There is a snowstorm and the officials leave the city running. Possible severe damage to infrastructure, possible death toll, cleanup is significantly more complicated and takes far longer. Officials are berated for their carelessness.
Funny how quickly people have forgotten the Atlanta "blizzard." That was less than a year ago! The mayor ignored warnings by NOAA and insisted on keeping the city running until it was far too late. That was only 3" of snow, but in a part of the country not accustomed to ever seeing any.
Those individuals must spend their own personal money and whatever form their message takes they must personally be present or at the very least attach their names to the message, and any donation must also be from their personal accounts and not the organizations.
Pretty trivial workaround: TWC and Comcast would just take the money that they save by not lobbying and pay it to their CxOs. Of course there won't be any express expectation that they use the money for political speech.
Back to the Disney thing, I would think that the character actors would fall under a "think of the children" sort of thing. Can you imagine, "Mommy, why does Mickey smell funny like Uncle Jack?" The funny thing is, I'm actually in favor of companies (or governments, for that matter) requiring immunizations, allowing for medical exemptions.
The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
No, I'm pretty sure he had it right. These days you're guilty until proven innocent in both types of trials. Hell, you may not even see a courtroom, if your "crime" fits the narrative of the day. The press will make your life hell anyway. Terrorism, sexual assault, drugs.
Nearly all companies worth working for have drug testing requirements. So it's not as easy as "you don't have to work for them." You effectively can't work for anybody in entire swaths of industry for doing something that is so harmless, several states have decided to legalize it. Do companies check to make sure you aren't violating other laws? Certainly. Do they make you prove your innocence on a quarterly basis? Of course not. That only happens with drug use.
Some employers even have you sign agreements not to drink in public, drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stay under a certain weight, or my personal favorite-- back in to all parking spots. Let's not forget some companies (e.g. church schools) still fire people for being gay. My employer doesn't allow me to post negative comments about my company on forums. Should this shit be legal?
Seems to me that if a person is doing their job well, that a company shouldn't have the right to fire them. I live in an "at will" state. We can fire somebody because the sky is cloudy, and they can't do anything about it. That seems pretty fucked up to me.
I offer proof that 5 is bigger than 15, after all is not one fifth bigger than one fifteenth...
Gee, I don't know. I ain't never seen a fifteenth of whiskey.
SCOTUS: Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Holding: Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.
To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.
--And, by not hearing a case, said that 24/7 policies are over-broad:
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear '24/7' Policy Case:
The state Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving the Ramapo Indian Hills School Board’s appeal of a ruling that struck down a policy that would bar students from participating in sports and extracurricular activities for off-campus misconduct.
The Supreme Court’s denial of certification on Jan. 16 means that the earlier ruling, entered last year by the appellate court, is final. In that ruling, the appellate court found the district’s policy to be so “overbroad” that students could conceivably be disciplined for minor off-campus infractions such as littering.
The case arose when the parents of a high school senior brought a legal challenge to the so-called "24-7" policy, claiming it violated state regulations and provisions of the state constitution.