|
To swing back on this, the reason the First Amendment is relevant is that the employer here (the university) is a state actor because it's a state university. You're right that normally the First Amendment does not apply to employers. It applies to prevent the government (the federal government, but through Fourteenth Amendment incorporation the state governments as well) from penalizing you for speech. So the government isn't supposed to put you in jail for calling Trump an orange cheeto. That doesn't stop your employer (Burger King) from firing you for saying dumb poo poo. But where your employer is part of the government (University of Chicago or whatever) then getting fired for calling Trump a cheeto is the government penalizing you for speech. However, because the government's interests and rights as an employer are different than its rights and interests as a government, and because you have ostensibly voluntarily given up some of your First Amendment rights in exchange for employment by the government, there are circumstances where the government can fire you for your speech. An easy example is when the speech is part of the job. So Trump could fire his press secretary for calling him a cheeto at a press briefing. This all gets murky and complicated when: (1) speech is not part of your employment; (2) the speech you're penalized for was made on your private time, not on the clock; and/or (3) you claim to have some degree of speech protection built into your job description or contract like, for instance, academic freedom. Classic examples of this murky area being murky are professors getting in trouble. Sometimes they get fired for saying dumb poo poo. Sometimes that's okay, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they get fired for putting out crappy articles, and claim it was because they said something the administration didn't like. Another classic example are police officers getting fired for off-duty statements. They'll say it was protected private speech. The police department will say it negatively impacts the department's image and affects its ability to protect the public by harming public trust in police officers and this officer in particular. Etc.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:In law, it can mean "theoretically debatable, but of no practical significance." Yeah, that's the meaning I'm thinking of. I can't see how if he's actually dead there's anything to debate, academic or not. Seemed the judge meant it to mean wholly irrelevant. I could be mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Yeah, that's the meaning I'm thinking of. I can't see how if he's actually dead there's anything to debate, academic or not. Seemed the judge meant it to mean wholly irrelevant. If the man is dead, you do not need to argue about releasing him from jail or entertain the silly "was he briefly dead earlier" argument That's the mootness
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Hypothetically speaking, say my birth name is Paul McCartney and I am a musician. To avoid confusion, I use the psuedonym "George Foreman", and post videos and sell music under that name. Could the real George Foreman have any claim against me for using his name in a field that has nothing to do with boxing or grills or any of his other professional interests?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Hypothetically speaking, say my birth name is Paul McCartney and I am a musician. To avoid confusion, I use the psuedonym "George Foreman", and post videos and sell music under that name. Could the real George Foreman have any claim against me for using his name in a field that has nothing to do with boxing or grills or any of his other professional interests? Right of publicity law is what you care about, and it says “maybe but it depends on what state you get sued in.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right of publicity law is what you care about, and it says “maybe but it depends on what state you get sued in.” What if you use the pseudonym "George Foreman but not in Kansas, Ohio or Texas" or "George 'void where prohibited' Foreman"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Iirc George foreman released music albums so .. Could be a fever dream
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Paul McCartney Lean Mean Fat-Reducing Grilling Machine
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iirc George foreman released music albums so .. I didn't know that. I just picked George Foreman because his name is a brand. Would it make any difference if it wasn't somebody famous? Let's say I picked Alan Picklesniffer as a psuedonym and it turns out there is a guy named Alan Picklesniffer halfway across the country that owns a string of car dealerships bearing his name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I didn't know that. I just picked George Foreman because his name is a brand. There have been a few cases where somebody incorporated a trademark into their stage name and got sued for trademark infringement, but I can't find cases where the suit was brought by an individual person over the use of their own name. I'm sure there are people named Sasha Grey who aren't thrilled about a porn star using their name as a stage name, but as far as I can tell none of them have successfully sued her over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
What's the point of an Alford Plea? It looks really bad, all the evidence would convince just about anyone, so I'm going to plead guilty but dammit I'm innocent and I want the record to show it. Is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:What's the point of an Alford Plea? It’s common in plea bargains. Like, I didn’t do this but I’m taking this deal because I don’t want to risk worse with a jury conviction and sentencing. It’s strategic, like settling a civil suit to avoid litigation costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
"I'm not guilty but I'm not stupid"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I didn't know that. I just picked George Foreman because his name is a brand. Yeah, the fame/distinctiveness of a name matters for right of publicity claims. (Also for any potential related claims on trade mark or trade dress.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:What's the point of an Alford Plea? Well you don’t want the record to show you admitted guilt but yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:What's the point of an Alford Plea? Avoiding the guilty admission can be a big deal for parallel civil litigation or like immigration consequences and whatnot but maybe you don't want to also have to go through a trial you know you will lose to get there
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It’s common in plea bargains. Like, I didn’t do this but I’m taking this deal because I don’t want to risk worse with a jury conviction and sentencing. It’s strategic, like settling a civil suit to avoid litigation costs. Fun(?) fact, this is impossible to do in Norway because criminal procedure forbids it. We don't really have plea bargains either, but the closest thing (summary verdict due to confession) you have to admit guilt to qualify or they run the whole trial. And I agree with that, plea bargains are bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
