Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place. [...] Prior restraint prevents the censored material from being heard or distributed at all; other measures provide sanctions only after the offending material has been communicated, such as suits for slander or libel. In some countries (e.g., United States) prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution.
Years ago a friend took a temporary position in an organization in Alaska, filling in for someone who went on vacation. An organization that received both public money and donations.
She discovered that the person she was filling in for was embezzling. While there was no question about being public and open and honest about the crime, they naturally didn't want a media circus.
This was just after Exxon Valdez, and they were able to get some advice from the publicity firm sent to fight the disaster. (The public relations disaster.)
The advice was to hold a press conference and divulge ALL the information, all at once. It would make big headlines, but only once. The story could only get so much coverage on day one, and after that it was old news.
Any new information trickling out later, however minor, would generate new headlines and stories. The scandal would go on. But with nothing new to report, the press would simply stop reporting on the story.
Snowden and WikiLeaks know this. Release a hundred documents with a hundred important revelations, and it gets reported as one (1) story. Only the top three revelations mentioned. Forgotten in two days. Release them in batches, and you keep getting headlines.
So a bogus expulsion over a supposed threat cost the university $900,000 after most of a decade. I'd like to know how much money they received from the government in the same decade to "fight terrorism." And whether this "threat" was used at least in part to justify it.
Hotspot network is an additional, SEPARATE, VLANed one. Traffic goes thru different IP,
Which is why when police track someone sharing child porn to that IP, and they ask Cablevision for it's physical address and they're handed YOUR physical address, you'll be able to defend yourself in court.
Sure, police will give you the pavement taste test, you'll be perp-walked in front of the local press and you'll be bankrupted by legal fees. But you'll have nothing to worry about in court.
In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon appointed Gurfein as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During his first week as a judge, Gurfein was assigned the Pentagon Papers case and gained national prominence when he refused the government's motion to enjoin publication of the documents. Gurfein's ruling was initially reversed by the Court of Appeals, but ultimately reinstated by the Supreme Court.
Daniel Ellsberg was charged in 1971 under the Espionage Act as well as for theft and conspiracy for copying the Pentagon Papers. The trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct against him, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court.
For the two years he was under indictment, he was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures.
Today, the government actions that got the case thrown out of court are legal. Today, Snowden would not be allowed out on bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell, incommunicado, in total isolation conditions.
Yes, my post was supposed to be satire. Bitter, bitter satire.
The intersection of ISDS and Uber is kind of interesting.
Consider that all U-Haul trucks not just in the US but in Canada have Arizona licence plates. "Apportioned" plates, under the International Registration Plan let them do this. (And given their notoriety for unsafe vehicles, they've been accused of often simply getting a new registration from Arizona when a vehicle is ordered off the road with safety issues, with local authorities having no way to monitor it.)
It makes we wonder if - when U-Haul's safety problems made the news repeatedly in the late 2000s - whether NAFTA's ISDS rules are the reason foreign plates weren't disallowed. "The rules are in place, and changing them would hurt investors."
Now consider that the traditional taxi drivers aren't just threatened by Uber drivers. In a decade both the traditional taxi companies and Uber will likely be replacing most of their drivers with automated vehicles.
Uber's success - an international company prying open the local taxi markets as (eventually) an automated vehicle taxi service - opens the doors for others to do the same.
Imagine multiple automated taxi services arriving in your city. Owned and operated from other states and countries. Each having one overseas call center serving many cities. With local contractors maintaining the vehicles. Vehicles that via apportioned plates are all registered in one state and possibly in another country. With all this protected by ISDS rules.
Taxi drivers will look back on the Uber battles as the good 'ol days.
It's also worth mentioning that Obamacare's individual mandate emerged from the far-right Heritage Foundation. (Which now backs Ted Cruz.) It was about paying your own way, rather than making everyone else pay for your healthcare.
It was backed by Republicans from Bob Dole to Newt Gingrich to Jim DeMint to Mitt Romney and many, many more. It was mainstream Republican healthcare policy for 15 years, becoming commie Marxist socialism only in the instant that Obama adopted it.
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone, Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."
- U.S. District Judge Murray Gurfein, 1971, regarding the Pentagon Papers
I went on a package tour of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia back in the 1980s. Entering the Soviet Union we were warned against photographing infrastructure. No railroads, railway crossings, bridges, fuel stations etc.
Like with blanket surveillance, America adds a high-tech spin to Soviet methods.