Waiting to see how these foreign rulings effect domestic policy on information oligopolies. Or rather, how the Supreme Court will tailor these decisions to also effect American expression.
They unfortunately aren't granting certiorari for any antitrust lawsuit giving consumers actual choices of the platforms they use.
I suppose if I were as old as the average SC Judge I wouldn't want to do too much heavy lifting either, considering giving the consumer true choice (which is the primary property of capitalistic frameworks), would be difficult considering there are also enormous intellectual property rights stifling competition.
The Court needs a way in to create more consumer choices in online platforms, but I doubt they are even looking, more likely actively not looking.
The incentives from a corporate and executive branch (and maybe even congressional branch) are strongly against true choice at this level of speech.
But this is concerning the First Amendment of the sacred Constitution, not the second, or the third, et cetra. And The Court speaks for the Constitution as established in Marbury v. Madison. Their primary axial directive is maintaining balance of powers, and then to maintain freedom of speech, on down the constitutional amendments (and in their totality).
So, even though it might not be in the interest of the Executive Branch and the corporatacracy of America - imo, it would be nice to be inspired again, to see The Court do it's duty, even if it's difficult. Too far gone are the days of Benjamin Cardozo and feeling alive and vibrant and virile when reading law made by the highest court in the land by life appointed lawmakers. Gone is the feeling of inspiration.
AaronHillelSwartz t1_ja2href wrote
Reply to Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
Waiting to see how these foreign rulings effect domestic policy on information oligopolies. Or rather, how the Supreme Court will tailor these decisions to also effect American expression.
They unfortunately aren't granting certiorari for any antitrust lawsuit giving consumers actual choices of the platforms they use.
I suppose if I were as old as the average SC Judge I wouldn't want to do too much heavy lifting either, considering giving the consumer true choice (which is the primary property of capitalistic frameworks), would be difficult considering there are also enormous intellectual property rights stifling competition.
The Court needs a way in to create more consumer choices in online platforms, but I doubt they are even looking, more likely actively not looking.
The incentives from a corporate and executive branch (and maybe even congressional branch) are strongly against true choice at this level of speech.
But this is concerning the First Amendment of the sacred Constitution, not the second, or the third, et cetra. And The Court speaks for the Constitution as established in Marbury v. Madison. Their primary axial directive is maintaining balance of powers, and then to maintain freedom of speech, on down the constitutional amendments (and in their totality).
So, even though it might not be in the interest of the Executive Branch and the corporatacracy of America - imo, it would be nice to be inspired again, to see The Court do it's duty, even if it's difficult. Too far gone are the days of Benjamin Cardozo and feeling alive and vibrant and virile when reading law made by the highest court in the land by life appointed lawmakers. Gone is the feeling of inspiration.