This sounds right to me. They may be tacky, and the food may not be good for you, but other than that it’s as good a social hub as anything that isn’t free, and it’s cheaper than coffeehouses.
I’m not a big James Patterson fan, but it’s hard not to admire his thirst for innovation.
Good news! Payday lenders will not be so easily thwarted by those laws.
I largely find myself in agreement with this. Which is why, while I’m not alarmed by Thiel’s involvement, I was alarmed by the outsized verdict that is causing Gawker’s bankrupcy.
Conor Sen reports that the US manufacturing renaissance, such as it was, is probably over.
If vapers can’t vape, at least half are worried about going back to smoking. The good news is that as long as they can vape…
I would bet you money that Kim Jong Un believes himself to be immune to lung cancer. I mean, what, would you tell him?!
For parties ostensibly on opposite sides, the parallels between the Republicans and Labour can be spooky sometimes.
Faster, please.
Laser Tag Island! Pretty cool concept.
Here’s a pretty cool calculator on whether it’s advantageous to rent or buy.
We must go to the moon Titan, so that we can extract its oil.
Here is definitely a place that solar power could come in especially handy: Remote cellular towers.
Ted Bromund looks at the history of the US-UK relationship.
How will international law influence a civil society in space? This space lawyer is so glad you asked.
About the Author
One Response to Linkluster Chemical Compounds in Cannabis
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
Well, I don’t know about bankruptcy, but certainly media companies should pay when they do wrong. As it currently exists, the western media* seems far too ready to wrong others in the pursuit of their goals without the added benefit of actually being an antidote to state propaganda.
The problem, as I see it, stems from conflating two different things. One is the republican notion of the press as the fourth estate. The second is the liberal notion of freedom of speech. The liberal notion of freedom of speech relies on an account of freedom as non-interference. This latter freedom is rightly limited when it interferes with others and harms them in impermissible ways (e.g. through libel/defamation and violation of privacy**). The republican ideal on the other hand conceives of the press as a determinate body. Not everybody is the press. Instead, there happens to be this special group of people who have more reach than others and therefore have particular responsibilities and with it, attendant privileges and immunities. It is here that worries about chilling effects have purchase. The special immunity and privilege of being a member of the press is that you get to do things that ordinary citizens cannot (violate privacy, property rights, destroy people’s reputations etc) but only if you use this power for good. Or at least, the assumption is that it will be a natural countervailing force against state domination. Unfortunately, this only worked in an era in which only some people got to be the press. When the distinction between the press and the general public broke down (as with the advent of social media) so did the classical republican model. As the verdict suggests, no one (except perhaps journalists and those who want to be them) wants a world in which just anyone gets to practise aggressive journalism.
Cloaking one’s gossiping and voyeuristic impulses in the mantle of public service allows you to get away with a heck of a lot. As you can tell, I would prefer that the press did not have special privileges and I think that the problems of chilling effects are overrated. But even so, the current result where big press organisations get more leeway than smaller ones is not too horrible an outcome. If we need some people to have the leeway to be assholes, better that only some people get to be assholes than everybody.
*Media outlets in Asian countries tend to be more blatantly organs of state propaganda.
**Exactly which violations of privacy are impermissible is not always easy to answer off the bat, but we can imagine some that are obviously so and some that are not. Or perhaps ostensibly private acts which violate others’ rights are not genuinely private.