|
|
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) As I understand the suit, it was asserting that Nike was lying and thus the claim of "false advertising". Clearly this is central to the issue. If they are indeed stating a falsehood and not simply an opinion, then they should be slammed. If (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I think it could, in the same way 'class action' lawsuits work-- "Excuse me witness A--why did you stop buying ice cream?" "Why it causes cancer, of course!" "where did you hear that?" "From this website that explicitly said it (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Corporations often run self-serving ads. Mobil use to have a regular paid ad in the Los Angeles Times where it spun things to it's own advantage. I stopped going to Mobil stations because they got pretty thick for a while. And I think that is (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Ne. Hence the other post, which I would have foreshadowed if I'd had any planning. (...) And who doesn't advocate free pudding? Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well you shouldn't have snipped it without comment, then. Snipping stuff around here tends to mean you agree, ne? (not always but of course...) (...) Wouldn't that be a "greater advocate of free pudding"? (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) If I get pudding out of the deal, I'm with Larry. Canada has no 1st ammendment clause, iirc, but somehow my freedom of speech doesn't seem to be limited. Do we actually need a specific clause outlining the necessity of freedom of speech, or (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Wait a minute--show me where in the Constitution it is guaranteed that corporations have free speech. I'm not talking about some nebulous, fantasy market-of-ideas, but rather the actual Constitution, since that's what's being discussed in the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) I don't buy your application of free speech in that post, though. You might as well have said "I advocate a second helping of pudding for everyone, therefore I'm a greater advocate of free speech." Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Ahhh...hhh! NOOO...OOO! John, I like you, I really do. But as a President of the US? Ummmmmm, no. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Eeep!! Oh wait. All we like sheep... Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) "Your attention please: is there a "John Neal" in the NG?" You might have to adjust your thinking. I don't know about you, but I work for a living (self-employed), and so if I don't do anything, I don't make any money. I'd like to hang out (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Stangl, stop scaring the children. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Note that the cited article doesn't say what exactly the original suit is about, exactly. If Nike was lying about conditions in factories, there may well be grounds for a libel suit there if you can just find the party libeled. Or a fraudulent (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes: "...President John Neal..." Hmmm... JOHN (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) You know me, right? Therefore I am in the set of "anyone I know". And (the rest of) my post showed that I'm a bigger proponent of free speech than you are. QED. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Ah, but my scorn is targetted to a few specific people, not the whole population ;-) (...) No worries, really. As I'm sure you've seen me post before, I'd be much more fearful of President John Neal than President Frog ;-) -- Tom Stangl (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) How could anti-american agendas like the Patriot Acts I & II be anything but premeditated? I mean, really -- even McCarthyism was a planned thing -- it stank to high heaven but it was someone's specific agenda. Just like the Inquisition and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) ?? (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) First, I'd say there's a difference b/w a corporation and a gov't institution--separation of church and state is gov't, not corporation. Dubya 'talking God' is irrelevant. Dubya supporting keeping "Under God" in the PoA is wrong. I also thing (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well, maybe not. (...) They don't themselves have to be citizens for their actions to be protected. Engage in this thought experiment with me. Suppose I take out an ad in the paper that says "Hop Frog sometimes posts mean things in (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
