is wet
fire is hot
ice is cold
the sun rises from an easterly direction
So far, neither the law nor the FCC seem willing to penalize them for doing so. And no, wrist slaps and fines so tiny they pay for themselves in hours if not minutes, don't count.
Until they face meaningful penalties for their actions and stand to gain millions, if not billions, for continuing, what do YOU think is going to happen...?
the 303 Creative decision was correct and so was this one.
Personally I believe the 303 Creative decision was the correct one and I believe that it was applied correctly in this case. Individuals are free to speak or not speak, to discriminate or not to discriminate as their conscience dictates. When it comes to businesses, public organizations, etc. then it becomes more nuanced. Speech strong protections, public accommodations, not so much. Everything else, that depends. The vast majority of the comments here would be arguing positions 180 degrees from the ones they posted if this instead was: ”The Fearless Fund is a “’venture capital fund that invests in straight white male led businesses.’” This audience, for the most part, would be cheering the court on in it's decision declaring it illegal. and that's the major problem and the hypocrisy of many people, esp. those on the left. They declare discrimination is bad, but still want to be able to discriminate against groups they dislike. They declare that they want to increase diversity, but not if it includes groups they dislike. They declare that they oppose intolerance, but will not tolerate and ideas or beliefs other than their own. When something like this case comes up I believe it's very instructive to imagine it involves a group you personally find repulsive. If you can't maintain the same arguments in that case, then you should revisit your position. If you want black woman only funds, you have to be willing to accept white man only funds. If you want black or native American or Hispanic preferences in admissions, you have to be willing to accept white or Asian preferences in admissions. If you want black only graduation ceremonies, you have to be willing to accept white only graduation ceremonies. If you want black only dorms, you have to be willing to accept white only dorms. etc. Personally I think the country as a whole is better served moving forward into the 21st century following Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision, instead of being dragged back into the segregationist 1900's. Many on the left are dragging the country backwards, funds like this are dragging the country backwards. You don't improve race relations, eliminate racism, by being even more egregious racists yourself. It's still racism, it's still wrong, it won't fix or correct anything. Trying to change the definition of racism to exclude your actions from it's purview is only fooling yourself.
and totally baned under the Constitution.
as recently declared by SCOTUS last year when they definitively declared affirmative action unconstitutional, and by numerous laws (see title VII, title IX, etc.) that make it illegal to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. it's illegal to discriminate based on a protected characteristic. even if you believe you are 'helping fight an injustice', even if it's against a disfavored group (straight white men). just one of many things separating the US from the UK.
you are confusing individual rights with corporate rights
individuals have the right to say, or not say, what they want. to associate, or not associate, with whatever individuals or groups that want for whatever reason they want. wills fall under the category of the individual and so completely outside of this ruling or discussion. your attempt to torture an analogy in a vain attempt to justify your position is unavailing. sorry, but the monies passed along in the wills of the rich are perfectly safe from your machinations. the Koch brothers are not worried in the slightest that any of their money will end up in your or anyone else's pockets excepting those named in their wills.
do you really want to open up that can of worms?
You do realize that you are arguing for programs that are only open to straight white men, right? If this program were instead limited to straight white men and straight white men owned businesses, would your argument be the same? really?
that ship has already sailed.
The SCOTUS rulings last year; * Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) * SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC) have already made it illegal to offer scholarships or programs based on sex or race. as long as major based scholarships are available to both sexes and all races equally they are still perfectly legal. A number of colleges and universities are either under investigation or facing lawsuits for their discriminatory programs.
it's not just a Republican problem.
Mike, I realize that you seem to have an anti-Republican bias, and you are taking the opportunity to bash Republicans, but this issue isn't as one sided as you've painted it. Please take a look at this excellent article over at Reason by the Volokh Conspiracy: Progressive Lawyers Engage In Actual Judge Shopping In Alabama where the writer has written a more balanced piece on this situation. I hope it helps. If not for this article, then for others you may write in the future.
they already told everyone they would...
You wrote:
Yet in the except you posted of the 2021 NYPD document you proved yourself wrong. As long as the Chief gave his approval, it's not factual to state that the NYPD's use of their drones violated the 90 day notice provision. They informed everyone back in 2021. Last I checked that was definitely more than 90 days notice. You might want to double check your article so that you don't accidentally contradict yourself in the future.remember this sentiment the next time the 2A comes up.
