FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

Manchin consistently votes with Democrats whenever his vote matters.

When his vote doesn't matter, I don't care how he votes or what he says.

It means drawing legislative districts for political advantage. But elections for the Presidency and Senate ignore legislative district maps.

It doesn't really matter if a state is "empty", what matters is the population not the density.

And for what it's worth: of the ten states with the least population, half generally vote for Democrats (HI, VT, DE, RI, ME). They are often overlooked in these discussions because they are mostly small in area too.

There are definitely people who could upgrade from a Model 3 to a Model S, and they are choosing a different car because of Musk.

Furthermore, a lot of people have decided that supporting established car companies, with all their faults, is still better than supporting Musk. And they may choose to switch to the Bolt, Leaf, Kona, Ioniq or similar.

And Lemmy wouldn't exist without Reddit. But I don't like what Reddit has become, and I am not obligated to continue using Reddit when Lemmy exists.

There are EV manufacturers who never made an ICE, like Rivian and Lucid.

Because it's perverse for someone to create content if successful content will surely be stolen and used against its creator.

They weren't stealing content until now.

Because until now they weren't competing against individual content creators.

That's what they used to say about Microsoft.

Only if you believe Apple is basically Google.

A preliminary injunction must be based on the strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail.

If there are not any relevant facts yet, then there is likewise no basis even for a preliminary injunction.

If the relevant facts are yet to be adjudicated, then there was no basis for an injunction against this law.

The answer is right in the quote by the Supreme Court. Commercial speech is not protected if it's misleading. So by definition, a law that bans deceptive speech is constitutional.

In the case of these plaintiffs, maybe their speech is deceptive and maybe it isn't. That's up to a jury to determine. But either way, the law stands.

In other words, it's entirely possible that their speech is not deceptive but someone else's is deceptive. The law would only apply to the latter.

He did discuss his own criminal record at least once on his channel:

https://youtu.be/Rcv5fuOdcZs

Adobe is requiring customers to choose one of three different competing browsers, none of which are owned by Adobe.

There's no antitrust issue here.

I don't doubt your sincerity. But I think your legal analysis is wrong.

The correct standard here is not strict scrutiny, it is intermediate scrutiny. This is a much more permissive standard that applies to all commercial speech. And it allows restrictions on what one can say, in order to prevent deceptive practices like those I described.

The Supreme Court described their approach to commercial speech in 1980 (my emphasis):

At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.

The Illinois law bans deceptive speech by certain companies trying to gain clients, and therefore it does not violate the First Amendment.

I didn't say you agreed with the plaintiff's speech, I said you agreed with the plaintiffs. Namely, that the law should be struck down.

By arguing that the law ought to be struck down, you are arguing the merits despite your protest earlier. In which case, there are plenty of restrictions on commercial speech that are in keeping with the First Amendment. For example, Elon Musk was sanctioned because of his speech regarding Tesla stock.

The First Amendment is not some get-out-of-jail card that allows commercial entities to say whatever they want, particularly if they are being deceptive. And strict scrutiny does not apply to commercial speech. That's why there is an entire federal agency, the FTC, whose mission includes regulation of commercial speech.

If you think these plaintiffs should be allowed to decieve potential clients because of the 1st Amendment that's your prerogative, but plenty of legal scholars would disagree.

I understand the technicalities.

I am simply pointing out that a preliminary injunction is not issued by routine in cases like this. Therefore, it is newsworthy rather than "clickbait".

Furthermore, it strongly indicates how the case will ultimately be decided. So if you agree with the injunction, then you should agree with the plaintiffs in this case. If you disagree with the plaintiffs, then you have good reason to disagree with the injunction. Therefore, some people are rightfully very concerned about this news.

That is all. I am not interested in arguing the merits, either.

A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the plaintiffs are very likely to succeed. Otherwise you or I could block any new law by endlessly "preserving the status quo" with a stream of lawsuits.

So if you think that the preliminary junction is appropriate, then you must agree with the judge that the law very likely violates the First Amendment.