grindemup

You know that a building is not the same as clothing, right?

I can't really imagine a context except for this very common context which completely negates my point

Well said!

Right. In other words, we didn't evolve from chimps.

I looked up this mayor too. I can't find much criticism of the federal admins policies. What I do find is that she is an active supporter of Israel, she voted to invade Iraq, and she has been named as one of the US' most corrupt representatives.

So, maybe you can reflect a bit on why people aren't very ecstatic that a politician is a Democrat. As far as I'm concerned, she has aligned herself with the leopard-eating party by begging Canadians to be complicit instead of pushing back against the federal admin.

Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don't find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those "just taking orders" on behalf of the state or other organization.

So basically your point is that "I was following orders" is a valid moral defense? Cool, I'm not interested in that line of argument.

Thanks for the correction, you're right, although I would push back that readers wouldn't confuse this with a news article. It looks like a news article from a news organization to me, and since they apparently did change the title after all, I think they would effectively agree that it is still a news article even if you call it a "live blog".

You are quite clearly missing the point, I kindly suggest that you read the other comments more carefully.

Apologies for the bluntness but that is absolute nonsense. I just took a look at the article on my phone: ZERO clear indication that this is any sort of "liveblog" whatever that's supposed to mean. It's from a news organization, it's not clearly marked as an editorial, the url and menu clearly mark it as "news", and the screenshot literally says "this article".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-suspect-washington-utah

Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that's unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.

His overall point seems to be that, because intellectual property consists of several things with distinctions among them, the use of a categorical term is incorrect. This seems flawed, as all categories are defined as such. The only problem OP has here is a lack of familiarity with those individual components, i.e. to know that trade secret is different than copyright/trademark. I don't see how getting rid of the term IP would help to educate people on those differences.

Why is a news organization publishing things that look like news articles but which have none of the elements of rigour that is expected of news organizations? Seems like something we should firmly reject.