We need to push back on this nonsense in journalism in which journalists don't include a link to the opinion when writing an article describing that opinion.
There is not enough information included in the article to meaningfully comment on the situation.
Nichols says while emergency economic powers of the president (IEEPA) give Trump broad latitude on national security, TikTok falls under an exemption for "informational materials," like a news wire and "personal communication"
Maybe not in this specific instance, but the times I have tracked down original sources they often disagree with the way the journalists have framed things. They know most people won't bother to do any original research or even read past the headline in a lot of cases. It's easier to tell people what to think than give them the facts and let them reach their own conclusion.
Ars Technica is generally pretty good about linking to the actual rulings. For this particular matter, they summarized the ruling but didn't link to it unfortunately [0].
Amen. It's very frustrating when you're skeptical of a news item and it's essentially impossible to find the original source as it is not linked and apparently impossible to find with the information given. It doesn't stop the item from trending on social media if it sounds good though.
That's an interesting observation... it's true I don't check the news I find plausible as much as the news I am already sceptical about, while I mostly become sceptical about the news items not because of the reporting/writing itself, but because of the alleged facts not matching my expectations / biases.
It's a messy problem, as checking news items takes a lot of effort and it's just impossible to deal with the news volume nowadays. Ideally I'd love to see some cooperative effort to check news items by many people with different ideologies/biases, but I think there's currently not enough manpower for that and it's also very easy to end with a biased set of checkers.
The Verge backed it up in their article. It’s unclear who’s in the (virtual?) courtroom or how they sourced this info, but it kind of makes sense. Courts aren’t well-known for publishing courtroom activities in real-time and online (Zoom) trials that result in the death penalty are getting extra attention even as other cases (Assange) apparently suffered from a lack of press coverage or public attendance. Hard to say what the right answer is here, but I agree that a small (as short as necessary) press release from a courtroom website would be appreciated for any decision. In this case though, it’s hard to say a decision either way isn’t political, seems to me that would be why it’s still under seal?
The sad truth is that the United States has a severe access to justice problem. Most people don't know which regulator to contact, and the process requires a certain amount of time, effort, and knowledge that's out of reach of most people.
Time+effort = money. Knowledge = lawyers = also money.
The US system is based on the notion that anyone worth listening too will have ready access to lawyers. Those who cannot afford lawyers have little voice. "Let the courts handle" means "rich people only".
I went to a well funded school in a highly educated district with a constituency that consistently voted for every bill to raise funding for public schools. We had a single required credit for civics. That’s barely enough time to brush the surface of the four levels of independent government we had.
Opportunity cost was the driving factor. Much of the constituency voiced a desire for more courses in STEM or arts, not civics.
That makes sense. I can see the push for more/better STEM education, and the arts are always battling for funding as one of the first things cut on tight budgets.
I would hazard a guess that the children that attended your well-funded school have managed to assimilate an above-average amount of practical civics knowledge, in spite of minimal coverage in school, perhaps thanks to their families and social network generally. Public education in affluent districts seems to act as more of a starting point than the whole thing.
I think a lot of poorer people don't have the outside support to succeed to the same extent when there are gaps in their official curriculum. The demands on the districts they attend are greater, with a smaller tax base.
Some folks see expansion of schools power and budgets as ideologically wrong, or just oppose the taxes. Others dispute the material taught. Either way, persistent outside pressures toward austerity (along with testing performance mandates and some other issues) have helped keep our baseline education from being adequate for everyone's needs, or from achieving a standard that compares very well internationally.
Most of the referendums I am referencing were bonds for narrowly defined capital projects... not frivolous raises for themselves, if that's what you're insinuating. It was a well run district.
Just playing West Wing every time would likely be a massive improvement over the current civics classes.
The focus is very much on largely irrelevant facts from the 18th and 19th century and not on modern civics. Students understanding don’t care as a result.
If the bar were applied evenly, it would at least be worth a discussion. As it stands, it's as easy as Postmates for the rich, a huge struggle for the middle class, and effectively impossible for the poor.
I have no idea. I was not contacted by anyone. This email is an email Tim Cook forwarded to the executive team. So my guess is when doing discovery for this case, they got to look at Tim Cook emails regarding the App Store and this one came up. Again, this is an email that Tim Cook read and forwarded - it did not come from me providing it to anyone
How sad is it that in order to build and run a Trillion dollar company on values like trust and joy you need to dissect human emotion so fundamentally that in the end you loose your own capability to empathize.
Thank you for telling your story to the man up in the ivory tower in such a beautiful way. It may not haven been listened to there, but it certainly has impacted me.
Friend mine works as a legal at secretary white shoe law firm. Not what it sounds like. His job is using software to grind through corporate records and communications. Big part of that is finding interesting documents and teasing out the back channels inside the company. The better to find people to depose. That they found that email isn't a surprise. In a lawsuit between to companies someone that wrote an email like yours would be someone you absolutely want to talk to.
This isn't about whether or not they get arrested. This is about certain ground rules and principles that the government must always uphold, even against unprincipled opponents.
Federal law enforcement officers, dressed in camo gear and without any identifying insignia, arresting and covering the faces of alleged rioters and stuffing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them God-knows-where is absolutely unacceptable.
These principles are what separates the government from the rioters. How are you going to hold the government accountable when you don't even know which government agency a certain police officer belongs to?
The uniforms in the videos clearly say "POLICE" on them. According to the people released, they were read their Miranda rights - and who cares that they are dressed in camo and using unmarked cars?
As long as the suspect is put before a judge, I don't see the issue.
A tiny amount of "police" text isn't worth much of anything. There is absolutely no defensible reason to hide the agency patch and badge number of every individual officer on the ground. There is absolutely no defensible reason to tie beanbags around the faces of arrestees. There is absolutely no defensible reason for the police to put arrestees into unmarked vehicles.
There is no way of ascertaining exactly who these federal agents are. This precludes court redress and is unacceptable.
I mean, they do seem to be sworn law enforcement, I just wonder if they are operating under any sort of valid remit that would make it reasonable to call them police.
And it will be interesting to see if it will be put on the agenda by Chairman Nadler. But Pelosi's omnibus bill has a far weaker proposal in that it only eliminates QI for police officers.
This reminds me of the time when a Pennsylvania District Attorney argued before the State Supreme Court that opening the settings app didn't qualify as a search because it's not an app like the messages app.
Numerous employees take the stance that violence is acceptable, as long as it's directed towards hateful people. Numerous employees vowing to shun, ridicule and ignore anyone who remotely suggests support or agreement with any part of the memo. Numerous employees taking the stance that dissent is a violent act for which violence must be returned. Shamelessly of all, a senior Site Reliability Engineer vows to "keep hounding Damore" until one of them is fired.
This is not acceptable behavior for a group of people that are ostensibly at the top of their field. They are not faultless. They share, at minimum, some of the blame.
Of course, if you meant your statement to be hyperbolic, then you are being flippant, and needlessly so.
There is not enough information included in the article to meaningfully comment on the situation.
Edit: here is the order, which is very short: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/...
The opinion is under seal, and the parties have been directed to raise objections to unsealing it, if they wish.