To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In a joint press release, the FTC and Antitrust Division announced they are launching a review of the Merger Guidelines so the agencies review mergers with the skepticism the law demands in order to determine if they are too permissive. Richard Powers, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust is a criminal lawyer by background and has no significant merger experience so it s fair to assume this initiative is being promoted by FTC Chair Lina Khan.
Merger Guidelines are often cited by courts for their persuasive authority but do not carry the force of law. They are influential because they reflect a fair view of current economic learning, reduced to an administrable set of principles to guide agency merger staffs and businesses alike. The current horizontal merger guidelines were published in 2010 so perhaps it is time for an update. What we see in the press release, however, is a strong signal that the agenc
This Is the Reform the Left Is Eying To End Our System of Checks and Balances
nysun.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from nysun.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
9 Jul 2021
Former President Donald Trump has sued Twitter, Facebook, and Google for blacklisting him from their platforms on the grounds that their censorship violates the First Amendment.
At first glance, that seems like a stretch. The First Amendment protects people from actions by the federal and state governments, not private actors. It begins with the phrase, “Congress shall make no law” and then sets out what Congress cannot do: declare an official religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech or press, or curtail the rights to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Former President Donald Trumpâs lawsuits against Twitter, Google and Facebook for kicking him off their platforms are sure losers, legally speaking. The First Amendment protects people against state action, and tech companies arenât state actors.
Yet Trumpâs main argument to the contrary â that congressional Democrats coerced the platforms into cutting him off by threatening to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act â deserves close scrutiny. Wittingly or not, it sheds light on how Trump tried to push around the platforms during his presidency, and arguably succeeded until the Capitol attack of Jan. 6.
Iâll focus on the Twitter case, because Twitter was Trumpâs preferred communication outlet. (Disclosure: I have advised Facebook on ethical-governance and free-expression issues since 2018.)
Noah Feldman
In a sign of hard times for traditional free speech values, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has added his voice to that of Justice Clarence Thomas in calling for a re-examination of the landmark 1964 precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan â the case that makes it extremely difficult for public figures to win libel suits.
Thomasâ view, first expressed in 2019, was that the press protections established by Sullivan violated the original intent of the First Amendment. It was inconsistent with his own free speech jurisprudence and was therefore unlikely to garner support from other justices.
Gorsuchâs opinion last week, in contrast, focused on the up-to-the-minute problem of misinformation in the age of social media. Gorsuchâs concerns arenât trivial or ideological. He quoted a 28-year-old old essay in support of them written by his Supreme Court colleague Elena Kagan when she was a law professor. Gorsuchâs opinion raises
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.