There's a weird dilemma (trilemma?) where it seems really good that people talking in a court room should be required to tell the truth, but then you run into "what do factually innocent people do if they are either sure to lose at trial or at least likely to get a worse sentence at trial", you can follow that up with "We've created a special plea where innocent people strategically choose to plea guilty, but insist on their innocence", which seems really bad in a system of justice or "innocent people are expected to lie to achieve better plea deals", which seems really bad in a system of justice, or "innocent people should spends $Texas money defending themselves in lost causes" which seems really bad in a system of justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 09:40
|
|
|
Over here an Alford Plea is being smart enough to plead guilty but dumb enough to not go for the extra sentencing discount for showing remorse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 11:14
|
|
|
Ok, so I asked my last question regarding Doogie Howser, QB to ask this follow up: what would workout rules look like for a minor? If college players get classified as employees or something similar, do the 17 year old freshman recruits have limited practice/game labor availability? How do soccer clubs overseas handle their teenage recruits in this regard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:There's a weird dilemma (trilemma?) The situations you're talking about are situations where the defendant thinks that there's enough evidence that they committed a crime that they'll be found guilty of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
If he's that good, the NFL just tell congress they need to be exempt from child labor laws to save football. The a bipartisan group gets it passed in record time because footbaw! The law might even be in place already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The situations you're talking about are situations where the defendant thinks that there's enough evidence that they committed a crime that they'll be found guilty of it. So Andy in Shawshank could/should? have made an Alford Plea if such a thing existed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
On professors and peotected speech, I should note that it appears white supremacist groups have exploited tenure by funding a racist through tenure, then having them take a right turn into Bell Curve land-sometimes into completely unrelated fields. It’s a problem in part with the scope of tenure protection being ambiguously broadened to cover wider areas over the decades. I’m looking into further details of the subject now.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:So Andy in Shawshank could/should? have made an Alford Plea if such a thing existed. Didn’t exist in 1947, when the story is set.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:Didn’t exist in 1947, when the story is set. gently caress this is like the ultimate pedantic response and I love it
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Not exactly legal, mostly just need reasonable person advice. I've reached out to my provider who owns the practice re: referral elsewhere or corrective action, but referral might not be practical/possible since she's one of few specialists in the area. My doctor's office biller/manager will not recognize me (competent adult) as my own guarantor instead of my spouse who is the primary insured (all in NE except that my spouse is FL resident). She says this is a software limitation of which I'm skeptical because I've also worked in healthcare 11 years and never run into this on either side. I guess I'm wondering if there's some obvious statute/policy (it's Tricare so sometimes the latter is in the former) I can point out to this person so she can accept reality, or I just have to wait for her to potentially gently caress up my and my spouse's life and deal with the fallout as it happens. My spouse holds a security clearance and I'm a full time student, so errors in credit reporting for him create a non-zero risk to my family's livelihood. This person didn't credit payment correctly, then sent a bill with a past due notice and 30 day deadline to send to collections. I received it 4 business days prior because she waited a week to post it to where I lived three addresses ago  , then waited an additional week after it was returned to have it delivered to me at my appointment (we're in regular phone contact  ). This was totally cool because she actually had no intent to send it to collections at 30 days. She literally shouted at me when I clarified that's what she was telling me and told her to send documentation.The guarantor thing is a big deal to me because if she fucks up my credit report, I have the inclination and ability to deal with it directly and the impact is limited. If she makes another mistake and sends something else to collections under my husband's name, it's much harder to fix with worse potential consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:The guarantor thing is a big deal to me because if she fucks up my credit report, I have the inclination and ability to deal with it directly and the impact is limited. If she makes another mistake and sends something else to collections under my husband's name, it's much harder to fix with worse potential consequences. Dunno about the rest of it but a mistake on someone else's part should have no negative impact on your husband's clearance, even if it goes to collections. He just needs to document it/keep records, and explain it during his reinvestigation. It's an annoyance, nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Tyro posted:Dunno about the rest of it but a mistake on someone else's part should have no negative impact on your husband's clearance, even if it goes to collections. He just needs to document it/keep records, and explain it during his reinvestigation. It's an annoyance, nothing else. That's good to know, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
People with full on bankruptcies can get clearances depending on the circumstances. Look at this trainwreck of family issues, failure to file tax returns, bankruptcy and more: https://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2019/18-02914.h1.pdf quote:Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by his 2015 Chapter 7 bankruptcy and his tax-related issues. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02914.h1
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
