The key, as you point out early on, is truth in advertising laws. All of these fees are fraudulent unless they are optional. If the consumer cannot purchase the product for the advertised price, then the advertised price is consumer fraud. It's not even a close quesiotn.
"The whole idea that someone's feelings getting hurt is defamation is completely antithetical to any reasonable support of a regime of freedom of expression."
It's more than that, it's antithetical to the definition of defamation.
Defamation is not concerned with someone's feelings being hurt--their feelings about themselves--it's concerned with other people's feelings--reputation. If people think or even might think less of you for this statement, then you have been defamed. If you think less of yourself, you've been harmed, I suppose, but it's not defamation.
I was thinking the same thing--this isn't a case of a professor photocopying some excerpts to hand out to the class to save students from having to buy a book that will be 99.5% unused. Especially given the outrageous pricing of textbooks. No, this is a business that copies textbooks and then sells the copies (according to the excerpt).
Ideally, there would be a compulsory license like in music so that professors could build their own textbooks affordably. This decision appears to have some significant risk built into it.
I don't know that I've heard the double-dipping explanation anywhere other than on Techdirt. Which is too bad because it's the best, most understandable, explanation I've come across as to what Net Neutrality is all about and why it's important.
It always bugged me that the brother and sister team of Sarah and Paul McDonald can't open a burger joint using their ancient family name because some schmuck named Kroc got there first. Unlike Copyright and Patent, which are supposed to protect things that are new to encourage the creation of more things that are new, Trademark reaches into the public domain and takes things out and hands them over to private interests.
Trademark law should extend strong protection only to fanciful marks. Words that are part of normal language should get very weak protection applied only to the specific product. If that. Want strong protection? Create something new. Don't steal from the public.
People in democracies get the government they deserve.
Most people don't vote based on TSA policy, they vote based on a basket of issues and some compromise. Just because the politicians support TSA for everybody except themselves doesn't mean the people deserve it--it's not that easy to change federal policy.
The whole point of the smart meter is to cope with the effects of government created shortages. Cheap energy is the most important thing we can provide for the poor. Today's environmentalism (not least the insatiable god of Global Warming) creates fake crises in order to drive up the cost of energy so instead of being safe and comfortable, our poor will shiver in the dark.
Environmentalism is the reason government officials give when they want to search your trash, when they want to see where you drive and when, and now when you wake up and when you watch TV. Next it will be which room you are in and even when you flush the toilet and what it is you're flushing. (Think smart water meters aren't coming?) All the things our concept of basic human rights tells us the government shouldn't do, it does in the name of environmentalism and the progressives cheer them on.
Complaints about the 4th amendment dangers of smart meters, while legitimate, miss the real issue. Progress!
Absolutely right. This shows that most red light violations are the result of drivers misjudging how much time they have to stop when the light turns yellow. It's not surprising that actual incidents of someone running a red light are in fact quite rare. How often do you see it happen in your daily commute? Never? Almost never?
I don't see why you make a big deal about how he said nice things about Sonny as he killed Sonny's bill. He may need to maintain a working relationship with Sonny. The important thing is he killed Sonny's bill. (This is the point at which I might say "chess, not checkers" but I'm not sure you're even playing checkers over here.)
"The discussion about "fake news" certainly began with good intentions"
Oh! Wrong right out of the gate.
There was never nay evidence that people were influenced by fake news on social media. This was just losers trying to delegitimize an election they lost, abetted by a news media trying to rescue its own reputation after a period of transparent dishonesty and partisan manipulation (so brazen most major outlets even admitted it).
Thanks (I'm the AC above). I know my concerns are stupid since people who know internet security far better than me all advise some sort of password wallet, it's just hard for my abacus-level brain to wrap around when it seems like all those same security professionals keep getting hacked.
Most of the FEC's remit is blatantly unconstitutional under the first amendment, so I'm not too upset that they are so dysfunctional that they can't quash people's basic rights as efficiently as some desire.
They don't play any role in Trump's promise to drain the swamp--a vital promise that he is currently putting the necesary pieces in place to fulfill. (Whether or not he's successful--the swamp is tenacious and self-refilling.) any sane sensible person who cares about good government should be supporting him in this effort.