3 ms·
Not sure about this one tbh. On the one hand this seems an awful lot like compelled speech, OTOH it doesn’t seem like the cable companies have a valid reason to
by 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
Not sure about this one tbh. On the one hand this seems an awful lot like compelled speech, OTOH it doesn’t seem like the cable companies have a valid reason to bar broadcasting ESN’s offerings. I’m not really sure what race has to do with it. The CEO happens to be black, sure, but I feel like some details are missing from this story.
- dvtrn 8y agoThey're literally in the article, quoted by the grandparent comment you're replying to. The trial will be to determine if these claims have any merit to them, details are in the article, I suspect more will come with the trial itself.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y agoAgain, I am not sure what race has to do with this at all. The CEO happens to be black and had a negative interaction with someone on Charter’s board. Oh well. There are many other cable companies and networks out there. That’s why there is something missing from this story. Why would this guy care so much that he was being barred? It’s like the gay wedding cake thing. The plaintiffs specifically found a baker who had strong religious beliefs.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Again, I am not sure what race has to do with this at all That's literally the entire point of a trial and presentation of evidence. The Charter/Comcast argument was “it doesn't matter if we were actually discriminating on the basis of race, because the First Amendment allows us to do so, so there's no need for a trial to determine if that's what we were doing (which we weren't.)” This decision simply says: “The First Amendment doesn't allow you to discriminate by race in the way alleged, so the question of whether you did or did not actually will need to be resolved in court.”