Supreme Court

Pricing Laws Violate Free Speech

What the Supreme Court needs to understand.

|

The comedian Gallagher once joked that customers don't like to hear they're being charged more for using credit cards—they'd rather hear they're getting a "discount for cash." But in New York and some other states, it's not just what customers want to hear. Telling customers there's a surcharge to pay by credit card can actually land business owners in jail. Yet it's perfectly legal to tell them something costs less if they pay cash.

That, at least, is how New York officials enforced the law, which—read literally—actually only prohibits shopkeepers from charging customers different prices depending on how they pay. Passed in the 1980s, the law is supposedly intended to protect consumers from hidden fees. But business owners must pay processing fees that don't apply to cash transactions. Charging customers to pay that fee makes perfect sense. That's why New York officials didn't punish businesses that said they were giving cash customers a discount.

Yet that also means the state was violating the free speech rights of businesses who used the word "surcharge"—which, after all, is the truth. Business owners therefore sued on First Amendment grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case last week. The Court has made clear that government can't punish people simply because they express themselves in one way or another. Laws must limit actions, not words.

Yet the law's actual language makes no reference to speech. It just says, "No seller…may impose a surcharge on a [customer] who elects to use a credit card." As Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out at the January 10 hearing, that language doesn't seem like a limit on free speech—it's just a kind of price control. How, he asked, could the law violate the First Amendment if it only limits what store owners do, not what they say?

Business lawyers answered that however the law may read, it's only enforced when shopkeepers call the price difference a "surcharge," rather than a "discount." But there's a deeper sense in which the New York law violates the Constitution: all price restrictions are limits on free speech.

That's because prices are just a way of conveying information. For any product or service on the market, the price is simply a number that represents what the owner is willing to trade for. That number is based on many different factors—how much flour goes into a cake, how much labor goes into a car, how much research goes into a new medical treatment—but ultimately all a price does is convey information about the scarcity of the ingredients that go into that product, and how what other people are willing to give in exchange for that product. As economist Thomas Sowell has put it, "prices are like messengers conveying news."

Laws that ban companies from charging what they want don't make products or services cheaper, any more than the government can simply declare that cakes can be baked without flour or cars made without labor. All that price controls do is ban companies from telling people what the products and services are actually worth. Such laws, writes Sowell, "[do] not change the underlying scarcity in the slightest." Price control laws are like painting over the numbers on your speedometer in order to comply with the speed limit. If companies are punished for charging what something is worth, they will just stop selling it.

Justice Breyer hinted at this fact in a question to the business's lawyer. Recalling the Depression-era Office of Price Administration, he explained, "Ken Galbraith ran it for a while. And they would—what they would do, he said, is they'd go around and they'd smell what the price was," and "you couldn't charge a higher price. Would you have come in and said, Ken Galbraith says you can only charge $13 for this item. It violates our free speech?"

The answer is yes: saying a $50 item only costs $13—or that credit card transactions have no cost—or that there's such a thing as a free lunch—doesn't make it so. Prices can't be "smelled," or dictated, by a government bureaucrat. They can only be truthfully conveyed—or silenced or distorted by the law. Forbidding companies from charging what things actually cost—let alone punishing them if they call it a "surcharge" for cards but not a "discount" for cash—is just censoring what people can hear. And that's what the First Amendment's all about.

NEXT: Here's What Trump Can Learn From Andrew Jackson's First Inaugural Address

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But I’ll bet Philly will still pass a law prohibiting stores from telling customers the reason for the doubling of soft drink prices because nobody’s going to learn a damn thing from this case.

    1. No one needs 30 different kinds of soda.

      1. No government needs 30 zillion different kinds of taxes.

  2. The embargoer’s touch ravages adaptability of mind- even at the most banal level.

    1. That almost made sense.

      *worried expression*

      Somebody get this man some drugs, STAT!!

    2. Where is the real Agile Cyborg, and what have you done with him?

  3. Prices can’t be “smelled,” or dictated, by a government bureaucrat.

    No, but kickback can be.

      1. Swiss, your “eye-narrowing” services are required.

    1. I’m amazed by how many people think that they have the ability to think of the “correct” price for something in just a few seconds. I’ve lost count of the discussions I’ve had that basically go like this:

      Person: “The price of X is too high/low. The government should do something about it.”
      Me: “But what’s the correct price, and how did you arrive at that number?”
      Person: (short pause) “$xx per unit.”
      Me: “How did you get that number, though?”
      Person: “Well obviously, that’s what that good is worth!”
      Me: “But WHY is it worth that much? Why not less? Why not more?”
      Person: “Because that’s what the worth of the product is.”

      … And they basically just go in a circle.

  4. During the 1980s US sen. Al D’Amato had a weekly recorded bit on radio. In one of them he railed against surcharges for credit, but said a discount for cash was different & perfectly OK.

    1. Was he elected by a sizeable majority?

      1. And don’t forget the Pancake Breakfast named after him.

        1. I don’t know who Zappa was alluding to, but “Sen” /= “St.”

  5. OT: It’s Saturday. PA court says no penalty for refusal of warrantless blood test

    A state appeals court’s recent ruling has set a precedent that Pennsylvania judges cannot penalize drunken driving suspects for refusing to submit to blood testing.

    The Philadelphia Inquirer reports a three-judge Pennsylvania Superior Court panel found earlier this month that a Chester County man was wrongfully disciplined during sentencing for declining the test.

    1. I still don’t understand why the penalties for refusal to take a breathalyzer test can’t be overcome with a defense of “I was really drunk at the time and therefore incompetent to waive my rights.”

      1. Voluntary intoxication has never been recognized as a defense in criminal trials.

        I realize this isn’t exactly compatible with some of criminal law’s other views on intoxication.

        1. I think the idea is that you can’t profit from your own wrong – in this case, deliberately fogging your mind, and then invoking that mental fog to mitigate what you did under the influence.

      2. Probably because “I was too drunk to knowingly waive my rights” counts as a confession to “driving while intoxicated”.

        1. “i was *just drunk enough* to say silly things, but not *nearly drunk enough* to be a bad driver. Happens to the best of us your honor.”

      3. In New York, if you refuse to take the breathalyzer you to a refusal hearing with an administrative law judge, which is separate from the criminal case for DUI.

        1. *go to a “refusal hearing.”

        2. In Montana, refusing to blow will suspend your driver’s license for six months.

          1. In New York it’s a hear. My point was that the license suspension is through the DMV, which is separate from the criminal case.

            1. I understood. I just thought it interesting how differently states handle refusal.

          2. We talking the machine or the cop?

            1. Both. Duh.

            2. Yep. The “double pucker” rule.

      4. Did you ever hear the one about the guy who murdered both his parents and then requested leniency because he was an orphan?

  6. OT: I heard from the MSNBC talking heads this morning that Trump will roll back parts of the Violence Against Women Act to the detriment of womenfolk everywhere. Because only central government in general – and federal legislation in particular – can protect the rights of women.

