This is the same old chestnut as back when Texas made Southwest Airlines fly to another state and back, they weren't allowed to fly directly from one Texas city to another Texas city. S.A. eventually got around it by various means, and that's a story in itself. But Tesla buyers? Don't worry, they're not about to let bullshit laws stop them, you can take that to the bank.
N.A., it's all in the headlines, let alone the text of your linked article. Musk was "sure" that the L.A. officials were setting the mandate without properly substantiating the necessity of such. IOW, he felt/thought that the government was over-reacting by setting the mandate, not that he thought it was optional, or that everyone must wear a mask at all times. Indeed, when's the last time you saw him in public with a mask on? It did happen, but only when he was in the presence of those with whom he knew better than to argue.
He's the whack job for whom the term "Reality Distortion Field" was coined. In his case, he refined it to very high degree by the time of his self-determined demise.
Even though he was part of the "founding fathers" of personal computerdom, I don't miss his passing. I have this thing about people who walk around pretending that their balls are bigger than Texas, but are wearing blinders the size of Alaska. Really gives me a case of the jaws.
Looked at any Republicans lately??? I say unto you, they are, as a group and as individuals, wholly without empathy in any measurable degree when it comes to mass murders, regardless of the victims's ages.
Wake up, buddy, the coffee is starting to smell pretty damn strong.
And that lawsuit would be civil, because it would be based on feelz, not on some actual criminal conduct. Which would probably be good in the long run, because it would bring the judiciary into the fray just that much sooner. If that were to happen all over the country, with varying opinions from the disparate venues, then "things will only get more interesting", to paraphrase that old Chinese curse.
Quick reminder: The internet NEVER forgets. By design, it simply can't forget, no matter who passes what laws. I say, thank you to the original designers for the ensurance that History will be portrayed more accurately for our descendents.
More likely what they need to grow is a pair of functional, and properly functioning, balls.
Look, the only way we're ever gonna get the gun-loving legislators off the dime is to have Anonymous dox their hidden bank accounts, where we learn for once and for all just how much the NRA and others are fattening their wallets. Purchased votes might be not exactly illegal (otherwise lobbyists wouldn't exist at all), but I'd lay long odds that if their constituents knew just how much they're personally profiting from being elected while their kids are being murdered, there'd probably be a new crop of legislators getting elected, come next cycle.
... fuck the feelz!!!!!
The only harm suffered by anyone who views such images as those under discussion is to the feelings of those with personal attachments to the victims in the photos. In my extremely not so humble opinion, that DOES NOT trump the need for well-informed public discussion. Period.
The matters of life-and-death as juxtaposed with gun control are extremely emotional, and are our most prime example where facts are optional at best. I say, if you can't present a case without giving as much factual evidence as needed, then you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
And here I refer to parents of murdered school kids pleading with legislators to ban guns, yet they don't want images of the results of un-banned guns to be shown. They're pissing in the wind, because they want someone else to believe their feelz, without providing even an approximation of why they feel as they do. They might as well be flashing swords with Zorro, for all the good they're not getting done.
Aric, if you want to imagine something, try this one on for size:
Picture Alex Jones standing next to a diorama of dead school children, in coffins and at memorials, where he's claiming that they're all actors, and the images aren't real. He claims that they're photoshopped, and that he has the guy who did it.
Now, how long do you suppose he'd be able to keep that up if the real images were published? And where we, the public, learn that the alleged photoshopper was paid by Jones to make that statement? Your estimate on that time frame would be appreciated, I'm sure you undestand.
.... it was unclear which official at SFPD should be named in the referral
Ah yes, the old "everything has to be owned" department motto.
Why in Gawd's name does a person have to be named?? Simply state that the entire department is at fault in some manner, and let the buck stop where it's supposed to stop: The Chief.
Or do it like most lawsuits; "John Doe and 99 other defendants to be named, and their individual spouses". (Of course, that's nothing more than a guaranteed payday for lot's of lawyers, but it sure does make a spectacle of things, eh?)
