But, if you put a gene in there that produces significantly more or less of something and you've got a problem.

How marvelously vague.

Funny... not... is...

"No one was threatened" - Yes they were.

"no one was spying" - Yes they were.

" there was no damage" - Not the only prerequisite in determining intrusion.

I have yet to figure out this obsession some people have with screen space. Bitching about three friggin' toolbars?

On the other hand, someone looking for a chair should have some vague understanding of what constitutes 'their' chair. I wouldn't look at the dainty stuff my daughter would, for instance, I'd be way too hard on it. So, people should only purchase apps they've taken "test drives" on, to beggar the analogies.

"Makes sure" - that's called an assumed authority on the part of the unions. Other areas of the country without union enforcement do just fine, as do the workers. What is it they *actually* provide?

Careful of how you define "good". I hear there have been whole groups of people who have done horrendous things for "the good". That's why SJW is typically aimed at people doing bad things for their personal "good" cause. It's sarcasm indicating that it's obvious they're really not doing what they proclaim they are.

Not really. Most of the articles of GG that I've found were linked to from actual news sites. And I've found, the more conservative the site, the greater the pep talk for GG.

I admire Volokh's legal analyses and reluctantly have to agree unless there is a clause prohibiting contracts to holders of outstanding warrants. I still maintain that for Keef, it was about circumventing the warrant for money and not at all a free speech issue.

They're not restricting him from showing up and speaking. By all means he should. They're preventing the use of a venue against the terms of the signed contract. They don't rent spaces to people with active warrants. It was obviously not a free speech issue with him either, but a method to work around a warrant keeping him away from a paycheck.

What *content* was disallowed?

Looks like everybody owes Jack Thompson an apology, video games really are just murder training/simulators.

"... because the typical person does not benefit." Utter bullshit. Anyone creative enough can obtain a copyright, patent or trademark and benefit from it. If someone writes a book, without copyright protection the first lazy moron who comes along can take it and publish it as their own.

"People get paid by the fact that only they can create a particular piece of art or item, up against true competition." This time shallow bullshit. Without protections, the moment any creative item is available a *corporation* could simply abscond with it, out produce the individual and take it from them.

Same old screed from those who can't create - "I want access to yours for nothing."

He advertises through ABC his view that advertising isn't morally justifiable.

And - "He blogs at The Philosopher's Beard." - (a link) which also reads very much like an advertisement to me.

FTA - "The solution to both requires legal recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention."

Here we have his crux. More government to prevent what he doesn't care for.

"Your reply sounds angry." No it doesn't.