Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that's the type of "deal" we should be making with Mexico...easy peasy.
Just a few years back (and maybe even now) I saw (from the air) those vast fields of cane burning in FLORIDA....so it's not like Mexico is in the Stone Age there.
Yep, they are still doing it - and, of course, the Government there is close to 100% GOP
It don't know if it could be the right thread to mention this but Carlos Maza who had put some pressure to Youtube to remove various channels, had quit Vox but vlogger Timcast think Carlos Mazaa had been fired.
What? In Florida it's mandatory to pollute as much as possible if it makes money for the company and if you have a little to grease the palms of the Government officials.
Surely Texas is the same? Is the air downwind of Chemical Alley pristine?
"In 2016, there were 85 days of degraded air quality in Houston, exposing about 6.7 million people. Smog and particulate pollution were the primary pollution. Burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and diesel creates particulate pollution in the air. Elizabeth Ridlington, who coauthored the report from the Environment Texas Research & Policy Center, notes that “there’s no safe level of exposure to smog and particulate pollution.” Even low levels of exposure, as she states, can cause health problems."
One would think you'd be environmentally active where you live instead of complaining about another country. One might say to cast the 100's of chemicals out of thine own eye before worrying about the smoke from thy Brother.
YouTube announced plans on Wednesday to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on the service. What about freedom of speech? Because YouTube is a private corporation, these videos are not protected under the First Amendment, so they can pull any videos they want. I support the right for people to be racists and bigots if they so insist upon it. But if a private entity pulls material like this, is it considered censorship?
A lot of thought has gone into the platform vs. publisher problem. I don't thinks it's clear yet what the abilities and responsibilities are.
Quote:
Thus far in America, social media companies have been shielded against repercussions for content posted on their sites by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects “interactive computer service(s)” from being treated as publishers. This decision was based on Congress’s initial findings that “the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”
A lot of thought has gone into the platform vs. publisher problem. I don't thinks it's clear yet what the abilities and responsibilities are.
The First Amendment reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, there's always the possibility that Jefferson could have been simpleminded.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, there's always the possibility that Jefferson could have been simpleminded.
Nah.
Sounds easy enough. Congress shall make no law telling someone what they can say to someone else...
Of course, I can make a rule on my web site. You can make a rule in the Clubhouse of your HOA (no banners, no bullhorns, no political signs or whatever).
Is there anything in that wording that says STATES can't make such laws? Or towns, counties, etc? Or corporations, or individuals or groups of individuals?
I would say if my group (a writers group, for example) made a rule saying no one could rant about politics at our meetings (or they would get thrown out), that would be fine and dandy.
Many Americans seen to gave the "British Disease" which caused the downfall of the UK.
"Possessed of a good idea or a worthy impulse, Americans invariably drive it to ludicrous extremes, until it breaks down, runs out of control, or curdles to toxicity. We are a people dedicated to the proposition that any sound idea can be transformed into dangerous craziness, if one only tries a bit."
The 1A is a sound idea. Forcing a company to spread Hate is "dangerous craziness".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
