A conf call! Fascinating.

.com has a price cap fixed by ICANN. Verisign always asks for it to be lifted but ICANN hasn't allowed it for the original generics -- precisely because of the size of their established base and different economics and expectations. Lifting the cap on .org with deceptive arguments (first removing caps for new gTLDs, saying that would not apply to old ones, then lifting it on .info and .biz -- and throwing on .org to that discussion at the last minute!) Is the first step towards lifting the cap on all names, including .com. expect that the next time the Verisign contract is up, in 4y I believe.

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.

CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).

Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.

Orbiting the shark at 1/3 the speed of light.

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

I can imagine a manufacturer sending you a notice of a recall in the mail. In the same envelope, they include an explanation that you could get this update over the air with no effort in $(nearby_state), and include a business-reply-mail envelope with a form letter addressed to your state congressmen: "Dear Rep. Bork. I just went ___ miles out of my way and spent an extra ___ hour(s) getting a software update at a dealership instead of wirelessly. Please change this law."

we literally fought a war over whether it was OK to be a Nazi, and it isn't.

Please. World War II was a war over whether it was okay for the Axis powers to usurp the government, territories, and citizens' lives of various sovereign nations in Europe, Asia and the Pacific. It was a counter-conquest war, not a war waged against an ideology in the abstract. You'll further notice that there was no substantial Allied campaign to ruin the lives of conquered persons in Germany who had been associated with the Nazi party, merely against those who were associated with war crimes. Nuremburg convicted people who organised and implemented the system of mass murder, not the petty propagandists who said being white was bestest.

If you want a war on an ideology, I've got a War on Terror to sell you.

Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty. It's that old "first they came for the (x)" story, except this time they came for the Nazis, and it's all that more seductive because the Nazis deserve it.

On its face this warrant seems overly broad.

Well, yes, but this is perfectly normal - like oh-so-much else that is wrong with this administration.

There are men who have been not just in prison, but in solitary confinement, for decades. There's a citizen who have been detained by ICE, imprisoned for three years without a lawyer, won $80k in damages, and just had the award thrown out on appeal because the statute of limitations on the "false imprisonment" charge expired while he was imprisoned. Last year there was a man in Florida locked in a shower with the hot water running until he died.

All of this is normal. All of this predates Trump. I mean, it's great that you're paying attention now, and all, but do try to look beyond Mr. Trump, beyond the outrage du jour, and even beyond the groups who will call you racist if you should question their demands for reparations.

Proving it's true would not put a full stop to the suit; it would be a thing that you prove in the suit itself. This is expensive because it means you're paying lawyers lots of money. The thing that's supposed to put a full stop to the suit is an anti-SLAPP motion, because this appears to be a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation; among other things, this typically stays all discovery, saving much expense,

Unfortunately I'm not up to speed on California-specific anti-SLAPP statutes.

They gave you: Weekends off, eight hour work day, Holidays off. And a safer workplace.

See, now, take this pro-union propaganda with a grain of salt. There were a lots of factors that led to a shorter American work week, and while unions were in fact one force, another major factor was that labor market conditions were much tighter. Manufacturing was expanding. Immigration was falling. Technological changes improved worker productivity. There were gross population shifts from rural areas to urban areas. There was plenty of government intervention into the labor market as well. All of these factors contributed to shorter work weeks too.

Unions in the abstract made a material contribution, and can be recognized as such, and lauded, but the usual case like we see here, you are told "without unions no weekends", and that's just ill-informed propaganda.

Jewish Law? Begins in Exodus. More in Leviticus. Ongoing tradition of interpretation through your local rabbi.

Christian law? Begins with acknowledgement of Jewish law and extracts the Great Commandment (Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind) and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. From there has always been a diversity of practice in interpretation by various Christian religious communities, Christian religious leaders, and Christian rulers (where you will find it blended with civil law).

If you want something specific the best bet for codified Christian law is probably the Code of Canon Law -- perhaps starting with The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful.

If you want to talk about how a particular United States midwestern Protestant group with a sola scriptura mindset goes about it, that's another matter, and a bit harder.