Soon, every person on Earth will be connected, via social media, to every other person. So why do we approach policy like it’s the ’70s? In his book The Great Questions of Tomorrow, David Rothkopf asks how we can change our policy outlook to reflect how people actually interact. Rothkopf is CEO and editor of the FP Group and host of The Editor’s Roundtable podcast.
In the Spiel: Is air travel getting worse or are we just more demanding?
A team of social scientists stumbles onto a cache of censored Chinese social media posts—and decides to find out what the Chinese government wants wiped from the internet.
On China’s most influential microblogging platform, a wristwatch aficionado named Boss Hua accuses a government official of corruption. But, his posts aren’t censored. So what disappears into the black box of Chinese censorship...and what stays online? A team of social scientists cracked this question—by mistake—with big data.
(Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)
FOOTNOTES
See the picture that got ‘Smiling Official’ Yang Dacai fired.
Read Gary, Jen, and Margaret’s first study on Chinese government censorship (American Political Science Review).
Read the results of Gary, Jen, and Margaret’s social media experiment (Science).
Read Gary, Jen, and Margaret’s latest study, about what the Chinese government secretly posts to the internet.
Hear Gary King on Science Friday.
CREDITS
This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Annie Minoff and Elah Feder. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Fact-checking help from Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky. Story consulting by Ari Daniel. Translations and voicing by Isabelle. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton.
In this episode, the Goods from the Woods Boys are all on their lonesome talking about their recent Southern sojourns and who would win in a fight if all the artists at Woodstock '99 got into a fight. It's Insane Clown Posse vs. Creed. Ice Cube vs. Red Hot Chili Peppers. Metallica vs. moe. This episode is completely ridiculous and we know you're gonna love it. Song of the week this week: "Body in the Lake" by Col. Bruce Hampton & The Code Talkers. Follow the show @TheGoodsPod Rivers is @RiversLangley Dr. Pat is @PM_Reilly Mr. Goodnight is @SepulvedaCowboy Pick up a Goods from the Woods t-shirt at: http://prowrestlingtees.com/TheGoodsPod
In this episode, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty. First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor. Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, "Dan Dan the Conservative Man." Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called "illegal" aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to "Sanctuary Cities." We think we answered this. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the meaningless portions of the Trump EO and contrasts them with the Definitely Unconstitutional provision. Then, we answer another listener question, this one from Shane Argo, who wants to know about the legal and philosophical reasons for treating "attempted murder" differently than regular murder. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #22 about a buyer who finds a priceless artifact at a yard sale and knowingly buys it for a fraction of its true value. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
Trump adviser Stephen Miller seemed to burst onto the national scene this past February, with his memorable defense of the White House’s travel ban and claims of voter fraud. But New York magazine’s Reeves Wiedeman says Miller’s education in punditry came years earlier, as a Duke University student commenting on the Duke lacrosse scandal for cable news. Back then, Miller was recognizably pugnacious and self-assured—but he was also right.
In the Spiel, we live in times of confusion and flashing-neon warning signs. How does all that add up to utter indifference?
French elections, Sally Yates' testimony, Kushner family corruption, the latest on health care, and our interview with Senator Kamala Harris recorded live in front of a rowdy San Fransisco crowd.
On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v. United States. Travis Beckles, who had various felony convictions, was subsequently found guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. As a result he was subject to an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which deemed him a “career offender” whose firearm possession offense constituted a “crime of violence.” Applying the enhancement, the district court sentenced Beckles to 360 months’ imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Beckles then sought habeas relief from his enhanced sentence, arguing that his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm was not a “crime of violence,” and that therefore he did not qualify as a “career offender” under the Guidelines. The district court denied his petition and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again affirmed. -- Beckles then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and while his petition was pending the Court decided Johnson v. United States, which held that the residual clause part of the “crime of violence” definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act--the very same language that was applied to Beckles via the Sentencing Guidelines--was unconstitutionally vague. The Court, therefore, vacated the judgment in Beckles’ case and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of the Johnson decision. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit again affirmed Beckles’ enhanced sentence, reasoning that Johnson simply did not address the Sentencing Guidelines or related commentary. The Supreme Court then again granted certiorari, to “resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to the residual clause in [the Guidelines.]” -- By a vote of 7-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that [the Guidelines’] residual clause is not void for vagueness.” Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Kennedy also filed a concurring opinion. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- To discuss the case, we have Carissa Hessick, who is the Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands, Inc. designs and manufactures clothing and accessories for use in various athletic activities, including cheerleading. Design concepts for the clothing incorporate many elements but do not consider the functionality of the final clothing. Varsity received copyright registration for the two-dimensional artwork of the designs at issue in this case, which were very similar to ones that Star Athletica, LLC was advertising. Varsity sued Star and alleged, among other claims, that Star had violated the Copyright Act. Star countered that Varsity had made fraudulent representations to the Copyright Office. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Star argued that Varsity did not have valid copyrights because the designs were for “useful articles” and cannot be separated from the uniforms themselves, all of which tends to make an article ineligible for copyright. Varsity argued that the copyrights were valid and had been infringed. The district court granted summary judgment for Star and held that the designs were integral to the functionality of the uniform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, however, and held that the uniforms Varsity designed were copyrightable. -- By a vote of 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976 only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work -- either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression -- if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated; that test is satisfied here. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is a Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law.