    P.S.: Why isn’t there a Violence Against Children Act? Don’t VAWA supporters care about the children?!

    1. How about a Violence Against Language Act to prevent laws from having misleading or manipulative names?

      1. By the way, I hope I have your support for my Cute Puppies for Cancer Patients and Giving Eddie a Big Bag of Money Act.

        1. “Eddie Money doesn’t have to put up with this shit!”- Coconut Pete

        2. “CPCPGEBBMA”

          I am not what we can do with that.

    2. Since almost have of all DV victims are male,how about a violence against men act? huh

    3. Trump will roll back parts of the Violence Against Women Act

      Therefore he is reducing violence against women. SCORE ONE FOR FEMINIST TRUMP

      1. Oh, so that’s why libertarians support a Violence Against Children Act. We need them to polish our monocles, after all.

        1. GET OFF MY LAWN.

      2. Wouldn’t repealing the Violence Against Women Act reduce violence against women? Its not the Anti Violence Against Women Act, you know.

  7. RE: How Price Restrictions Limit Free Speech

    Price restrictions is an excellent way to restrict free speech.
    This is just one of many ways our ruling elitist turds are slowly but surely eliminating and eroding our civil liberties.
    But they’re doing it for our own good.
    Just ask them sometime.

  8. It’ll be interesting, seeing as how SCOTUS already demoted “commercial” speech by discovering yet another hidden clause of the Constitution.

    1. It’s kind of like how states may not criminalize consensual adult relations unless money exchanges hands.* Money is the metric, apparently.

      *in-kind exchanges seem to be exempt, though.

      1. *in-kind exchanges seem to be exempt, though.

        The reach around clause?

        1. The “buy her stuff in the hopes of getting laid” clause.

  9. You know who else has a pen?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..lback.html

      1. That’ll do pig

    1. The guy who wrote “the penis mightier than the sword”? (Long Dong Silver, IIRC)

      1. That was a headline in the Madison paper when Gov. Thompson exercised his line item veto, creatively. The space between “pen” and “is” was unusually small. Natural causes, I guess.

    2. Yeah, but apparently they took his phone.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..4991370913

      1. Of course. Who does he think he is, Hillary?

        1. I know, right? BTW, are we still required to genuflect at the mention of Her name?

          1. I think genuflecting is out but all references to her name must be followed by PBUH.

            1. Very well, then:

              Piss Be Upon Her.

              (Hope I got that right.)

  10. Suppose it’s not the government, but the credit card company itself that says merchants can’t explicitly charge their customers a surcharge for using their credit cards (even though the merchants must pay one to the credit card company). Does that become OK? Is it any less a misrepresentation of economic facts to the customer?

    1. It should be OK under contract law.

    2. Not sure why the credit card companies would care what you charge.

      1. “Not sure why the credit card companies would care what you charge.”

        Charge enough for use of a card and people will use cash, cutting into their business.

      2. They care. It is written into most credit card merchant contracts. It is sometimes ignored by merchants. For example you will often see in small corner marts a small homemade sign next to the register saying something like, “10 dollar minimum for cards”

        The small deli mart owner across the street from me gets people coming in and trying to charge a 50 cent pack of gum. He pays about 40 cents to make that transaction.

        1. One of our local gun stores charges 3% on any credit card purchase. I suppose it’s been incentive for me to pay cash sometimes.

          1. That would likely be the amount they pay to the credit card company. I’ve had a few different ones and they work slightly differently but it is hard to find one that doesn’t end up costing you at least 2% pre transaction. Sometimes it will be a larger per purchase base charge, sometimes monthly fees for the machine, etc., but they always get their vig.

            1. “Percentage” sounds like a huge rip-off – if I was buying a computer on a credit card and the vendor wanted to tack on 3% I’d find another vendor. WTF does the size of the transaction have to do with anything?

              1. WTF does the size of the transaction have to do with anything?

                That is the standard way that credit card companies and payment processors bill for processing a transaction. It makes some sense in that larger value transactions require greater scrutiny, have more security concerns, and have greater consequences on chargeback. There is also usually a flat fee (in addition to the percentage charge) to cover the cost of small transactions. 3% is about the going rate for fees charged to small- to medium-sized merchants by payment processors.

                If you’re buying a big-ticket item like a computer on credit then the price of the computer has already been adjusted to include the fee.

                1. At my old work we would take 10% off safes. Between the fees and time, it made sense.
                  Id say 60% of people would take us up on it.

          2. I make a point of not buying firearms and related items on plastic.

            There are numerous reasons for this, mostly related to keeping the transactions hidden from my bank, my credit card companies, the government, and most of all, my wife.

            I find that my local preferred merchants can usually be a little more flexible in their pricing too.

  11. How in the hell do you just run off with giant bucket of gold (unless you’re a leprechaun of course)?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-…..a-38702849

  12. Are we going to get a Reason post about the marches today?

    They are showing clips on the TV news this morning, and the people and their signs are about what you would have expected. Some are pretty hilarious in their cognitive dissonance, though.

    Lots of communist presence, too, especially the group ANSWER. I wonder how many of the hipsters and housewives who are just ‘out there with my sisters showing solidarity and love trumps hate’ realize they are essentially marching with those advocating a communist revolution?

    1. They just want to be able to tell everyone that they where there protesting Trump.

    2. I don’t know why all these women are protesting today of all days, it’s the 3rd trimester of Trump’s inauguration.

    3. Lots of communist presence, too, especially the group ANSWER.

      Wow, I remember 2003 as well!

      Yeah, let’s do this retro thing!

    4. The Chron has them ‘Pushing Back’ against Trump, as if he was ‘pushing forward’.
      Pretty sure AJB has it; they can brag they went to a Trump protest.

    5. I’ve seen a few of those “Nasty woman” tags on protestors. How does one intentionally misunderstand why Hillary was called that?

      1. OK, why was she? And how is this any worse than Trumpistas wearing “Deplorable” tags?

        1. Because she’s a criminal who has made her living selling influence. You fucking moron.

          1. That wouldn’t be “nastiness”, which is something your post certainly shows.

        2. She was lying about Trump not paying taxes. I suppose the people calling themselves nasty women in their silly show of solidarity are really saying they are liars like Clinton.

        3. The deplorable tag makes a lot more sense since Hillary’s insult was directed at Trump supporters. You’re making a false equivalence if you claim the two are comparable.

        4. It’s a stupid comparison regardless of why anyone called her it. Calling Hillary a nasty woman isn’t insulting all Hillary voters let alone women as a gender. The deplorable tag was aimed specifically at a large number of Trump voters. It’s about them. The two things aren’t actually the same at all.