One key thing is to be transparent on the application. If you are honest you have a chance of passing, if you are not then you are hosed unless you have something like your last name being Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Munin posted:One key thing is to be transparent on the application. If you are honest you have a chance of passing, if you are not then you are hosed unless you have something like your last name being Trump. You know, that is a very unfair characterization. Your last name doesn't HAVE to be Trump. You could merely be loving someone whose last name is Trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Devor posted:People with full on bankruptcies can get clearances depending on the circumstances. Was going to post the clearance appeals site too. They're only looking for evidence that you can be blackmailed, a billing fuckup is unlikely to do that especially if you have evidence of savings etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Was going to post the clearance appeals site too. They're only looking for evidence that you can be blackmailed, a billing fuckup is unlikely to do that especially if you have evidence of savings etc That's a good point to make re vulnerability. I definitely read the clearance adjudications for fun, I'm just perhaps overly cautious when it comes to this stuff. Definitely wasn't improved by this person's lovely attitude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Um not to go all holy gently caress what is wrong with the US but is it seriously that unremarkable to have a guarantor on your file at the doctor's office?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Um not to go all holy gently caress what is wrong with the US but is it seriously that unremarkable to have a guarantor on your file at the doctor's office? When you see a new doctor in the US, they'll give you a pile of forms. One of them will say something to the effect of "I agree that I am responsible for paying any remaining balances that insurance or other third parties don't cover." If that form doesn't have somebody's signature and contact information on it, and it's not a life-threatening emergency, you don't get to see the doctor. If it is a life-threatening emergency, they'll try to make you sign it before you leave the hospital, and if you don't, they'll hold you financially responsible anyway. So, it's mandatory to have some kind of guarantor. For most adult patients, it'll be the patient themselves, but it's not out of the question that it would be someone else - kids are one obvious example, along with adults who aren't capable of handling their own finances because of disabilities, old age, or other situations. Any doctor's office should be able to handle all these situations, but it brings up another point. Most doctor's offices, especially specialists, are also tiny businesses with only one or two administrative staff, frequently without much education past high school. Sometimes that means that they can be flexible and understanding, but more often, it means that they gently caress up basic things because of their own biases, misunderstandings, and very limited training. Depending on BonerGhost's gender, there's probably either homophobia or "oh, little lady, don't you understand that you're your husband's property now, and he controls you and your money?" going on, along with plain old incompetence about how to use what's certain to be an overcomplicated and poorly designed practice management system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
It's a lot of this:Space Gopher posted:Most doctor's offices, especially specialists, are also tiny businesses with only one or two administrative staff, frequently without much education past high school. Sometimes that means that they can be flexible and understanding, but more often, it means that they gently caress up basic things because of their own biases, misunderstandings, and very limited training. with a not-insignificant helping of this: Space Gopher posted:"oh, little lady, don't you understand that you're your husband's property now, and he controls you and your money?" going on, along with plain old incompetence about how to use what's certain to be an overcomplicated and poorly designed practice management system. The military health system (at least where I am) is basically the platonic ideal of the convergence of incompetence and gender bias, but those smaller civilian practices sure vie for top spot. It never fails to infuriate me that to some people directly responsible for my medical care, my husband (whom I love very much but literally knows how to do nothing except his own laundry and analyze enemy radar signals) is assumed to be the decision maker and knowledgeable party in our household while I have worked in one technical/admin healthcare role or another since I was 16. But, you know, I must be a fuckin' idiot because I'm a woman who isn't even in the military. (I'm also the car guy and IT guy in our household so it's just fun all around).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Uh, it probably just means that your insurance is through your husband's employer. I am listed as guarantor on my wife's billing account at the doctor's office because the insurance lists my name as the responsible party for any costs not covered by insurance. Next year we are switching to her employer's plan because they just got a new plan under the same HMO that is better than mine. Once that happens, if the HMO updates their records, she will be my guarantor instead. Edit:got confused about which thread I was in and the context of the question. therobit fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
also the software industry, as it applies to medical practice, is a colossal shitshow and it is completely plausible that whatever applications some small practice is using are actually incapable of handling this correctly
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
therobit posted:Uh, it probably just means that your insurance is through your husband's employer. I am listed as guarantor on my wife's billing account at the doctor's office because the insurance lists my name as the responsible party for any costs not covered by insurance. Next year we are switching to her employer's plan because they just got a new plan under the same HMO that is better than mine. Once that happens, if the HMO updates their records, she will be my guarantor instead. In your case, it sounds like this is an agreement/term of your insurance that the primary subscriber is responsible for costs for all parties under your plan. This is not always the case, and in general, competent adults are their own guarantors regardless of who is the primary insurance subscriber or whether they're spouses. This is the guidance given by every provider I have ever worked for or received services from apart from this one, and all providers whose guidance I can find. I'm trying to convey that this isn't my personal opinion that I'm pulling out of my rear end here. Leperflesh posted:also the software industry, as it applies to medical practice, is a colossal shitshow and it is completely plausible that whatever applications some small practice is using are actually incapable of handling this correctly This is what I'm told is the case--while I'm skeptical that there is literally no workaround (she can edit invoices before they go out to correct the Payable To field, I think she could do the same when it comes to sending it to the right person)--I'm taking it at face value that's what's happening. However, I'm sure that even if someone uses lovely software that makes their job harder that doesn't give them the right to bill or threaten collection action on someone who isn't responsible for my bills; there's also a HIPAA consideration here because they don't have a current auth to release my treatment info to anyone but me (the bill is very specific). I don't believe that the subscriber's access to some of this info through our insurance gives a provider authorization to divulge it directly, but I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong. For several reasons which aren't worth getting into again, I don't believe it's a simple oversight. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 17:23
|
|