Good luck trying to convince people to not have children, especially the Bible Belt people who literally believe it's their God-given right to litter the Earth with their offspring.
It's not just the Bible Belt -- the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) declares that "men and women of full age
If the answer is "no" to the Christian baker's refusals and "yes" to the KKK rally refusal, what are the differences between these hypothetical situations? If relevant, what are the differences between the rally and the general sale of goods? What are the differences between these hypothetical situations and the law(s) being proposed?
own some MS stock there, shill-boy?
Oooh, clever! Go on, call him a denialist, too -- you know you want to.
I think I've broken the Slashdot code! 'Insightful' must mean, 'agrees with my prejudices'.
Sort of. The Patriot Act is simply too large to have been drafted in the timeframe allotted, so we can start with the obvious truth that whoever really wrote it had it on the shelf awaiting an opportunity. That is chilling, and under-reported, enough.
Well, it is certainly true that the intelligence agencies have always hated FISA and the ECPA, and they used 9/11 as an opportunity to push for changes that would never have been allowed in other political climates.
But they didn't literally have it sitting on the shelf, unless you have some sort of evidence to show otherwise. It was a little over a month between September 11th and when the first draft of the PATRIOT Act. That's a reasonable amount of time to bang out 120 pages of legalese, the majority of which were pretty banal reforms.
The problem of governments using crises to rush anti-democratic legislation is horrible enough without making up conspiracy theories.
Again, I'm not so sure that is the worst thing in the world (and the existence of the GPL for those that want that protection makes it moot anyway) but I absolutely understand the sentiment of people who do not want the code they write to be used by for-profit corporations without any protection for the community. If I'm going to write proprietary code for Apple and Google, they damn well better be paying my salary.
The thing is, broadcasters aren't bringing this case over lost advertising revenue. And they're not bringing it over increasing the size of the broadcast area.
They're bringing this case because if Aereo-like services lets people access the broadcasts within the broadcast area in more convenient ways, that means the broadcasters can't make as much money from selling more-convenient access to their content (e.g. by charging cable-TV retransmission fees, or making a deal with Time-Warner Cable to let subscribers visit special subscriber-only webpages or install subscriber-only apps to stream content).