          1. The two things aren’t actually the same at all.

            Eh, I agree with you that they are somewhat different in character (name applied to the candidate vs. name applied to the supporters) but they are both trying to appropriate the derogatory term as a badge of honor, even if one of them is a little misplaced.

            That having been said, I would rather be called “deplorable” (other people hate me) than “nasty” (I am hateful toward other people).

            1. I think it’s more than a little misplaced. The people donning the “nasty woman” badge are trying to convince people that Trump’s remark is just another example of Trump’s alleged misogyny. Considering even a cursory review of its context, it’s poor evidence of such. Par for the course in pushing a false narrative, I suppose.

              1. I care not for their intentions. I heartily applaud their ongoing efforts to prove to everyone else that they are willfully antagonistic to other people.

              2. Yeah I looked up the context. He was calling her nasty because she suggested he would try to get out of paying his taxes. Clearly a woman hater?

                1. It’s a tribal thing. Calling one female “nasty” means you’re calling all of them nasty. And besides, only males can be nasty anyway.

        5. OK, why was she?

          Have you heard her speak?

      2. I wonder, was it sexist when Ed Koch wrote a book about Rudy Giuliani titled ‘Nasty Man?’

    6. ” wonder how many of the hipsters and housewives who are just ‘out there with my sisters showing solidarity and love trumps hate’ realize they are essentially marching with those advocating a communist revolution?”

      It’s the left-wing equivalent of denying the existence of the alt-right – “oh, any accusation of communism is simply a smear by our enemies, they call anyone who believes in Fairness a communist!”

      The Robert Spencer thread yesterday showed that there are some no-kidding white nationalists out there – Spencer wants a white “ethno-state,” rejects the Declaration of Independence, and is anti-Jewish. You have to acknowledge these people exist before pointing out the exaggerations of the people who say *everyone* who isn’t a Hillary voter is in the alt right.

      Similarly, if progs want to distance themselves from actual commies, they ought first to acknowledge that there *are* commies and dissociate themselves from same.

      1. …if progs want to distance themselves from actual commies…

        I found the actual problem right here.

    7. Some reporting on who is organizing this, who is funding this, etc. would be interesting.

      I suspect its the usual hard-left proggy/commie types who put together these “grassroots” protests everywhere. I wonder how many people would show up if they knew who they were really supporting by participating in these protests.

      There was another Project Veritas video, for example, showing that the inauguration day protests, I believe, were being planned to be more violent and disruptive, and I recall a story or two on how these protests had been scaled back following the video. Naturally, this kind of threat to civil society went uncovered by Reason. I don’t understand the hardon Reason has for Project Veritas – they regularly expose and embarrass the totalitarian left, which I would have thought libertarians would support.

      1. I don’t understand the hardon Reason has for Project Veritas – they regularly expose and embarrass the totalitarian left, which I would have thought libertarians would support.

        matt sort of explained the rationale for ignoring them in one of the 5th col. podcasts.

        and i think he had a legit point. weak-paraphrase = OKeefe is an activist, not a journalist; even if his antics reveal some newsworthy stuff, what he’s doing is consciously aimed at spinning a message. he isn’t trying to expose truths (even if he does do so in the course of his work); he’s trying to politically ratfuck his opponents, as they try and ratfuck him.

        i think its not unreasonable to be very leery of that sort of thing, and especially to preface any mention of it by calling him what he is.

        but i don’t think that’s an entirely suitable case for ignoring the stuff he does expose, esp if its verifiable.

        1. Isn’t this basically what the NYT’s argued when they defended ignoring Reason after the nail salon BS? Matt Welch is editor at large, last I checked, because he’s sent out to sell libertarianism in other venues besides through the blog here and magazine.

          1. Isn’t this basically what the NYT’s argued when they defended ignoring Reason after the nail salon BS?

            Similar, but not exactly the same. they actually acknowledged what Reason wrote and made (very shitty and unconvincing) rebuttals, and then added, “this is a partisan outfit with an agenda” and therefore was suspect.

            Reasons posture towards oKeefe’s stuff seems mostly to ignore his claims entirely as “not newsworthy”. But yeah, there is some family resemblance between the two.

            1. “this is a partisan outfit with an agenda”

              So is the NYT. And every other news outlet.

        2. OKeefe is an activist, not a journalist; even if his antics reveal some newsworthy stuff, what he’s doing is consciously aimed at spinning a message

          So, pretty much a straight ad hominem, then. You would think the commentary on the video could take care of that – put up some caveats, etc.

          I find the distinction between activist and journalist amusing, particularly given Reason’s lack of concern in passing along obviously partisan hot takes during the election. We’re slicing things really fine when we distinguish journalists from think tanks from activists.

          1. pretty much a straight ad hominem, then.

            I don’t think that’s ad hom towards O’keefe. It IS what he does.

            What i think is silly is that they think that’s somehow different than what Vox or Buzzfeed do.

            1. Disregarding what he says because of who he is, is pretty much the definition of an ad hom.

              We all do it, of course.

              1. Didn’t he do some dodgy editing of videos? If so, that would be a good reason to ignore him.

                1. Didn’t he do some dodgy editing of videos?

                  something like that. i think people claimed he refused to share ‘unedited’ source video. I never cared enough to find out.

              2. Disregarding what he says because of who he is

                I don’t think its because of “who he is”, its because of what he does. he makes no pretense at being a “reporter”. He is basically a modern Roger Stone, a new-media “ratfucker” who creates material for propaganda purposes.

                how are you supposed to be able to sort the “true” stuff he manages to capture from the carefully contrived bullshit? Its a tainted well.

                I understand their rationale; i don’t agree entirely with it, but i think there’s a point that once you start accepting obviously-compromised sources, that you might as well (like buzzfeed) start just reporting whatever you read on the wall of the bathroom stall.

                i understand (and agree) that the difference between O’Keefe and the more-establishment lefty-media is a matter of degree and not of kind… but still – everyone draws a line somewhere, and Reason decided he was no good as a sole-source.

                *that said = the story about the Democrat operatives who confessed to provoking violence at Trump rallies (so media could cover it) was something followed up on by other ‘establishment’ media. there was some secondary validation of who those people were and what those people had been doing.

                In the case where other media have decided that O’keefe’s stuff merits coverage, i’d think that would satisfy Reason’s own qualms. However, they still basically ignored it.

        3. Also, doesn’t he heavily edit his videos, but try to pretend he doesn’t?

        4. he isn’t trying to expose truths (even if he does do so in the course of his work); he’s trying to politically ratfuck his opponents, as they try and ratfuck him.

          Wouldn’t this pretty much disqualify all the [Talking Head] DESTROYS [Talking Head] bullshit that gets covered here on a regular basis, all the opinion articles published in a newspaper or spouted on cable news, all the Twitter back and forth, etc.?

          It seems like 2/3 of what Reason covers involves either engaging the political ratfuckers or attempting to strip the political ratfucking out without grabbing a new source.

