Incorrect. Censorship is censorship regardless of the acting entity. It is merely the case that only the government in the US is barred from performing censorship. For a private entity to censor content on their own platform is in fact protected in the same way the right to Free Speech is protected.

Amazon has every right to do so. But having a right to do a thing doesn't make it prevent someone else from looking at that and finding fault.

Private property rights are not absolute, especially where commerce is concerned. Corporations are a net evil divorcing responsibility from profit as it is, without further defining their operating parameters. Logically in order to justify the existence of corporations one must by definition apply limits and/or responsibilities to them which may exceed those of the private natural person. No one is forced to engage in the specific economic activities cited, hence imposing responsibilities on said individuals is merely the price of admission to the activities in question.

Corporations are accepted as a necessary evil because they enable economic growth and promote commerce, in order to facilitate the improved capacity of society. While I'm guessing there's a libertarian philosophy at play here, it is important to recognize several things which have changed radically since the inception of libertarian ideals. Chief among these would be the ability to concentrate wealth using information technology to analyze and manipulate free markets by individuals who have already amassed great wealth. Corporations have an even greater capacity in this regard.

When one gets into the realm of IT, the extension of the employer into the private life of the employee needs boundaries. It is already the case that the barrier to entry into most business models is nearly unattainable to the common person. Now, do I think it wise to do personal business on a computer I do not own? No. But it is the antithesis of libertarianism to impose a value system on others (especially by violence) where human life is not directly threatened.

There's a difference between opposing a legitimate project and imposing sanctions. On its own, the pipeline is fine.

That Romney was proven correct that Russia was the #1 geopolitical foe wasn't exactly clear in 2012. This is literally 10 years later, something to consider. No one has ever really trusted Russia under his rule, but this is several steps more involved. Romney was looking at Russia generally siding with whoever was most evil, but the problem was that Russia also had arguable national interest in different outcomes. Romney's an intelligent, thoughtful man. However, he failed to properly communicate his reasoning, and he failed to convince enough people he was right for the moment. Maybe he could have changed this, maybe not.

To anyone comparing this to Afghanistan, or suggesting that Ukrainians can just resist until Russia gives up: Putin won't allow it. Literally the only way this ends on a more positive note is if the sanctions hurt Putin's supporters enough that they depose him. I suggest that we all buckle up. This is going to take a while.

No. Congress passed a law giving states the right to overrule this, at least within their own borders. Federal decriminalization is coming relatively soon. Figure in most states at least, we're looking at eventually a similar regulatory structure as what is seen with alcohol.

Well, my first thought would be at least a few of the other justices. Thomas subscribes to a pretty narrow ideology, and I've always found that a bit distressing. As an adjudicator, he has impressive intellectual grasp of topics, and is easily among the more intelligent of the Justices, but his buy-in on specific viewpoints to a number of hot-button topics has always bothered me. On the one hand, I admire that he's willing to rule against his own best interests, but the part that bothers me has always been it is in support of beliefs not generally supported by history over and above his job to be neutral walking into a case.

I really feel they need to impose the same ethical standards on SCOTUS that the other courts are subject to.

Sigh...

It's that they don't notice any effects from the active infection. Technically just having antibodies to the virus without a vaccine is a symptom.

People have heart attacks without symptoms, but can still end up needing a transplant. Jeez...

It's only asymptotic until it's not. And I'm not being pedantic. A lot of this is speculative, but the potential brought in between quantum computing, light-based circuitry, and improving computer code lends to the idea that some breakthroughs are still coming. What if (big if) AI finds a way to make the Alcubierre drive a reality for energy less than or equal to a small fission reactor? Or if a cryosleep method becomes plausible? Might never happen, but we never accomplished anything new by saying it was impossible. Hell, as long as a solution is consistent with the 2nd Law, nothing is impossible

So, no. Not always. In general, the US will not extradite someone for speech crimes. At all. Ever. Our 1st Amendment is as close to sacrosanct as any part of our legal code has ever been. It has caused us a world of problems, but it has also protected us from more. Is it possible to regulate speech without corruption? Probably. But is it probable to do so without corruption? Long term almost definitely not.

The Bill of Rights, flawed as it may be, is our last line of defense against utter tyranny. Given how it has been chipped away at, I fear for our future. And as a result, I fear for the world at large. I feel we're more trustworthy than China, but that's subjective. We've burned a lot of allies.

But speech laws, simple religious membership, etc. we won't extradite. Though apparently now we will refuse immigration. So that's a problem.

That's not Trudeau's fault. The laws there are almost as lax as the laws in the US for property purchase. China's been throwing a lot more money around. You'd need to change your laws to curtail it, just like we would. It was never soft power holding China in check, it was their lack of funds. That has now changed, and they're using it to the fullest.

I mean... I can see it, but also no. The way our political system works, different geographic areas tend to have a different amount of weight per vote. So American conservatives have more power per vote than American liberals (most of which would also be known in most of the world as moderate conservatives). The man lost the popular vote. Don't get me wrong, we're several levels of insane here, but I've learned from various foreign friends that it's mostly the brand of insanity, not the degree, which varies most.

Oh, I very much doubt it's lost on him. Every fiber of his being is dedicated to aggrandizing himself at the expense of every other person he needs to bulldoze.

You'd think, but no. Simple enrollment often requires proof of residency. And the requirements for financial aid are pretty stringent: No drug-related anything on your legal record or lose financial aid. So, for most students, the requirements are WAY higher in some regards. Also, in many states, possession of a long-arm firearm requires no licensing or permitting. Literally, you just go get the license. You are applying common sense, which apparently doesn't actually gain any real world purchase.

Even then, excluding libel or slander, they still face essentially no potential for consequence. Excluding, of course, potential loss of revenue due to subscriber or advertiser backlash.

So, if a newspaper published flat-earther or anti-vax (plague enthusiast) content, they ARE fully protected. Couldn't touch them. Unless they directly impugn a person or company with reckless disregard and/or falsifiable AND malicious intent, they are more or less utterly immune. It would be their subscribers and/or advertisers they would answer to, and no one else.

This notion that a State doing a thing which is wrong being shocked by being forced to stop... How messed up is it that this is considered by any judge a valid reason to lay aside the restrictions of The Constitution on State or Federal power? The mere notion a decision to do the right thing might be disruptive to people in power is not a consideration the courts should ever weigh. Maybe in very near-to-edge cases, but that's it.