Hell, Toom, he's not just hallucinating facts, he's hallucinating his entire reality sphere! I'd lay money that his hero is Steve Jobs.
The article you quoted is about Tesla's HEADQUARTERS, not the rest of the company. Nonetheless, TFS was indeed incorrect on this point.
As early as July of 2020, Musk said he'd leave California over that state's mask mandate. Something, something about "freedom to kill one another", or some such crap. The Texas manufacturing facilities were built in double-time, and Tesla started making vehicles in that state shortly after the first of 2021.
And you can be sure that Tesla vehicles are plentiful on the roads of Texas. Even as crazy as Musk seems at times, he wouldn't move to a state where the sale of his product would be unlawful.
Should they wish to do so, Google can still appeal to the High Court, the highest in the country. Federal Courts are one level below.
And if that doesn't work, I'm not so sure that the recent Legislature findings of platform culpability (meaning that platforms are indeed publishers of 3rd party content and not just providers of tools) will continue being attractive to big businesses like Google. Even for the levels of ad money involved here, there will eventually have to be a hard look at the bottom line, and just how much of that ad money is going to lawyers instead of personal yachts, condos in the Bahamas, and such like.
Upstarts that threaten/promise to fill the void, should Google disappear, are going to have an even tougher time of it, as they realize that the law applies to them as well (and if it doesn't, it will be modified to suit Murdock's greed). Trust me, Wall Street will have a hand in these decisions, and Google/Alphabet is not big enough to tell them to go take a hike.
What wold that line be, Snoopy's famous "It was a dark and stormy night"? I'd make it more like "It was a dark and stormy two decades at the beginning of the century".
Indeed, I can't pinpoint the precipitous moment with any feeling of confidence that I'd be accurate, but somewhere along the past 22 years, I perceive that the general news media did indeed execute a hard 180 away from reporting the news, and started spewing Kool-Aid all over the place. (Yeah, yeah, it was actually Flavor-Aid, but just how many people are at all familiar with that brand?) My personal bet? I'd nominate R. Murdock as the primary cause. But then again, I've been wrong ere now, so who knows?
Let me link to one of several posted videos of Rep. Eric Swalwell's outspoken demands of the Republicans in the House:
It's about 4:42 seconds long (plus some conjecture on the part of the host, afterwards, take that as you might wish). But you gotta hand it to Swalwell, he's pulling very few punches; even calls out Jim Jordan directly to the man's face.
He does stop just short of openly accusing the Republicans of accepting bribes from the gun industry. But for those of us well versed in reading between the lines.....
The best thing the clerks could do is to band together and all of them say, in unison, that they aren't going to comply. If even only a majority of the clerks do this, then everything else goes out the window.
What they should do, and remain above suspicion, is self-lawyer up, again in lock-step, and tell the investigators that if they want the records so badly, then get a warrant and subpoena them from the various cell service providers. While this may be taken as a "smart-ass" move, it's not only compliant with the law, it removes all doubt as to why the Justice chose that particular individual to be his/her clerk. Thinking things through, and quickly, is a positive quality, especially when serving as a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice.
(Spoken in sarcasm...)
The only culprit is the perpetrator.
Don't forget his upbringing, the broken home he came from, and all that. I refer of course to those facets that defense "expert" psychologists try to sell to juries, for reasons both known and abominable.
I'm OK with even a heinous criminal getting the best defense possible, but attempting to deflect culpability by shifting the blame onto one's parents..... that's lower than whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.
What you say is true, except that those lobbyists pushing for this bill (with the changes)? They're lawyers, almost all of 'em. You can safely think of this as yet another Lawyer's Guaranteed Perpetual Employment bill.
Remember, no matter which party wins or loses a lawsuit, the lawyers always get paid.
I don't believe you, not at all. I don't just "know a blind guy", I'm married to one (except for her gender, but that's picking nits).
Trust me, I have a very long fuse, but right about now, if you were sitting across the table from me and uttered that statement, I'd beat you about the head and shoulders so severely that your grandchildren will be born black and blue.
Don't. Even. Think. Of. Going. There.