          Color me skeptical when it comes to Reason’s excuse regarding Project Veritas. (Not to say that PV vids should be treated as gospel, but they’re just as newsworthy as the lastest MSM moron’s opinion on what some idiot wrote on Twitter.

    8. Lots of communist presence, too, especially the group ANSWER.

      Throughout the 2016 election season there would be protests @ Trump rallies, or @ the RNC,or whatever, and news media would run photographs where they carefully cropped them so you could see the bottoms of banners, but not what was on them… or at a sharp angle, or whatever.

      somone else pointed it out, then i started looking at the newspaper cover-shots and they were right; they’d either get close ups of the protesters faces, or would get angles where the banners were unreadable.

      when you found amateur photos of the protest, in every single case the banners said “Socialist_______” or “Communist _______” in very distinct, bold letters.

      basically, to make a long story short = the effort by the media is to try and spin the protests as composed of ‘grassroots’ organizations, with ‘diverse’ and ‘widespread’ opposition… rather than what are obviously organized, narrow, fringe organizations who do this protest thing all the time.

      one can debate how pernicious that sort of subtle misrepresentation is, but the thing that irks me is how blatant the media are about it. They simply can’t “show what it is” = they have to massage @(#*$@)* everything to make it fit within their narratives.

      1. Even at the anti-anti-Semitic protest in Whitefish there were pro-socialism posters and placards.

        1. There’s nothing wrong with merely ‘being socialist’ and i think it is actually unfair to these socialist protesters that their specific messages are being elided from the national debate.

          Think about how you’d feel if there were a libertarian protest (*the very idea makes me laugh) and it were spun in the media as a generic “Anti Government” movement

          these people go to all this effort to organize and make their damn banners and they DO get the media attention… and what happens? the media uses them for their broader “Anti-Republican”/establishment opposition narrative.

          basically, it uses the “socialists” to push stories that are mostly about their own ‘liberal’ political aims. Because the suburban liberals who read their papers aren’t the types of people who march in the streets, but they want to think that they’re part of some collective ‘resistance’ too.

          As much as I dislike communists, they’re getting a raw fucking deal. True, i want them to get their message out because i know it just turns people against the left…. but at least that’s a legitimate “Debate”. Instead the media has to fine-tune it for their own purposes.

          1. Its unfair to everybody – activists and the public alike – when the DemOp Media warps their message to advance its own narratives.

      2. So my proggy roommate is going to the march today – love how it’s called a ‘Women’s March’, as if they speak for all women. Basically it’s a hodgepodge of far left causes, but nope it’s FOR ALL WOMEN!

        Also last week I was trying to raise money for the Prevent Cancer foundation and he gave me some BS about saving money etc. Fine you don’t want to donate it’s your business. But then I heard him saying he’s bringing a bunch of money so he can donate to all the ’causes’ there.

        So that’s how proggies work. Real community service doesn’t count unless it’s a left wing cause, and charity doesn’t count unless it’s a left wing cause. Because that’s how you will make a change in the world!

        1. Also, you can only be a ‘woman’ if you’re a commie. Otherwise, you’re just one of them deplorables. Just tell your roommate the truth. The only way you’re getting true socialism in the United States is if you’re willing to kill tens of millions of people who don’t want it, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro did. And it will still fail in the end.

        2. “… but nope it’s FOR ALL WOMEN!”

          except for pro-life womyn, apparently even if they have penises.

          The left’s hierarchy of victimhood remains an enigma.

      3. Nearly all of the supposed ‘strikers’ at the local Micky D’s ($15 M/W) were paid SEIU workers, but you had to read all the way to the bottom of the stories before they admitted that practically none of the actual employees were on that picket line.

    9. Yup, and RevCom I am sure has a large contingent there. They were a prominent presence in all the BLM protests I saw.

    10. Useful idiots are never in short supply.

  13. Same old leftists, same old goals, same old tactics. The message is: ‘Give me more of your stuff or I’m going to throw a hissy!’. Meh. Go sit in the corner and throw your hissy, no one cares. However, when you smash the windows of businesses, sit people’s property on fire, and attack others in the streets, I’m not going to feel bad for you when your ass is in jail, where you deserve to be.

  14. I wish people would stop resorting to tangential and frankly absurd arguments like this. Setting a price is not “free speech” and restrictions on price are not in any reasonable way a restriction on the “freedom of the press” as intended by the first amendment. What they are is a restriction on commerce and the freedom to contract. Every time someone makes a stupid argument about restrictions on businesses being a restriction on speech, they endorse the horrible idea that freedom to do business and commerce is not a fundamental right on par with freedom or speech and religion and due process of law and all the rest of them.

    1. Indeed – though in this case it seems the state “allows” the business to charge a certain amount just so long as they use an approved term to describe what they’re doing – while punishing them if they describe the transaction with accurate terminology.

    2. Judges barely respect enumerated rights, let alone unenumerated ones.

    3. Agreed.

      The 1A, however, should cover a business’s choice to reveal the amount of tax the business passes on to its customers, like the airlines were prohibited from doing.

      1. Some states also prohibit gas stations from breaking out line items for taxes etc. on their receipts.

        1. Regulating prices is one thing (freedom of contract). Coerced censorship of what those prices entail – especially as it pertains to taxes – is another thing altogether (freedom of speech).

    4. I always thought Ayn Rand got it right on this. “without property rights, there are no other rights.” No I am not an Objectivist.

      1. I am not either but she got that right.

    5. well I mean property rights were explicitly left out of the constitution so they could tax people, so we need to use what we have to win in a court.

    6. The author is saying that the right to engage in commerce at your chosen price point is the same right as the right to speak freely. You couldn’t possibly make a stronger argument that the two are “on par” then to say that they are one and the same.

      Although, most people likely do not agree with this assessment.

  15. ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech’?these are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people, folks. We have a lot of foolish people.

  16. This is why the cheap-as-hell gas stations don’t take credit cards. Cash or Debit only.

    1. It’s an LA thing. There’s no discrimination against credit cards in the rest of the country.

      1. You see it on occasion throughout the rest of the country. I got fooled a couple times on my commute because the credit price was conveniently buried behind a bush at one gas station.

  17. Ah, America. The Great Experiment, where every four to eight years we view the peaceful transition of power victimhood status from one group to another.
    ….
    I get the feeling today’s marches are the beginning of a 4/8 yr narrative

  18. Tired of the Trump coverage? Let’s consider something uncontroversial:

    “Because there are less invasive ways to enjoy the negligible benefits of circumcision, some argue that the practice in America is unethical. They have a point?particularly as the surgery permanently alters those who have no say in the matter. Parents may still wish to go through with it, for religious or cultural reasons. But it would be better if more Americans questioned a medical establishment that encourages a surgery that every other country in the industrialized world recognizes as unnecessary.”

