Not it won't. If it is an outright copy (that's relatively easy to prove) you can have an injunction issued, besides that the bad press alone might get them to back off. I've brought a lawsuit like that and won << $100K.
A few hundred in total. What helped is that they actually did copy text verbatim, so it was very easy to prove. Their defense: they stole it but not from us... go figure. Needless to say that didn't land very well with the judge.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.”
The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict, through physical control of a critical pathway of communication, the free flow of information and ideas."
A ruling like that makes me even more surprised that the government did not take steps to maintain net neutrality. I would say ISPs are a far more "critical pathway of communication" than Twitter is.
Them taking steps to prevent Twitter from "restricting" information really doesn't follow with the approach this administration's FCC took with ISPs.
Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.
I don't agree with the executive order at all, but the person you responded to doesn't have the situation backwards.
People (such as yourself, and myself as it happens) will claim that this order violates the first amendment. However the Supreme Court has explicitly allowed such actions under very specific circumstances. One such circumstance was called out above.
So the question is: would the actions in this case constitute a step to prevent a private interest (ie Twitter) from restricting communication via control of a physical pathway?
How does fact-checking dishonest (or at the very least disingenuous) comments "restrict the free flow of information and ideas"?
The ideas still flow freely. Twitter isn't even forcing more accurate and factual information right next to the dishonest framing. You have to click the link to even see it.
While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”
I know for a fact my aunt mails in ballots for her husband, her father and her mother. Claiming that there is no mail-in voter fraud among 300 million Americans is quite absurd in my opinion.
It's a bit absurd when claims of rampant mail-in voter fraud come without evidence from a New Yorker in the District of Columbia who votes in Florida by mail.
One, why haven't you reported your aunt for voter fraud? Voter fraud is a very serious issue and it seems to me that you're letting a criminal go free. This can be easily verified by telling the government and having the three others confirm who they voted for.
For two, if she is mailing in the ballots, then is she forging their signature as well as collecting their SSNs? Or are they simply signing on the ballots themselves agreeing to the votes? In which case is that truly fraud or not? If she's forging signatures then she's also committing identity theft which is a very serious issue, one that I hope you agree deserves reporting.
The quarantines in place have resulted in far fewer cancer screenings and treatments, which will "literally result in more deaths". Can't we have an honest debate without censorship instead of accusing any dissent as "FUD"?
"I have never seen a stronger case for the need to have third-party certification and testing of software and the people involved in building it."
Are you proposing that every GitHub repository be certified by a third-party and tested before use? Besides, "high quality" software like Google Maps or iOS don't have anything close to "third-party certification".
I'm saying that if software developers are going to be solving problems that are this closely connected with the public interest and safety then they should be held to industry or regulatory standards on par with the ones faced by engineers building airplanes and bridges.
