Quote:You are absolutely correct in that it is one of the rare occasions where I agree with the ALCU.
The thing that I find interesting is that this bill was overlooked by the press. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people reading this thread had no idea that this was being proposed. I didn't know it until I read Ted Cruz's book, A Time for Truth and actually did some research myself (his book does have footnotes citing sources). This is the same book that the New York Times wanted to keep off of their best sellers list.
I think the Times' reason is sound. They want authentic best sellers on their best seller list. If the sales to date are mainly bulk sales to just a few entities, that seems like kind of a bogus way to create a "best seller."
From your link:
"In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,"
Quote:I think the Times' reason is sound. They want authentic best sellers on their best seller list. If the sales to date are mainly bulk sales to just a few entities, that seems like kind of a bogus way to create a "best seller."
From your link:
"In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,"
I heard on the radio the bulk sales where purchased prior to publishing which means they wouldn't be used in the total sales since it was prior to publishing.
Does anyone actually read any of these tomes from politicians (which were no doubt written by someone else any way)?
There are only so many hours in a lifetime. Why would someone read a lengthy campaign advertisement?
Quote:Does anyone actually read any of these tomes from politicians (which were no doubt written by someone else any way)?
There are only so many hours in a lifetime. Why would someone read a lengthy campaign advertisement?
I read Dreams of My Father by Obama, because someone loaned it to me. It was very boring.
Quote:I think the Times' reason is sound. They want authentic best sellers on their best seller list. If the sales to date are mainly bulk sales to just a few entities, that seems like kind of a bogus way to create a "best seller."
From your link:
"In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases,"
Not really. I just posted the original link to the story. Since then the
claims by the New York Times have been proven wrong by the publisher, Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Quote:Does anyone actually read any of these tomes from politicians (which were no doubt written by someone else any way)?
There are only so many hours in a lifetime. Why would someone read a lengthy campaign advertisement?
Actually, I enjoy reading biographies and autobiographies. Also, I don't doubt that they have help in writing these books, but the content is pretty genuine.
Quote:I read Dreams of My Father by Obama, because someone loaned it to me. It was very boring.
Well, Bill Ayers never was much of a writer.
Quote:Not really. I just posted the original link to the story. Since then the claims by the New York Times have been proven wrong by the publisher, Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Nothing was proven, it was disputed. A dispute is not proof. Anyway, the N.Y. Times included the book on their best seller list based on individual sales after the second week.
Quote:Nothing was proven, it was disputed. A dispute is not proof. Anyway, the N.Y. Times included the book on their best seller list based on individual sales after the second week.
Either way, one side of the dispute cites two major retailers and the publisher's data disputing the claim by the New York Times that there was "overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases." I wonder there the Times is getting their "overwhelming preponderance of evidence that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases"?
The country does not have Freedom of Speech.
Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not. Governmental and other compulsory organizations often have policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example, speech codes at state schools.
In fact I can argue that you do not have any freedoms anywhere in the world unless you are the leader / dictator of that country.