Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
@ri.oldfolkshome.org
3.3K followers 610 following 11K posts
@RIOldFolksHome in all the places
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
What makes you think that they (or anyone else) can't do that?
You might not *want* it, but in most contexts it can be said and can't be sued over (or, rather, any suit will be dismissed).
And that the entity which enforces any judgements the courts hand down is...the government.
How do you propose your silly scheme be enforced? Only the government has the power to enforce things on entities that haven't voluntarily agreed to be subject to something.

And before you say "the courts, of course" I hope you do realize that the courts are part of....the government.
Nuke it from orbit.
This is the future of Windows. Microsoft wants to rewrite Windows to turn computers into AI PCs that you talk to. It's now bringing AI features to all Windows 11 PCs today, in a bid to convince you to talk to your PC and let AI control it. Full details 👇 www.theverge.com/news/799768/...
Microsoft wants you to talk to your PC and let AI control it
Copilot Voice and Vision are now rolling out.
www.theverge.com
Well said!
This show provided some of the most durable memories of my early childhood. I even met Bob McGrath when I was four or five (and have an autographed photo somewhere). Such a pleasure to watch clips as an adult - the heart in the writing and acting is so clear to see.
Bob McGrath’s first scene in SESAME STREET’s first episode. It’s an excellent example of the chemistry between Bob, Matt Robinson, and Loretta Long. This is a trio of young actors charting a new path in children’s programming, & playfully feeling their way...
And of course limits on Congress creating unconstitutional new torts.
And it's somewhat irrelevant anyways.

Courts are...drumroll...part of the government.

Thus (as you and Lizard well know) courts are constrained by the 1A too and have no power to enforce unconstitutional things. And so there are limits on speech-related torts.
They're independent elections. Spainberger cannot drop the vile asshole or make him not run.

He should be vigorously denounced and any endorsements pulled, though.
Someone we parasocially know has a new book cover quote if he wants one.
Will highly likely lose on lack of falsity. While there may be studies about *acetaminophen* I’ll eat my hat if there are studies about the effects of Tylenol’s inactive ingredients re: autism.

(Because why would there be? It would have been dumb and a waste of time and $ to do them.)
Reposted by Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
Reposted by Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
My super modern regulatory plan is that any entity named for a thing from Tolkien has to publicly explain why Tolkien wouldn’t immediately throw it into Mount Doom
Tolkein continues to resonate. The new bank being set up by Palmer Luckey and backed by Peter Thiel is named Erebor after the “lonely mountain” in The Hobbit. This was also an interesting line in this rpt on the new bank by @tabbykinder.bsky.social www.ft.com/content/202d...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
So — unsurprisingly — wrong.

What matters is what he’s doing when he says it, not what he says.
That’s not the test. What he says doesn’t matter. It’s what he was doing when he said it that matters.

And every court in the land is going to rule that any president doing a press conference is acting in the scope of their official duties.

Likewise for a cabinet sec’y in a Congressional hearing.
And that’s the law that makes federal officials immune from being sued for defamation for things done while acting in the scope of their office.

Sorry you can’t handle the truth.
What inanity are you babbling about? The Westfall Act was passed in 1988.
If he’s at a press conference and is asked a question about that it sure is.

If he’s, say, at some fundraising thing for a private art gallery and says something about that, probably not.
Given the full context, “Those who provide information to the public, i.e., newspapers cannot be legally punished for publishing factual errors, but they are not allowed to knowingly lie to cause harm”, I find it very hard to read the final clause as anything but descriptive.
Where do you get the silly idea that newspapers “are not allowed to knowingly lie to cause harm”?

A newspaper is totally allowed to, for example, say “vaccines are harmful and no one should get them” and there’s nothing the govt or anyone can do about other than denounce them and refuse to buy it.
18th and 19th and 20th century media up to around WWII were full of yellow journalism and partisan hackery.
And Jefferson helped start a newspaper to slag other founders, advised people to not read newspapers because they were so full of crap, and yet still believed the First Amendment protected that stuff.
Well, the ads are technically true (the best kind of true 😁) because you don’t get those things with Medicare; they are separately-purchased items.
I think the first one worked on its own.

The subsequent ones basically required that you had already read the books in order to have a good handle on who these people are and why they’re doing what they’re doing.