    1. I’d love to know how many anti-circumcision people (” the surgery permanently alters those who have no say in the matter”) are also pro-life, and how they square that circle. I suspect its magical thinking, that personhood is conferred from on high when the umbilical cord is cut.

      1. I haven’t had anyone tell me they’re a prolife anti-circumcision person, but in case I encounter one, could you clarify what the conflict would be?

        1. There’s one right here.

          I see no contradiction.

        2. could you clarify what the conflict would be?

          I’m guessing the conflict is that it’s okay to hack off limbs with scissors until the magical trip through the vagina, and then it’s not okay to cut off a flap of skin.

          As RC Dean said, without magical thinking it is in conflict.

          1. oops, I flipped the positions of the person in my mind. I’m as confused as the rest of you.

      2. I’m not seeing a conflict here. I could see a conflict between *pro*-life and pro-circumcision though.

      3. The subject is shrouded in mystery.

      4. If it is conferred, and rights “endowed”, at some point, what is wrong with trying to specify what that point is? When the cord is cut or (as I prefer) when the first breath of air is inhaled into the lungs, making the cord unnecessary even if it is not cut immediately, certainly make more sense to me than fertilization, which involves microscopic cells.

        1. There are no rights “endowed”. But when the cord is cut, the baby no longer is dependant on the mother for life. Pro-choice simply means the mother controls her side of the umbilical cord.

    2. “every other country in the industrialized world”

      I immediately tune out any argument that includes those words.

      1. I wonder if that’s even correct. The Portuguese couple for whom my wife was a surrogate were debating whether to circumcise their newborn. The woman’s father is a physician, and she told us he recommended circumcision for health reasons.

        1. It’s my understanding that it’s somewhat common in Australia, although not as common as in the U.S.

          1. AUSTRALIAN MOHEL: “Crikey, that’s a tiny ‘un! Well, hold this [hands beer to bystander and picks up knife] and Bob’s your uncle!”

      2. Yep. That phrase is even worse than, “to be sure.” Both are almost invariably signifyl a weak rationalization for a terrible idea.

  19. “Office of Price Administration, he explained, “Ken Galbraith ran it for a while. And they would?what they would do, he said, is they’d go around and they’d smell what the price was,” and “you couldn’t charge a higher price.”

    Remember folks. The tyranny starts NOW! Under Trump.

    1. For the Canucks:

      Concerned, But Not Wanting To Offend, Canada Quietly Plants Privacy Hedge Along Entire U.S. Border.

      “And we’re happy to pay for it,” say a united front of Canadian premiers, national leaders, mayors, citizens, and casual acquaintances, of the newly planted hedge that has sprung up seemingly overnight, running unbroken for 6,416 kilometers, along the world’s longest undefended border.

      1. “Richard George Austen
        January 21, 2017 at 9:46 am
        Noreen ? they probably want to live in a democratic country (The US certainly isn’t) ? where the person who gets nearly 3 million more votes is declared the winner.”

        Awesome.

        This sort of intellectual retardation reminds me of the scene when Kramer was fired from his job.

        1. Cosmo Kramer? What job did he have?

          1. Bagel maker.

            1. Ah. Final season. No wonder I forgot about it.

        2. “Not outlined in any constitutional document, the office exists only as per long-established convention (originating in Canada’s former colonial power, the United Kingdom) that stipulates the monarch’s representative, the governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber.”

          Somebody should tell Noreen that Canada is no more of a democratic country than the US – as their head of government a) doesn’t officially exist, b) is *appointed by a single person*, and c) is selected (by tradition only) from the largest party – IOW exactly *one* dude’s vote, in all of Canada, counts.

          1. And, I would imagine it would be possible for one party to win seats in some districts by such an overwhelming majority that they had an overall plurality of votes in Canada, but still a minority of seats in the House of Commons, and thus the PM would be from the party that lost the national vote.

            No way! Not in Canada! “I’m going to move to ….oops”

      2. “And we’re happy to pay for it…”

        Right. The money obviously comes from some evil hedge fund manager.

        Damned 1 percenters!

  20. This ‘surcharge’ vs ‘discount’ thing reminds me of the military club system. If you’re a member you get a discount, if you’re not you pay a surcharge. WTF is the regular price then?

    1. WTF is the regular price then?

      Determined by smell, apparently.

    1. Hm… that looks yummy – and it’s like a ten minute walk from me.

  21. I wish I had thought of this before:

    Creating a fake “Women’s March” location on Facebook to see how many people show up.

      1. Well, it is Day 2 of the Trump Terror.

        1. Shreek’s spent the last 8 years being raped by the Christian Tealiban in Dogdick. Who knows, maybe the Redhats will be gentler with him. I sent him a giant drum of butthurt cream hand prepared by my orphans. Maybe that will ease the pain a little.

      2. Sure! If you invite all your Mohammedan buddies that makes it okay, of course! Admittedly, I’m no expert on the lefty hierarchy of victimhood, but I think Muslims trump* womyn and gays… not sure if they’re outranked by womyn-with-penises and the like, though. You tell me.

        *Oops–belated trigger warning! My bad.

      3. Sure! If you invite all your Mohammedan buddies that makes it okay, of course! Admittedly, I’m no expert on the lefty hierarchy of victimhood, but I think Muslims trump* womyn and gays… not sure if they’re outranked by womyn-with-penises and the like, though. You tell me.

        *Oops–belated trigger warning! My bad.

    1. Or give the coordinates for the Sahara or the middle of the ocean.

        1. And afterward, we can stone them to death for offending Allah!

          Progressive enlightenment in action!

  22. 4 years of reminding old, ugly Trumpkins we ain’t paying for their healthcare any more. This will be fun!

  23. The comedian Gallagher once joked that customers don’t like to hear they’re being charged more for using credit cards?they’d rather hear they’re getting a “discount for cash.”

    Where’s the joke?

    1. It involved a watermelon. its complicated.

      1. And suspenders.

    2. Its Gallagher man – the joke is you paid to see him smash watermelons this century.

      1. Amazing that he was once popular enough to now be a has-been. Kind of like Ray Jay Johnson, although I’d still pick him over Clinton or Trump.

        1. You mean… the Johnson I voted for wasn’t Ray Ray?

          The election was rigged, dammit!

            1. Those dang nefarious Rooskis!

              We should bomb the shit out of ’em!

        2. Amazing that with their level of talent, we actually even know who both Gallagher and Ray Jay are.

          And it shows how absurd ‘fame’ can be. You can be the top cardiac surgeon in the world, known throughout the profession as the person who perfected the heart transplant so that it only took 10% of the time, the pain and blood loss was minimal, and almost all patients survived, and you’ve taught your process to countless other doctors.

          But outside of your profession, no one knows who the hell you are, so good luck getting a good table at an LA restaurant when you are in town.

          Yet a woman who was on one season of Real Housewives? Constantly asked for autographs wherever she goes, gets first-class treatment in all restaurants and hotels, and does ribbon-cuttings with the mayor. Go figure.

