It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."
I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.
If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.
Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.
Sorry, I see nothing about a Mozilla and Microsoft partnership there. Care to be more explicit?
Can you say more about this Mozilla and Microsoft partnership? Thanks.
There are a thousand and one websites that do this for you. For example, Google search for {youtube mp3}.
I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was
I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)
Data is shared, not sold.
Exactly! Just like how those same companies are not paying for the data, they are donations!
(I jest of course, I have no idea if that's happening. My point is one about evaluating behaviors of companies in spirit and not just on technicalities)
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
