Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Facebook censorship.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OK Corgi Rancher" data-source="post: 3862125" data-attributes="member: 45773"><p>Maybe. But would you rather have a court decision affirming it's illegal or not? It's a step in the right direction. More likely it doesn't really mean much because it's a Circuit Court ruling. A SCOTUS ruling would carry more weight. But that will have to come later if they appeal. If they don't, it sets a precedent.</p><p></p><p>It's kind of like a restraining order. Sure, it doesn't stop the restrained party from actually doing anything. But it allows additional action to be taken if they do violate it. In this case it opens the door for them to be sued and when they get hit in the wallet they'll think twice, maybe.</p><p></p><p>There's no sense in trying to make perfect the enemy of good. It's an incremental step and I'm really pleased with the ruling and think it's a good thing. If you don't, that's your prerogative.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OK Corgi Rancher, post: 3862125, member: 45773"] Maybe. But would you rather have a court decision affirming it's illegal or not? It's a step in the right direction. More likely it doesn't really mean much because it's a Circuit Court ruling. A SCOTUS ruling would carry more weight. But that will have to come later if they appeal. If they don't, it sets a precedent. It's kind of like a restraining order. Sure, it doesn't stop the restrained party from actually doing anything. But it allows additional action to be taken if they do violate it. In this case it opens the door for them to be sued and when they get hit in the wallet they'll think twice, maybe. There's no sense in trying to make perfect the enemy of good. It's an incremental step and I'm really pleased with the ruling and think it's a good thing. If you don't, that's your prerogative. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Facebook censorship.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom