The platforms don't have to abide by it, but the feds they want to talk to are afraid to take their call, so the conversation doesn't happen.
In the brief we have a section addressing that all a government official needs to do to get platforms to do something is ask for the opposite.
As the letter points out, the efforts to take out Facebook will take out every media business, online and off.
I'm what? There is always tension between the First Amendment right of association and anti-discrimination law. That it has at times been decided in favor of the latter does not mean that it has been decided that the latter trumps the right of free expression. And, as noted, 303 Creative reminds us that it doesn't.
The case is basically a troll, to find grounds to take out Facebook. Even if the appeals court decision holds she's still not likely to win, because she wasn't actually harmed. She's upset that she didn't know about the promotion to be able to go learn more about what else the company offered, but she obviously did know that the company was around offering insurance, and she was in no way kept from their website or any other means of contacting them to see what policies they were offering. In other words, if the decision is upheld she'll still lose, but now so will everyone else.
It's called the First Amendment, and the Unruh Act doesn't get to trump it.
Sure, Facebook generally can do it better, but every media company has long tried. This isn't something new. And it has always been legal.
You aren't suggesting that I don't care, right? Because I cared when the first cameras came to the wealthiest enclaves. And I care just as much when they are coming to Marin City, which is anything but.
Equity wasn't my argument, per se. It was the only pushback the proposal even attempted to address. My point was that it ignored every other consideration, and thus that we are all screwed.
Yes, it does. It's just that we've decided that there are countervailing reasons that make it something we'll tolerate.
That's not right. The First Amendment is relevant because mandatory intermediation of communication would normally implicate First Amendment interests. It's just that in these instances we find that it doesn't prevent NN regulation. But you can't just jump ahead to "oh it doesn't apply to these services" because there are reasons why it doesn't apply, legally, that you can't ignore, since without all those legal conditions being in place, it would apply. (For instance, there's a reason why the First Amendment would reach Facebook but not the phone company. But if the world looked a little different, and Facebook were truly a monopoly or the phone company less of one, then the 1A analysis could be different.)
The 10th Circuit found standing too... and then used it to rule against her. The only thing SCOTUS did was reverse on the merits.
It's funny how you think insulting me somehow proves me wrong. I stand by what I said; it is your analysis (and apparently that of whoever Unikowsky is) that is misplaced. No one ever needed to approach the web designer for the state's threat to be enough for standing. Colorado, or the courts themselves, may have a genuine concern about the litigants' behavior. And perhaps some sanction might be imposed. But Colorado will be hard pressed to argue that the lie somehow induced a concession it would not otherwise have made. The law was designed to prevent the discrimination the web designer wanted to engage in to refuse to make a website for a gay wedding. And the state was open about its desire to enforce its laws in the situations they were intended for, as it could reasonably be expected to be. And that threat is all that was necessary for the courts to find standing, whether that situation had actually arisen already or not.
You are correct in that net neutrality would need to survive strict scrutiny to not be found to violate the First Amendment. The issue there, however, is that it probably could. But the government action here, to prohibit the web designer's refusal, could not survive strict scrutiny. They aren't quite comparable situations, which is why the scrutiny analysis would likely resolve differently, but you are right that they both implicate free expression and thus would need to be subject to it.
He's not harassing anyone. He's right.
You're right; I've only been coding websites since at least 1995 and had a multi-year career as a professional web developer before I became a lawyer. So what would I know...
No, because the standing hinged entirely on Colorado admitting that it planned to go after her should she turn down such business. Standing was based entirely on that threat, not on that business actually having materialized (or not).
What you are describing is the way impact litigation works, and the left does impact litigation too. I even cited an example case in particular! Which you might have noticed if you actually read the post, rather then spent your time making up lies about me.
It actually seems like you who's ok with lies as you sit there and lie about me.
Er, the Constitution says that this injunction is itself unlawful, yet here we are... You cannot easily advise agency officials to just ignore its prohibition and chat away freely. Unconstitutional or not, they have to let it shape their behavior.