          1. Well, I’ve heard of Jarvik, if that helps.

            1. Perhaps, but you never saw him on Hollywood Squares, did you?

  24. Day 1 of the Apocalypse: YA author doesn’t understand that username changes can cause glitches in system, equates said glitches with rape.

    My favorite reply in that thread is the person who proudly announced that they’d reported @POTUS to Twitter for threats of violence. Like they seriously think that Twitter’s going to ban the president of the United States.

    1. Trump getting banned from Twitter would be pretty hilarious, actually.

      1. Can only imagine what Trump would try to do in retaliation.

        But he would immediately boost any competitor he started using instead. Bad business move for twitter.

    2. Watching William Shatner school the hysterical ones has been really gratifying, though.

    3. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a close vote on the issue, given who makes up Twitters Goodthink Committee.

      1. It wouldn’t be a close vote, it would be nearly unanimous. However, someone who still has a self-preservation instinct would veto it.

    4. Can you imagine if they would have banned Obama? That would be priceless. I like watching them eat their own.

    5. “. . . author of some YA fantasy books.”

      Way to self-promote there.

  25. “This female tech CEO is urging all women to protest against Trump’s ‘bullying’ tactics”
    […]
    “One of the protesters will be Bonnie Crater, CEO of Full Circle Insights, a tech startup in San Mateo, California. Crater is flying to Washington to march with her daughter.
    She’s not only attending this event but is calling on all women leaders in business to stand up, speak up and get active now to protect women’s rights, even though in today’s political climate, taking such a stand could be dangerous, she told Business Insider.
    “You have to stand up and make your position known. Many people who have done this have gotten death threats, which makes them hesitant to speak out. I think this circle represses the first Amendment. We need to get more politically active and more outspoken,” she told us.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..872415.php

    They warned us that a Trump victory meant increased violence, but this woman seems confused.

    1. I have always wondered, what is the legal definition of a death threat.

      It seems broad.

      1. This is from the Chron, which is nothing if not a lefty rag. But the ‘reporter’ might at least have asked: “Many people got death threats? How many”?

        1. Maybe ask the cops about their investigations of the death threats.

          1. I just watched “Anthropoid” which is about the assassination of Heydrich and the aftermath that befell the Czechs in the aftermath. Over 5000 dead and Lidice erased from the map. Whenever I hear these SJW speak about “resistance” and the “danger” they face is makes me want to laugh in their faces. These people would support the National Socialists or their local Vichy with bright smiles on their faces.

    2. Dangerous for whom?

    3. Of course, any mass march, picketing, etc., has an undertone of bullying to it.

    4. They warned us that a Trump victory meant increased violence

      It has. It’s all been by leftists, but there’s definitely been more.

      1. “Threatened us” would be a more accurate way to describe it.

  26. I’m gonna miss the guy. We just had eight years of humble humility and now….now there’s gonna be eight years of Andrew Dice Clay, rapes, Hitler orgies and KKK lynchings.

    http://humbleobama.com

    1. a case study in my own sense of humor = this is the one that made me laugh loudest and longest

      President’s Day 2014. I am President.

      1. The one where he’s standing all limp with his hands in his pocket next to the MLK memorial makes me laugh. He’s giving a look of ‘hm. I wonder if there’s a hot-dog stand next to the ballon guy’ to accentuate his full of shitness.

    2. This is hilarious. Thank you

  27. 4 years of reminding ugly old Trumpkins we ain’t paying for their stupid fucking wall. This will be fun!

    1. I’m not for the wall, shreek. But you will pay if you have an income for them to take. You should be cheering that on, lefty.

      1. We’re not paying for your stupid fucking wall, hype. You know, the only that you aren’t ‘for’ even as you attack people when they question its glory.

        1. You may want to look up the word “fungible” in terms of what it would mean regarding your tax dollars.

          You don’t get to pick what projects your taxes are spent on. It could go for a wall, or maybe even for a bubble bath for Mrs. Trump!

  28. 4 years of reminding ugly old Trumpkins that it’s pointless to ‘shut down parts of the internet’ because their children have already been radicalized to jihad against them. This will be fun!

  29. The march leader who just finished speaking was pretty hot and very angry.

    1. And with an IQ similar to this guy?

      “Congressman John Lewis is EVERYTHING. That is all!”

      1. Now she just announced all remaining speakers will have their mikes cut after 30 seconds. They are shuffling up flustered.

      2. I swear I saw John Lewis at the inauguration even though he said he wasn’t attending. Or maybe I mistook him for his doppelganger, Elijah Cummings.

      3. “”Congressman John Lewis is EVERYTHING. That is all!”

        Impressive worldview you’ve got there… it’d be a shame if something was to happen to it.

    2. “The march leader who just finished speaking was pretty hot and very angry.”

      I thought you were being redundant till I saw the picture.

      1. Looks like she’s just a spokesmodel-protestor-for-hire.
        She lists how to hire her on her twitter page.
        Did she really start the march all by her little self?

  30. Is it racist to say, “Home again, home again, jiggity-jig“?

    You know, “jig” sounds like “nig” and short for “jigaboo”. Asking for a friend.

    1. replicants can’t be racist, so its a moot point

      1. I watched the director’s cut of that last night, which is what prompted the discussion between myself and my wife. I claimed that if you said that rhyme in front of a hardcore leftist, they would declare it racist.

        Not really looking forward to the upcoming sequel, honestly.

        1. Note I’m not talking about your average dem voter, I mean the college Trigglypuff types.

        2. Blade Runner? I watched that (director’s cut) not too long ago.

          Scott didn’t seem too concerned with pacing.

          1. its a noir film. unbelievably-long tension-building scenes is basically half the point.

        3. the upcoming sequel

          oh, you’re kidding. really? please tell me harrison ford isn’t involved.

          1. He is, and Ryan Gosling is the new Blade Runner.

            There’s already a trailer out; I’d link it, but work, firewall, etc.

            1. Ryan Gosling

              OMG SO DREAMY

              fuck me, they really have to ruin everything don’t they.

            2. Great, another sequel I have to pretend doesn’t exist.

            3. just watched the trailer; is 95% references to scenes in the original.

              it feels like Scott was thinking = “i only destroyed half my reputation with Prometheus – I must now destroy the rest. what better way to to do that than use my best film as a weapon”

              1. My thoughts exactly.

    2. Gojira, I think “di di mao” is the way yo go, or “chop-chop”.

  31. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they loved Libertarian philosophy and Ayn Rand all along. Too funny!

    1. How many months has it been since you got banned by Popehat and slithered over here? Tell us more about how people you barely know and make zero attempt to understand conform to your half-baked judgments.

      1. You said you would love and cherish me forever, kb. Now you treat me like garbage. What did I do wrong??

        1. I said you were a lying scumbag the day you showed up. You have embarked on quite the quest to prove me right.

          1. kb – have you forsaken your CREATOR?

