Comcast's FAQ on the new Roku beta correctly notes that this technically isn't a net neutrality violation, because this traffic never actually touches the general internet:
The Xfinity TV service delivered through the Xfinity TV Beta app is not an Internet service and does not touch or use the Internet. Rather, it is a Title VI cable service delivered solely over Comcast's private, managed cable network, so it will not count toward your Xfinity Internet Data Usage Plan.
Is the bandwidth available over your Internet connection while using this service the same as the bandwidth available over that connection while the service is not active?
If so, then yes, I would agree that this is not a net-neutrality violation.
If, however, they're using (a differently labeled segment of) the same pipes - such that this service consumes resources which would otherwise be available for use with other services - then it's still just as much a violation as any other form of zero-rating.
(If the cable company permanently segregates off a chunk of the cable bandwith for its TV services, and never uses that bandwidth for Internet service - not even for people who don't receive TV service at all - then using that bandwidth for this service wouldn't reduce the available bandwidth for the Internet service, and so would not be a (new) violation. It would also mean less Internet bandwidth than would otherwise be available, however, so I wouldn't be surprised if cable companies don't do this.)
I don't know if she'd still be physically up for it, but I read a few years back that Angela Lansbury would love to return to the role of Jessica Fletcher, despite being in her late 80s (she'd be 91 now, per Wikipedia). If anything can show old-person as outstanding-protagonist, that would do it.
His poll numbers don't reflect that popularity (though, to be fair, they didn't reflect his electoral victory either); IIRC, he started out at a 38% approval rating, and barely a month later is now down to 32% with no end in sight.
I think that the idea is that "conspiring to commit a civil offense constitutes a criminal offense", regardless of what the civil offense is.
I also think that this is exactly the idea which you are objecting to as absurd, and I might well agree, after I spend the time to think it through fully - but its being absurd would not prevent it from being the law in some jurisdictions, and if it's the law in NZ (I haven't checked), then this ruling would make perfect sense.
I think what he meant is that if that there is proof that a crime was committed, the government doesn't have to prove who committed it in order to be able to charge someone with aiding and abetting whoever did commit it.
See the comment below from ArkieGuy. Basically, if you don't make an argument up-front, you can't make that argument on appeal. If I'm not mistaken (which is possible; I most certainly am not a lawyer), that is what is referred to by "procedural posture"; the derivation of the phrase is a little complicated to explain, although it makes structural sense in my head.
That's one major reason why you see so many legal filings which make a case for prevailing because X, then say "even if X doesn't hold, we still prevail because Y; even if Y also doesn't hold, we still prevail because Z", et cetera. That way, all arguments are made up-front, and the right to use those arguments is preserved for appeal.
(One consequence of this is that if a lower court is bound by higher court precedent saying that argument X fails, and what you want is to have the higher court (or a court above it) overturn that precedent, you do in fact have to make argument X to the lower court even though the court has no choice but to reject it; otherwise, the higher court will reject your appeal out of hand.)
I suspect their idea was about the free-association rights of the representatives. (Bear with me here.)
The state university is a facet of the state government, particularly in light of being publicly funded.
Using a logo of an entity creates an association between oneself and that entity.
The government, just as much as the rest of society, has a First Amendment right to freedom of association - the right to choose who to associate with, and who to not. (Even if that doesn't hold for the government as a whole, it certainly holds for the representatives of that government.)
Thus, by granting the student organization permission to use this logo, the state university is creating an association between this organization and the entirety of the state government, including but not limited to the representative in question. (As well as engaging in political speech itself.)
What's more, being publicly funded, the university must have used public funds in creating the logo and the trademark thereon, and must also use public funds in maintaining that trademark.
Thus, by using the trademark in political advocacy (even with permission), the students are effectively causing the _government_ and its representatives to engage in political activity in _support_ of their campaign.
And so by having that permission rescinded under threat of withholding public funds, the government is actually staying _out_ of political speech, while at the same time protecting its representatives' own First Amendment right to freedom of association.
I suspect his(?) position is that if it had been a private university rather than a (public-funds-dependent) public one, it wouldn't have been in a position for the withholding-of-funds pressure to be put on it in the first place, much less have felt the need to succumb to that pressure.
I'm not sure how independent-of-government-funding many private universities really are, but the idea doesn't seem as inherently backwards as you seem to have read it as being.
> My only hope is that the current sideshow gets people motivated enough to vote out enough Republicans in 2 > years to get some form of balance in Congress so he has to fight for the worse stuff.
My understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, regardless of what level of voter activism there is at that point, simply because of which Congressional districts are up for re-election in that cycle; IIRC (from a source I no longer recall), there is at most exactly one such district which is neither held by a Democrat nor a near-100%-"safe" district for the Republican incumbent.
It really looks as if the "permanent Republican majority" strategy/initiative, from a decade or two back, of focusing heavily on gerrymandering "safe" districts on a per-state basis may be paying off...
Sadly, the Trump brigade (and I wish I had a better term for the group of people I'm thinking of than that, I just haven't been able to think of one) have already been pointing to that as support for the idea of _excluding_ some people.
Specifically, I've seen it argued that the qualifier "yearning to breathe free" means that only people who come here because they want freedom are covered by that exhortation - usually with the understanding, and often the explanation, that people who want to import the culture of the place they're coming from rather than adopting our culture ("of freedom") aren't coming here because they want freedom.
The people who argue this usually seem to be the same people raising the specter of sharia law being imposed in (parts of) the USA, and that gets pointed to as an example of importing restrictive native culture rather than adopting freedom-loving American culture.
Trump wasn't my first pick, its just that Hilary was my absolute last.
That's interesting, because Hillary Clinton wasn't my first pick - it's just that, out of those whose names were in the field (at any point over the entire campaign), Donald Trump was my absolute last.
After the election of Obama, I saw the writing on the wall about Hillary Clinton being the next Democratic nominee for the Presidency, and I decided that I would vote third-party rather than support her - despite the worse-than-useless nature of third-party votes in a first-past-the-post system - no matter how bad the opposing candidate was. (I had considered that for previous campaigns, and decided against it at the time.)
By the time the 2016 election came along, I was actually looking forward to voting for Hillary Clinton.
Part of that is because of shifts in her positions on things that matter to me, largely due to the influence of Bernie Sanders - but most of it is simply because it was already clear that Donald Trump is that bad.
Donald Trump almost singlehandedly converted me from disliking Hillary Clinton enough to throw away my Presidential-election vote by making a statement about the two-party system and the first-past-the-post voting model, to looking forward to voting for her just to help ensure that the abhorrent views he was espousing would not get into power.
He got into power anyway - largely, I suspect, because of the relentless decade-plus-long demonization campaign against Hillary Clinton - and now we're starting to see the consequences. (And so is he; word is that morale in the White House is low and falling, from the top on down. I rather expected that he would be gravely disappointed by the actual job of the Presidency, if he found himself in it.)
When only one forum (or set of forums) matters, preventing you from speaking there is effectively the same as preventing you from speaking at all. Thus, the term "silenced" is entirely appropriate.
In most cases, you have the option to seek or create alternative forums, and make those other forums matter - so "silenced" would not be an appropriate term in those cases. In this case, however, the only forum that matters is the Senate itself, because of its exclusive role in the decision at hand; there is only one forum where the decision will be made, and there is no realistic possibility of transferring that decision elsewhere.