Mike, Thanks for the informative take, as usual. At one point you were commenting on a suggestion that the internet could be regulated just like tobacco. You wrote:
I hope you remember that sentiment when you or one of your writers call for obviously unconstitutional firearm restrictions. A favorite is to state that since we regulate automobiles, we should regulate firearms the same way. Just like this bill wants to violate the first amendment "for the children" far too often are the calls to violate the second amendment "for the children". When the next tragedy is trotted out by one of your writers as a reason to regulate firearms, "for the children", I hope you remind them of your simple statement: thanks again.Interesting
Mike, Thanks for the update. This looks like it has the potential to be something really interesting and dare I say, possibly even useful. Take care and do keep us informed on this front.
Tim, your racism/sexism is showing again....
Tim, Not too bad of an article, we all knew that there was no way that Fox would let this go to trial. Unfortunately it seems you couldn't resist a racist and sexist dig at the end. In your statement ending:
you pretend that there are only white male right-wing crackpots. I can assure you that there are plenty of Black, Asian, and Hispanic ones as well. Right-wing individuals come in every race on the planet. Oh, and the Women for Trump are just one example of many that there are plenty of right-wing women as well. I realize that you believe most people on the right are crack-pots, and some have demonstrated that you might not be that far off, but there is no need to make racist/sexist statements that are easily disproven. It's not a good look for a journalist.no specs, most likely SMR drive
I realize that techdirt makes a little bit pushing various things, but this particular item doesn't even describe what it is. Most external HDDs are SMR (shingle magnetic recording) a terrible technology that makes drives way too slow to be useful and causes them to fail much sooner. In this day and age, folks should probably be using a SSD, USB stick, or even a micro SD card for amounts under 1TB or a fast CMR (conventional magnetic recording) HDD once you get into the 5+TB range. As a technology focused sight, you are doing your readers a disservice pushing devices that aren't even fully described, most likely to hide how poor of a product they are. Hopefully techdirt, you will do a better job vetting the products you push in the future.
strange....
Does that mean that you are in favor of prepubescent children having unrestricted access to violent content and hard core pornographic content? Seems like an odd hill to choose to die upon....
how about we just don't give small children cell phones with internet access?
here's a crazy thought, how about we simply don't give young children cell phones with internet access? I would think that would be a much simpler thing to implement than some sort of half-baked content filtering regime. I can think of no reason that a kid under say 15 needs an internet enabled cell phone. We've gone though all of human history without the need and I don't see why that has to change now. As an added benefit, school teachers everywhere will rejoice.
so terribly one sided
Karl, It's a shame to read that you have gone so far to the left. It's not that DeSantis didn't publish a bit o' propaganda, he did and the reporter was correct to call him out on it. It's that the majority of your article reads like a pro-left hit piece where the article title was just an opening to vent your belief that it's only the right that's the problem with this country. There's equal amounts of shite coming from both major parties. The Democrats usually have a better story economically, but a much worse one culturally. While the Republicans are a disaster when it comes to economic issues but, with the exception of the far right (the actual far right not what the left claims is far-right, which is anything that isn't far-left) the Republicans are actually closer to the majority of the country culturally. Most of the technical stories here are quite good, and as Mike's written (see recent story regarding Newsom and Wallgreens) both sides are equally capable doing wrong. Perhaps you might want to have a sit-down with Mike and learn to leave your obviously strong personal opinions at the door. just a suggestion.
applicable as always....
power corrupts....
and s̵u̵i̵t̵c̵a̵s̵e̵s̵ ̵f̵u̵l̵l̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵m̵o̵n̵e̵y̵ campaign contributions, corrupts much more quickly...
Schrodinger ISP...
Actually it's true. The only way to collapse the probability equation and arrive at a certainty, is to request service from Comcast. It's only at that point that you can arrive at a singular answer. Until then you both can, and can't get service at that location.
It is....
It's just that you have to parse the deceptively titled name of that course in the syllabus. What did you think that course named:
was really doing in the business curriculum? ;)And......
Comcast lying about broadband coverage, or anything for that matter, is like saying:
- water is wet
- fire is hot
- ice is cold
- the sun rises from an easterly direction
So far, neither the law nor the FCC seem willing to penalize them for doing so. And no, wrist slaps and fines so tiny they pay for themselves in hours if not minutes, don't count. Until they face meaningful penalties for their actions and stand to gain millions, if not billions, for continuing, what do YOU think is going to happen...?minor typo
There's what I believe's a minor typo. "...or authority to adequately
policypolice companies..." or not.