Exactly. Only the better route, I think, would be to file a tax lien on their property. The company can either hold up their end of the bargain or pay back the incentives.
Of course in many cases these things are just corporate welfare, and the companies receiving them don't really have any/many obligations beyond staying there for the duration of the incentives.
The way companies play states and municipalities off of one another in order to suck up public funds, I'm not sure that the best solution isn't for the federal government to levy a corporate tax that completely offsets these tax incentives, forcing companies to make decisions based on business concerns.
This applies to restrictions on speech though, not the use of a device. One could argue that you have all of your free speech rights intact on the plane because you could say whatever you wanted (that didn't constitute a threat or whatever).
I'm just not sure court would be willing to say, as a matter of constitutional principle, that you have a First Amendment right to use your cell phone. Even if it did decide that, the airline could still likely prohibit it.
It wasn't Franklin's position in the government that's key to Mike's analogy though, but rather the leaking of officials' plans against the rights of the people. The analogy you present of Franklin to the NSA would really only hold if the NSA leaked Clapper's (or Cheney's, Obama's, or other subverters of civil liberties, etc.) correspondence.
The Fourth Amendment was a reaction against the very type of thing that we're talking about, and that the NSA is doing, here: the authority of the government to access and search people's records, communications, associations, etc. without any specific charges or reasonable suspicion of their involvement in some crime. This wasn't just some theoretical concern -- the use of such "general warrants" was common.
Hayden says the NSA isn't abusing the power, but the Fourth Amendment wasn't (and isn't) about the abuse of general warrants, it's about the government's power to conduct such searches at all, and it recognizes that not only was there no way to adequately prevent its abuse, but that the power itself was the abuse.
You seem to be offering this as the deciding principle when public obligations may trump individual rights or vice versa: since a 'business' is a societal creation, society can therefore impose requirements and limitations as a condition of doing business.
While that seems a good principle, here's where I think that's a bit of problem. There are some things you can't legally do at all without operating as business, such as running a hotel or a pharmacy. If we accept that, then there's nothing in principle that says we couldn't require that for any exchange of labor for money one has to either operate as a business or be an employee of a business. Thus to make any living at all, one has to accept society's terms for business, which may trump individual rights.
That's why I think we need a better principle (or set of principles) for deciding than this. It's messier, but we have something closer to ideal now: i.e. consideration of whether a rule/restriction serves a compelling governmental interest, the nature of the business (one of "public accommodation"), etc.
I understand your view and believe your argument is both logical and persuasive, but ultimately I think the argument that photography is "speech" or expression and is therefore something different than, say, a restaurant, hotel, auto repair shop, etc., is slightly more persuasive.
One nice "bright line" way of distinguishing between an "expressive" service vs a "regular" service is copyright, i.e. is the product subject to copyright? In the case of photography, yes, it is: the photographer holds a copyright on his/her photographs
Few U.S. officials think of their ability to act hypocritically as a key strategic resource. Indeed, one of the reasons American hypocrisy is so effective is that it stems from sincerity: most U.S. politicians do not recognize just how two-faced their country is.
The effect or "benefit" of our systematic and bribed hypocrisy hasn't only been in the realm of foreign/global affairs, and perhaps not even primarily so, as this quote illustrates. It has also acted as domestic propaganda, leading a very substantial percentage of Americans to strongly believe that the US is always on the side of right, a force for moral good, and to trust that the government needs whatever powers it claims and is justified in whatever actions it takes in order to protect us and look out for our interests.
Sen. Feinstein also claimed that she didn't know about the Inpector General's report that first reported the thousands of NSA violations. Great oversight there Dianne. Thank Cthulhu we have you to protect our rights.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by HegemonicDistortion.