There is a significant difference between the two. For example, one is involved here and the other is not. The article (and the underlying letter) clearly explain that it is the Department of State that has taken these actions. The summary and headline must be changed.
For all of you non-lawyers who have not followed Supreme Court caselaw on arbitration, the fault lies with the Federal Arbitration Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act In short, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that that Act has such a strong presumption for the validity of an arbitration clause that it is impossible to wiggle out of it. The next emerging threat is going to be binding arbitration in employment contracts. It already is inserted in many employment contracts, and the only protection at the moment is being offered by the NLRB. See, e.g., http://www.natlawreview.com/article/nlrb-throws-cold-water-mandatory-arbitration-provisions-prohibiting-class-actions-em
Hello. If you read Ron Suskind's excellent "Confidence Men," you will learn that Obama negotiated away the Public Option with the insurance companies months before the bill was passed. In fact, he even negotiated it away BEFORE he addressed a joint session of Congress and said that he wanted to see it in the bill. It's quite shameful, really. So, there you have it. Killed by backroom dealing.
You do realize that that was at least 20 years ago, right? Rotenberg started EPIC in 1994, and your own citation indicates that he worked for Leahy after graduating from law school. You're falsely implying that he is currently working for Leahy and was advising him about PIPA. Also, EPIC has a history of filing suit over Google policies, such as when Google Buzz was rolled out.
New submitter nfn writes "MIT has published a new paper (abstract), along with a video of a working prototype, of what they're describing as an 'Artificial Leaf' that separates water into oxygen and hydrogen using cheap, non-exotic materials. 'The artificial leaf — a silicon solar cell with different catalytic materials bonded onto its two sides — needs no external wires or control circuits to operate. Simply placed in a container of water and exposed to sunlight, it quickly begins to generate streams of bubbles: oxygen bubbles from one side and hydrogen bubbles from the other. If placed in a container that has a barrier to separate the two sides, the two streams of bubbles can be collected and stored, and used later to deliver power: for example, by feeding them into a fuel cell that combines them once again into water while delivering an electric current.' No word on the arrival of 'Artificial Salads,' or when any of their other alchemy projects will bear artificial fruit."
A fair point. The government is hardly a monolith. Although I think there are larger problems than Rumsfeld's infamous "few bad apples," you are absolutely correct that it is not worth condemning the entire institution.
While I agree with you that "evil" is overused, I do think that certain US policies such as "targeted killings" that kill multitudes of civilians and target United States citizens, the propping up of Saleh in Yemen, and the torture both carried out at our military prisons and contracted out to third party countries such as Syria constitute "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose I am just more damning than you.
Well said, sir!
The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.
They are not doing micropayments for BF3. It is a normal BF game; you must be confusing it with Heroes or something. There will be exclusive preorder content, though.
Jurisdiction comes from the Alien Tort Statute. There have been a number of recent cases of aliens suing corporations in the US because of violations of international law. Whether what Cisco did in China was legal under Chinese law does not matter; the ATS is all about whether norms of customary international law have been violated. Torture is the primary example. This is not some crazy lawsuit; it is a tried and true method of punishing corporations for their complicity in human rights violations.
superglaze writes "Google has been found liable in an Italian court for defamatory comments made against an anonymous plaintiff — the complainant's name, when googled, elicited autocomplete suggestions that translate as 'con man' and 'fraud.' Google was found not to qualify for EU 'safe harbour' protection because the autocomplete suggestions were deemed to be Google's own creation, and not something merely passing through its systems."
Well, technically this is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch. And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated. The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated. Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.
Well, unlike other posters, I am a lawyer; The Bill of Rights begin "Congress shall make no law," and it has always been held that the Bill of Rights are a purely a restriction upon government action. A cursory reading of the history surrounding the BoR, or the manner in which they have always been applied, will show that you are really missing the point.
thief21 writes "After claims that console versions Modern Warfare 2 had been recalled in Russia due to complaints from politicians and the gaming public over the infamous airport slaughter scene, it turns out the stories were completely untrue. Activision never released a console version of the game in Russia." Instead, they simply edited the notorious scene out of the PC version. They did this of their own volition, since Russia doesn't have a formal ratings committee.