SpaceX's plans to launch more rockets from California's coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk's political posts on X.
archive (But really, if you’re in the Southland please subscribe, they have consistently good/important articles)
SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on X and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.
The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.
Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.
Military officials argue that launches by SpaceX, a leading contractor at Vandenberg Space Force Base, should be considered a federal activity because all of its launches benefit military objectives… As such, Space Force officials don’t have to obtain a permit or permission from the California Coastal Commission for rocket launches; they only need to reach an agreement to mitigate the effects.
But commissioners in recent months have questioned whether SpaceX launches, which carry private Starlink equipment on up to 87% of their flights, should be considered private activity.
Military officials have gone before the commission repeatedly this year to try to significantly increase the number of SpaceX launches, and officials said they plan to once again ask for another increase — for up to 100 annually — by early next year.
“Today’s vote hasn’t changed the [Department of the Air Force’s] or Vandenberg’s unwavering commitment to preserving the California coastline and the precious species that reside there,”
Okay, and your legal credentials and/or cited example(s) of judicial precedent is/are [fill in the blank here].
To be clear, they are simply choosing not to continue providing something they’re actively privileging Musk with, namely allowing the rocket launches. They’re not revoking something that he inherently has the right to.
It would be like if the government were paying Musk money, he said and did a bunch of fucked up shit, and then – absent a contract saying they can’t – stopped providing the money. That’s not a First Amendment violation; that’s just discontinuing giving Musk something he isn’t entitled to.
You’re the one making a claim here that this is a probable First Amendment violation and liable to get the CCC in deep legal shit here, not me. The burden of proof is on you.
If a unicorn runs into the courtroom, the prosecution is required to do the hokey pokey and donate exactly $2 to a charity of the defense’s choice. Now I could be a good boy and cite the statute that says that, or I could tell you “actually, you go find something that says it doesn’t exist and prove me wrong lol.”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Okay, and your legal credentials and/or cited example(s) of judicial precedent is/are [fill in the blank here].
To be clear, they are simply choosing not to continue providing something they’re actively privileging Musk with, namely allowing the rocket launches. They’re not revoking something that he inherently has the right to.
It would be like if the government were paying Musk money, he said and did a bunch of fucked up shit, and then – absent a contract saying they can’t – stopped providing the money. That’s not a First Amendment violation; that’s just discontinuing giving Musk something he isn’t entitled to.
deleted by creator
You’re the one making a claim here that this is a probable First Amendment violation and liable to get the CCC in deep legal shit here, not me. The burden of proof is on you.
If a unicorn runs into the courtroom, the prosecution is required to do the hokey pokey and donate exactly $2 to a charity of the defense’s choice. Now I could be a good boy and cite the statute that says that, or I could tell you “actually, you go find something that says it doesn’t exist and prove me wrong lol.”
Which one seems more reasonable?
deleted by creator
Better get reading if you want to have any hope of disproving the unicorn statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
I admire your patience. :-D