Google’s argument, as reported in this BBC News story, is that it’s entirely within their guidelines. That’s true. It is fully within Google’s terms for third-party app developers to allow employees to read the emails captured by their apps as long as it’s compliant and the user has granted permission.
Today was the first day I’ve ever walked in a Pride Parade. My greatest love and thanks go out to all the Northwestern people who helped organise us together under (well, behind) one banner, and to the Parade organisers and marshals for making it happen.
Plenty of Chicago-area newspapers are reporting this story as if it’s some kind of unusual water dispute between two Cook County municipalities. But water is an essential resource, and it’s fairly obvious that not everybody has equal access to fresh water.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is impressive legal gymnastics that allow it to avoid answering the question of what wins in a conflict between the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion exercise and the right to equal protection under the law.
In addition to Snopes’ excellent write-up, I think it’s important to note two more things.
First, the president of the United States cannot conduct impeachment proceedings; the House of Representatives impeaches the president, and the Senate determines whether they should be removed from office.
I appreciate the argument, but Kenan Malik is presenting a different frame of reality. There cannot be a legal difference between discriminating against a class of people or discriminating against a particular individual, or else we effectively destroy the effectiveness of anti-discrimination legislation.