Not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled that general hateful statements can be protected, but if a politician says "Democrats/Republicans should be exterminated" in a way that sounds like a real threat or call to action, it can become incitement or a true threat. So the line isn't about the words alone, it's about context and intent.
The standard as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio is "imminent lawless action". You're correct that context matters; the speech must be tied to an imminent violation of law. This is a very high bar and in practice is very hard to reach.
Yes the US laws aren't prosecuting speech in isolation, it's always involves some sort of IRL plan to do something illegal. Just like criminal conspiracy laws, they aren't just about telling someone you plan to commit a crime but actually taking earnest steps towards a crime with another party.
If police have QI to stop your speech with impunity, and actually do so, that is just regulating that speech with extra steps.
>The case you cite doesn't appear to make your point.
It does if you go on and read the judgement, which cites that that it is reasonable to initiate a stop for obscenity, which was part of the reasoning used to grant QI.
I think this is beside their point. Police are practically given qualified immunity by default; the case isn't strictly "lost" at this stage, it's lost if that decision is appealed and upheld until the victim is out of appeal options.
To your point, the summary judgement is still a clear injustice and it does practically give police the ability to stop speech whenever they want. But there's an element of random punishment if the person they stop has the resources to appeal the first decision. I'd be surprised if that appeal would be lost in this case given the main problem was the content of the expression; that's a pretty cut-and-dry 1a violation.
(It's a separate issue but there's another problem with the cases in which the officer loses qualified immunity in that the city they work in (tax payers) will pay the damages to shield them from consequences. I forget the legal mechanism but it pretty much always happens.)
"I don't think the company[1] is corrupt. The company's job is to advocate for its shareholders. The legislators' job is to say "no, you're asking for too much"."
[1] take your pick of Comcast, Boeing, or United Health
You're right. The real problem is that the MTA union is a big voting and donation bloc that selects the people they negotiate against. The real solution is to do away with the MTA union. An organization founded on corruption doing its intended purpose isn't any less corrupt.
> Other countries' unions are much more open minded about automation.
Other countries have social services outside of "fuck you, go die".
The US sucks major ass to be a working person, period. Your job is everything. If you lose your job, you can lose it all. Most people are one or two bad weeks away from being homeless here.
Yes, the stakes are higher. My job isn't just a job - it's my health insurance, it's the roof over my head, it's the food on my table, it's my reputation.
Want people to be less hostile to automation? Great, start by making automation less hostile to them. When automation threatens your actual life, people are going to oppose it. At the end of the day, we're animals. When a Gazelle sees a Lion, they run.
The New York State welfare system is better than the US average by a lot, actually. The problem is overcomplexity (e.g
means testing) makes it scary to rely on, and general shit American efficiency means outcomes per dollar are not as good as Europe.
The "machine" politicians who these less-than-enligtened unions tend to support are actually more to the right (of the Democratic party) and less interested in expanding the welfare state. In fact, there have been times the unions are explicitly against more benefits to the general public because they feel they weaken union contracts in comparison (stuff that only they got before now everyone gets).
I wish I was kidding with these things...
European style sectoral bargaining is much better, and makes for much more enlightened unions. Hopefully we get it in the US, there are some positive signs it might be possible.
There are other precautions: the job application has to be mailed to a physical address and can easily get "lost", the requirements for the position are numerous and peculiar (the #1 in the old times used to be fluency in a foreign language, but DOL/USCIS eventually got tired of that one, still, since the requirements are for a particular person, it can be any random mix of skills, all of which are hard requirements), and the interview process itself is not designed to pass anyone as the person, on whose behalf the PERM is being filed, won't be interviewing. One would be spending time much more productively applying to real vacancies. The only winning play here is to go through the process and sue the company to get some pain and suffering judgment, which I have not heard being successfully done (but I don't really follow this closely so I could be just ignorant).
No expert on this, but in my estimation the nature of the law and process makes it hard to sue unless you're a one-to-one match with the job posting or invented part of the tech stack being used. Companies across various industries pass up on qualified people every day.
Maybe he should, Meta's main product has peaked in their biggest markets, and his last massive bet went nowhere. He may not be the right person to lead the company at this point.