            1. Bitch, I was commenting here for years before you decided to shit upon these boards with your inane babble.

              1. You Trumpkins – what a miserable lot. Nothing makes you happy. Maybe when you’re even older and uglier you’ll learn to appreciate your GOD.

              2. Dude, get reasonable (for Chrome) and you won’t have to deal with trolls.

                From the Trump thread, Trshmonster linked to fascr for other browsers.

      2. Don’t respond to it. I haven’t seen a better example of an attention-whoring troll since Mary (maybe it is Mary)?

        1. Now I’m not one to spread rumors, but I have heard it said, that AddictionMyth actually is responsible for the start of the AIDS epidemic because he slit one wrist, jacked off a gorilla (an ancestor a Harambe, perhaps?), and then rubbed the spooge into his open bleeding wound believing it would give him gorilla powers.

          I’m not saying I think it’s true, mind you, just repeating what I’ve been told.

          1. Sounds reasonable.

          2. It’s not entirely incorrect on principle.

  32. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they loved Israel and subsidizing their universal healthcare all along (including arabs – yes Israel is 1/4 arab). Too funny!

  33. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they were never really for the wall to begin with.

  34. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they actually care about ‘muh feelz’.

  35. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they are for free speech even for the ‘liars’.

  36. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like I didn’t get ‘banned’ from Popehat for pointing out that the French Secular Caliphate bans free speech (what kind of scumbag would say something like that??!!). Oh the ironies. This is going to be fun!

    1. 1. You didn’t. You got banned because, unlike here, Popehat doesn’t tolerate the sort of faux-Aspergers social disease you have. Learn to behave in mixed company and you won’t keep getting kicked out of other people’s parties.

      2. Its pretty irrelevant *here* what Popehat does *there*. Nobody here gives a fuck that someone got banned somewhere else. Here’s here, there’s there.

      3. Grow up. Don’t come to another site looking for sympathy because someone else hurt your feelz by banning you after a loooooooooong history of being an asshat. Different places have different tolerances for that, suck it up. Fuck man – that’s shit you see in videogame forums where some 13 year old starts crying and proclaiming his innocence because ‘I only had Cheat Engine running, I wasn’t using it!’

      1. Actually I take it as a matter of pride that I got banned for defending free speech on Popehat – and that he will ultimately be forced to defend my right to the same. Oh the ironies!

        1. ‘Ultimately *forced*’? You don’t really understand how this works, do you.

          He already defends your right to free speech. Its his *career*.

  37. The answer is yes: saying a $50 item only costs $13?or that credit card transactions have no cost?or that there’s such a thing as a free lunch?doesn’t make it so. Prices can’t be “smelled,” or dictated, by a government bureaucrat. They can only be truthfully conveyed?or silenced or distorted by the law.

    Sadly, you are not a ‘business lawyer’ nor do you consult for them. Because I’m willing to bet the answer given to Breyer was not as clear or concise as this one. I’m willing to bet they never thought of it in this way and there were a lot of hems and haws and circumlocutions.

    One clarification though – its not that a P dollar item costs fifty dollars. What’s being conveyed here is that the fifty dollar item is worth fifty dollars to the seller and being forced to label it for $13 is forcing the seller to lie about its value to him.

  38. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they are actually happy about Trump being elected. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they never really wanted Trump in the first place. I just love how the anarcho-Frankentrumpkensteins have to now suddenly pretend like they are not completely miserable and nothing will ever satisfy them.

    1. “nothing will ever satisfy them.”

      Stop being silly and you’ll be surprised how satisfied I become.

  39. Off topic, what do you think of people who use their Twitter feed to plug their business and provide information and helpful tips to potential clients?

    What if they combine all of the above with images of Donald Trump as Darth Vader and video of the Historic Women’s March on Washington?

    1. Those people are OK, I guess.

      Its the people who *follow* business twitter feeds for information and helpful tips that need to die in a fire. Get rid of them and every business thinking it needs a Facebook page and for me to ‘friend’ them ‘for helpful tips’ will go away.

      If I need a helpful tip I’ll ask. More likely I’ll Google it. Because its not a *helpful tip* if its just some random fact you put out to fill the horrifying silence and distract you from the knowledge that your life is worthless, you’re running full-tilt to the grave, and no one cares you useless marketing monkey.

      So no, those guys can die in a fire too.

  40. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together. 😉

  41. Price control laws are like painting over the numbers on your speedometer in order to comply with the speed limit.

    Laws that ban people from driving above a certain speed don’t change what is a reasonable speed to drive at, any more than the government can simply declare that people can drive 55. All that speed limits do is ban people from driving at normal speeds. Such laws, writes Sowell, “[do] not change the underlying [speed] in the slightest.”
    Fuck off, slaver.

  42. The Daily Mail provides comprehensive photo coverage of the Women’s March. Lots of photos, lots of celebrities, etc. Apparently Trump’s election means that women can’t be president and that will be forced to gestate babies. WHO KNEW?

    Also, the creep on the right.

    1. I expect you to go through each photo and do the “would, would not” thing for every visible face.

      1. I’m afraid I don’t have the stamina for that much work these days. Plus, I am not attracted to anyone in the 1%, and I have a strong feeling the vast majority of those people are in the 1%.

        1. …percentile for attractiveness?

    2. C’mon man – that’s Quentin Tarantino. He’s just trying to sniff some feet.

    3. “Women are literally the best”

      Translation = SubM Seeking Fdom

      1. I thought it was a joke. He is seeing if people disagree there.

    4. Say what you will about Cunt-con 2017, at least they don’t discriminate against the fat chicks

      1. I’ll bet she hasn’t seen her clitoris in years.

        1. Pity the poor bastard who has.

          1. The last guy who tried reached into the folds and pulled out a pop tart.

            He didn’t survive.

    5. I waded through that earlier. The signs do crack me up. Those women actually think their “rights” are in danger. I wish someone whould have hired a plane towing a banner around DC that said, “Women should know their place, keep their traps shut and do the dishes!”

      I don’t believe that, but it would be the most epic troll.

      1. *would

      2. Heh!

        How about, “Git in the kitchen and bake me a pie, womyn!”

  43. Lefties doing their thing:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..lk_in.html

    1. Bah. Too many characters for easy pasting. Anyways, apparently leftards are reverting to type at Milo event.

      1. I could not discern from the article if the victim was a protestor, or a Milo supporter. My hunch is a protestor attacked the wrong guy and got himself shot. If that is not the case, it is bound to happen eventually.

        1. Even in the Slate comments there’s some jaded individuals observing the radio-silence from likes of Slate and Breitbart on this until who-shot-who is established, then based on those findings it will be down the memory hole for one and get all existential for the other.

