I fail to see the difference between asking a stranger to take a picture of you in front of something and taking it yourself. Somehow taking it yourself has drawn the ire of hipsters and columnists, in an adolescent "ohmygawd selfies are soooooo annoying" whinge. They justify it with dishonest, self-serving rants about a self-obsessed culture that would somehow be better if people would only ask strangers to take pictures for them. The selfie-stick backlash is what's important...a perfect example of a self-entitled internet culture whose members think anyone cares what they have to say.

Maybe not Coke and Pepsi, but just about every other already-advertising retailer stands to lose if the culture of advertising bombardment dries up. The likes of us that even use ad blockers are the fringe, to say nothing of the infinitesimally small number who refuse to buy from companies that thwart ad blockers. Many people ask me how I know what new or improved products are available since I dvr, stream, or download 100% of TV and movie content. The vast majority of consumers are absolutely swayed by a picture of a juicy burger, flashes of merch at INSANE prices, HEY KIDS ads, and entire "news" narratives telling you to go to the mall or the terr'ists win.

Wow...."Apple outrages users?" Seriously? I'd love to know how many people were "outraged" versus those who either appreciated the album or just didn't care. If you're 1) that concerned about "curating" your library, 2) too dumb/lazy to turn off automatic downloads, especially when roaming, 3) can't spare 100mb, 4) actually concerned what someone might think upon seeing an album in your library, 5) concerned about what a free album will do to Apple's suggestions but too lazy to rate the album on iTunes, then you have no business having an iPhone at all. It's much more likely these "outraged users" don't exist at all and are just hipster douches complaining about (Cr)Apple from their rooted Androids.

The idea that one guy can speak for all normal people is one thing, but when coupled with his thought that, "Yeah...we'll just stick a bunch of normal people in a room and make them delete clearly offensive material off the internet as soon as it's created" is frakking ADORABLE.

No, it is NOT what the judge finds personally distasteful. It is what the JURY finds distasteful. Judges in American courts only decide issues of law. Juries determine issues of fact. Judges can override a jury's decision in exceptional circumstances, but they are then subject to appellate scrutiny. It is this kind of civic ignorance that allows the Republican myth of "activist judges" to endure. Yes, it is reprehensible that extreme violence is acceptable while sexuality creates terror, but it shows exactly where the problem lies. Courts do not take up these cases of their own accord. A prosecutor (on his own or on the information of police) brings it to the court and argues the case. In other words, the prosecutor (and/or police) decides what questions of obscenity get analyzed by the courts. Prosecutors are an arm of the executive branch of government, and America has cowtowed to the executive for decades because fear sells. None of this is about protection of anything, morals or otherwise. It is about religious zealots trying to stay wealthy and in power by equating sex with shame and violence with retribution.