Hello! We have been advocating against ring for about four years now, and Iâ(TM)d like to think that along with many other organizations and govt entities, we have made a difference.

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-01-29/ring-app-shares-personal-data-eff-finds

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/amazon-rings-end-end-encryption-what-it-means

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/ftc-forces-ring-take-user-privacy-seriously

Do you mean the fact that they (weâ"I work there) accept cryptocurrency donations? Or was there some other connection you are thinking?

EFF's brief, which was summarized in one part of this decision, is available here: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-counterman-v-colorado-brief

"Without sufficient protection for unintentionally threatening speech, a high school student who is still learning norms around appropriate language could easily go to prison for sending another student violent music lyrics, or for unreflectingly using language he read in an online forum. “[A] drunken joke” in bad taste can lead to criminal prosecution. Perez v. Florida, 580 U. S. 1187 (2016) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). In the heat of the moment, someone may post an enraged comment under a news story about a controversial topic. Another person might reply equally heatedly. In a Nation that has never been timid about its opinions, political or otherwise, this is commonplace."

This tracker on these bills is helpful. They are metastasizing. https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-bills/

As an organizer against this policy, I know there's a lot of FUD on both sides. The main issue here is that the policy as it was written would have allowed "police to use robotic deadly force without first attempting alternatives."

Ignore the robot aspect of it. If you believe police should be able to use deadly force as a first resort, I doubt I can convince you that this is a bad thing. If you believe that police should (even at risk to themselves) attempt alternative options before blowing up people, then you are probably in agreement that this is a bad thing.

That's really the long and short of it.

What you're basically saying is that every recording Guthrie did was live, so this must be wrong.

Lol.

I've never heard of a non-live recording...except maybe some performance art neo-modernist crap.

The point is that Guthrie performed differently in front of a crowd than he did on the radio, or in a studio, and there are NO RECORDINGS OF HIM PERFORMING IN FRONT OF A CROWD. Until this one.

That sounds unbelievable, but the man died of a debilitating illness, after being hospitalized for a decade, while he was still fairly young, in the 60's. Long before that time he was blacklisted for being a communist and few people would host him, let alone record him. You think fans were streaming to his 200 person venues in the 30's with closet-sized recording devices to get his live words onto tape?

I have this album, along with the Moses Asch recordings and the library of congress recordings, and I can tell you there is an appreciable difference that you will not find in any other recording. Yes, those were live. No, neither Moses Asch nor the LoC count as a "crowd." I guess his daughter must know more about the man through living with him and taking over his musical legacy than you do through hearsay and assumption. Stunning!