          1. I don’t know about that. If it was a protestor shooting a Milo supporter, it will be self defense because all violence against “fascists” is justified. (see mythicalwomans link below) If it was a Milo supporter shooting a protestor that attacked him, there will be a call to end all conceal carry because it is not fair if you attack someone and they shoot you.

    2. SF’d it.

      the front page of Slate has a story sub-titled =

      Massive crowds nationwide and beyond are making it impossible for protesters to actually march

      that makes no sense… on so many levels.

      isn’t the point of a march to “be seen”? and they’re complaining there’s ‘too many people’? why are those people ‘crowding’ in the first place?

      and wtf is “and Beyond”? is there some international anti-trump movement that’s being stymied?

      Slate can sometimes be so stupid you have to put in effort to decode wtf they’re being retarded *about*. see = Jamelle Bouie

      1. I guess they’re saying lots of people who are only tangentially associated w/ the march showed up, and its too-dense to engage in performative-Resistance!? activities

        it seems like they’re claiming some massive victory because their sheer numbers mean that anti-trump sentiment is near-universal

        1. Which contradicts their firm belief that if you’re with them you’re against them but whatevs.

          1. *if you’re not with them

        2. it seems like they’re claiming some massive victory because their sheer numbers mean that anti-trump sentiment is near-universal

          Yes. I think they are hoping that from their protests, Trump will recognize that 100% of America wants him to resign, so he might as well go away and let Hillary be President after all.

          I saw a person on the TV news in San Francisco wearing a Hillary “I’m Still With Her” t-shirt…

    1. What about punching commies? Historically, their death count is a lot higher than Nazis.

    2. This is why we always get rule of man instead of rule of law. People just flagrantly warp the definitions of principles to rationalize what their animal instincts want.

    3. All I’m learning today is I’m glad I don’t tweeter.

      1. As the name suggests, Twitter is best left to twits.

  44. Bustle brings aerial photos and commentary about Women’s March

    If this doesn’t show how women feel about Trump’s presidency, then I don’t know what does.

    What did Crusty learn? All women are the same.

    1. I’ve tried saying that to people. Then i think I’m talking to a deer.

      1. How about when you say that Trump won the white women’s vote?

    2. “The future is female!”

      Four more years of this, everybody.

    3. Not true, for example…some of us have coexist bumper stickers on our cars while others prefer “well behaved women rarely make history”… and still others don’t drive but prefer to hitch non-consensual rides with men

  45. Raven ?@InterstellRaven 15h15 hours ago

    @sox_morgan @gracels @Shakestweetz Nazis existing is an act of violence. They deserve everything that comes at them as a result.

    I’m pretty sure that’s a direct transliteration of Hitler re: Jews. These people really don’t need parody.

  46. The DC march is being co-chaired by unrepentant communist Angela Davis, proud recipient of the Stalin Peace Price and friend of Erich Honecker, one among her many other communist tyrant heroes.

    How is it that people like that are not only welcomed in solidarity with a mainstream political movement, they are also welcomed to teach at colleges? She’s morally no different than Richard Spencer and other white nationalist pricks.

    1. How is it that people like that are not only welcomed in solidarity with a mainstream political movement, they are also welcomed to teach at colleges? She’s morally no different than Richard Spencer and other white nationalist pricks.

      This same mainstream political movement is also confused why they don’t get elected outside of their echo chambers very much, increasingly not at all. But as proven here, they will double down on stupid and then keep wondering.

    2. Totalitarianism is all the same under the skin. And its supporters, of whatever putative political stripe are universally too damned stupid to realize it.

    3. Stalin Peace Price

      STALIN
      PEACE
      PRIZE

      *scratches head in wonderment*

      1. The International Stalin Prize or the International Stalin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Peoples (renamed ????????????? ????????? ?????? “?? ?????????? ???? ????? ????????”, the International Lenin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Peoples as a result of deStalinization) was the Soviet Union’s equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize. It was awarded by a panel appointed by the Soviet government, to notable individuals whom the panel felt had “strengthened peace among peoples”.

        Following Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress held in 1956, on September 6 the prize was renamed the International Lenin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Peoples. All previous recipients were asked to return their Stalin Prizes so they could be replaced by the renamed Lenin Prize. By a decision of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of December 11, 1989, the prize was renamed the International Lenin Peace Prize (Template:Lang-ru).[1]

        I like how the “original” prize was disappeared and never spoken of again.

      2. Only the dead know peace

    4. Yes the media will always completely sidestep the fact that the core of left wing protests is always crazy commie revolutionaries who protest anyway regardless what happened in current events, theyre just jumping at an opportunity to get attention and spread mayhem.

      While at the same time focusing like a laser on the “deplorable” subsets of other movements’ membership.

  47. So the dark night of Trumpism finally landed on America and dammit we were all too busy going to vague protests to remember to prep for it.

  48. Snooping around the internet, I discovered that a combination of the law, a prior court decision and contractual arrangements with credit card companies constrain merchants from adding surcharges to transactions made with plastic. The economy works best when consumers have complete knowledge of pricing information. So the law should (1) allow merchants to charge credit debit card surcharges. (2) require credit/debit card receipts to include the amount given to the credit/debit card issuer (3) require credit card issuers to tell cardholders the amount of all swipe fees addend to a transaction of any amount on any size purchase

  49. But there’s a deeper sense in which the New York law violates the Constitution: all price restrictions are limits on free speech.

    That’s because prices are just a way of conveying information.

    Wow that is dumb.

    1. Yep, price limits are a restriction on how one acts on that information. A price in a store isnt an opinion, its an offer to contract. Now, if you specified the price as what you wanted to charge, minus a government mandated discount, then that should be protected by freedom of speech.

  50. Maybe the concept could apply to attorneys’ fees and court costs. So how about: shorter sentences for quick cash?
    Smaller fines for cash payments? Commutations for cash? Money talks, plastic woks!

  51. That, at least, is how New York officials enforced the law, which?read literally?actually only prohibits shopkeepers from charging customers different prices depending on how they pay. Passed in the 1980s, the law is supposedly intended to protect consumers from hidden fees. But business owners must pay processing fees that don’t apply to cash transactions. Charging customers to pay that fee makes perfect sense. That’s why New York officials didn’t punish businesses that said they were giving cash customers a discount.
    ????? ????? ???
    ????? ???? 2018
    Yet that also means the state was violating the free speech rights of businesses who used the word “surcharge”?which, after all, is the truth. Business owners therefore sued on First Amendment grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case last week. The Court has made clear that government can’t punish people simply because they express themselves in one way or another. Laws must limit actions, not words.

  52. But surcharges and discounts AREN’T the same thing. A surcharge on an item advertised at $5 makes it cost more than $5. A discount for using cash would make it cost less than $5. The article actually says “intended to protect consumers from hidden fees”. So just make the credit card price the default displayed price and give people a discount – or do you think that cash customers are going to complain about getting a discount?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.