I wonder why Clarence Thomas would want to make it easier to sue people who say damaging things about public figures.
They have the power to do so, but as the article notes, so far they haven't shown the interest; Thomas seems to be the only justice who's champing at the bit to eliminate the actual malice standard. For all that it's a far-right court, this court has tended to take a pretty maximalist view of speech.
There are advantages to codifying common-law precedent into statutory law; it can provide clarity and consistency.
And while SCOTUS can basically do whatever it wants without review, it's worth examining their justifications for their rulings. These people are ideologues with a very particular view of how the law is supposed to work. When they've overturned precedent, it's been based on the reasoning that the court invented a standard that isn't supported in law. If the standard were supported in law, that wouldn't stop them from overturning it, but it could make them less likely to do so.
People keep telling me that AIs are getting better at writing posts that can pass for human, but I'm just not seeing it.
I don't have many nice things to say about the conservative majority, but anyone who thinks this court's going to curtail corporate speech has really not been paying attention for the past fifteen years.
Or even the past month.
Because receiving something unsolicited is a completely different thing from supporting it?
At least, I hope so; otherwise I've agreed to sell my house to like six different spammers today.
Clearly the developers porting this have no knowledge of the actual history of the games they’re porting.
Aspyr's ported a hell of a lot of games over the years, including porting this one to Mac in 2012 and Linux in 2015. It kinda sounds like you're the one who has no knowledge of the actual history of the subject you're talking about.
This is a pretty big fuckup, don't get me wrong, but at this point it's also an outlier; Aspyr has a pretty positive reputation overall and isn't known for making these kinds of huge mistakes. However, it was acquired by Embracer Group (THQ Nordic) last year, and I hope this is just an outlier and not a sign of things to come.
You have to admit that 17 years of releasing the same game in an unfinished state is pretty impressive.
That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.
You're just mad at teachers because yours never taught you how to write a coherent English sentence.
You either die a hero...
Oregon State Officials Dump Al Tool
I believe the character's name was Al Borland.
Japanese culture seems to take a much stronger stance on copyright infringement, too; as bad as it is in the US, we never banned game rentals.
I can’t wait to see Democrats flood everyone’s inbox multiple times a day and see how long Republican support for this lasts…
You kidding me? It won't even be a speed bump; they'll have an excuse all ready for why Democratic e-mails are completely different and it's okay to mark them as spam.
There was a time when blatantly unconstitutional was a bad thing & there was ridicule & repercussions…
...speaking of dumb and clumsy, opening the article by awkwardly paraphrasing someone else's tweet, and then immediately following it with the tweet you just awkwardly paraphrased, feels like the sorta thing that could have used another editing pass.
And the highest totals of political “donations” than any other industry, as well.
...I mean I love Techdirt too, but nothing quite says "maybe you should try reading some other websites once in awhile" like proclaiming that the broadband industry spends more money on political donations than the defense, banking, or pharmaceutical industries.
The big platforms should not be engaging in viewpoint-based censorship except when they are speaking for themselves.
Good news, then: every moderation action is a platform speaking for itself. It's the platform saying "We don't want to be associated with this speech."
Like when I click the little flag icon on your post and then add you to my block list, that's me exercising my freedom of speech and association and saying "You're an asshole. There's the door."
The problem with that theory is that Twitter doesn't need Musk's help to tank its stock price.
I think he expected he would either pay the agreed-upon amount, or be able to wriggle out of the terms of the contract because he (thinks he) is a super-genius.