programmerpass
I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.
For example, an agency might self-resolve an ambiguous rule to say they can’t be fired or similar, which would directly conflict with what the Trump administration wants to do.
While it was overturned, perhaps there are fears of other loopholes that they see that can accomplish this beyond simple case law.
Currently those laws (which are technically called “rules”) are interpreted by the agencies themselves, with the reasoning being that the subject matter expertise of those agencies is the most important factor in deciding any dispute relating to any rule. The laws and judicial process works differently when it comes to agencies under the executive branch.
Having an external governing individual is better than self-governance in most systems, so this seems sensible given that those agencies have a history of interpreting rules in ways that are self-interested and clearly not to the spirit of the rules, which likely resulted in this Executive Order.
Does anyone know what the majority of the Executive Orders related to for the high-volume presidents and if those Executive Orders were eventually reversed or not? It’s a dense question though would be neat to know.
Not to mention that most of your sources to support your points are from far left MSM sources.
Your reasoning is exactly why there is so much support for Elon Musk. You probably made more Elon Musk fans just by your post.
Most people seem to believe the government is broken and MSM is a huge reason for this.
Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.
Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.
Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.
That seems to be the truth.
Source: https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of...
I’ve found 5-10 more similar sources via a quick google search.
While the law did not compel a business to report dei metrics to my knowledge (besides boards of public companies via the SEC), the impact of mass virtual signaling had the practical effect of compelling businesses of embracing dei or face being labeled as racists or immoral, which is a form of coercion by itself. I’d argue it would have been be better if such actions were simply deemed as illegal rather than racists or immoral. So with that said, I would argue the previous state of affairs was significantly worse with dei measures in place.
Putting the power back to the law rather than to a group of loosely collected virtual signalers is a better world imo.
So, it goes both ways, supposedly.
“The trial resulted in jurors finding that while Toptal did everything of significance it was required to do under its contract with Grosz, Grosz had breached the contract, harming Toptal.”
Source: https://www.law.com/2023/11/13/latham-nets-freelance-platfor...
Bloomberg also has an article stating that the jury evaluated fraud and breach against Toptal, which Grosz lost. If Toptal did “everything of significance” and was found not liable for fraud or breach, then the jury concluded that Toptal did not mislead him or do anything wrong.