VP Of 'Students For Free Speech' Sues Critic For (Among Other Things) Calling Him A 'Free Speech Asshole'
from the free-speech-for-me,-not-for-thee dept
What is it with these Canadian "free speech defenders" suing their critics for their free speech? We've already covered the ridiculous lawsuits by Jordan Peterson and Gavin McInnes against some of their critics, and now we can add a lawsuit by Michele Di Franco, whose Twitter profile notes that he is the "VP Finance" for the "uOttawa Students for Free Speech" club.
You would think that, as such, Di Franco would recognize that others' free speech might sometimes reflect negatively on him, and be able to take it. But, nope. In January, Michael Bueckert wrote an article on Medium discussing how Doug Ford's government did not appear to consult many actual students in forming a plan to defund many student organizations at universities. Bueckert's article notes that it appears the only students who were consulted were the University of Ottawa Free Speech club, based on a roundtable it held that Doug Ford attended. Bueckert had some significant concerns about this, noting that (1) a club like that is not representatives of students and (2) Di Franco appeared to regularly associate with various individuals and groups whose focus was often on supporting the right to spew bigotry on campus. Bueckert tweeted out his article a bunch, often referring to the "alt-right" and in one case talking about "free speech assholes who are freely giving these white supremacists a paid platform."
Di Franco lawyered up, sending a threatening cease and desist, demanding that Bueckert take down the post, stop referring to Di Franco as anything remotely connected to bigotry or the alt-right, provide a written apology and retraction, and pay $2,000 to the lawyers. Bueckert hired some lawyers of his own to respond. It's a good response:
I have had an opportunity to review your client’s claims. It appears as though there has been a misunderstanding. My client formulated his opinion that your client’s politics and the political values of his organization are fairly described as ‘alt-right’ or sympathetic to the alt-right on the basis of your client’s repeated promotion and endorsement of various public commentators, politicians and other personalities that openly espouse either far-right or alt-right views and are generally regarded as representing or associated with the alt-right, despite their personal rejection of that label. These individuals include Gavin McInnes, Janice Fiamengo, Jordan Peterson, Tim Moan, Joseph Watson, Steven Crowder, Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, James Damore, and Maxime Bernier, among others.
Your client has never made any public attempt to disassociate himself with the discriminatory views espoused by these commentators. The only information available has led my client to fairly infer that your client endorses the express and implicitly discriminatory views of these individuals.
Indeed, the response letter includes nine different examples of Di Franco expressing ideological alignment with people in that list, and notes that even denying being a member of the alt-right has become something of a cliche among those who most of the rest of the world consider in their opinion to be members of the alt-right.
And, of course, in response to all of this, Di Franco sued Bueckert for defamation. Among the claims in the lawsuit, it says that merely calling Di Franco a "free speech asshole" is defamatory. Really.
This lawsuit would be laughed out of a US court. First of all, nearly all of the statements are clearly ones of opinion. Second, many of them (including the "free speech asshole" one) are from tweets that don't even mention Di Franco, but are talking about the types of people that Di Franco has associated with. And, yes, it's not fun at all being called an asshole or a bigot or whatever, but if you're really going to be out there claiming to be in favor of "free speech," then you kinda have to suck it up when people say their not-so-nice opinions about you. Otherwise, it does kind of make you a free speech hypocrite, and quite possibly -- in my opinion -- a "free speech asshole."
Since this is Canada, rather than the US, defamation law is not quite as clear-cut -- though hopefully Bueckert still wins. It is true that the bar for defamation is much lower in Canada than in the US, but "fair comment" remains a defense against defamation, and that includes stating opinions about matters of public interest. Moreover, the province of Ontario (where the lawsuit was filed) has a pretty good anti-SLAPP law (stronger than the anti-SLAPP laws of some US states) that will likely be the first line of defense and, hopefully, will get this case tossed out quickly with Di Franco on the hook for Bueckert's legal fees.
Of course, as we see every time one of these situations shows up, supporters of those suing suddenly start twisting themselves into amazing yoga postures trying to "defend" suing people for their opinions. Among them is Jonathan Kay, former opinion writer at Canada's National Post and now an editor of Quillette. Kay has managed to rise above some popular free speech bad-takes in the past: though he's seriously concerned about "mob-based" censorship of conservative ideas, he correctly recognizes that Trump is a more direct threat to true free speech, and though he's seriously concerned about social media censorship, he correctly notes that private platforms can kick off whoever they like. But when it comes to the use of libel lawsuits to silence critics, he appears to be going with the angle that freedom of speech isn't relevant to civil actions, and that it's wrong to think a dubious libel lawsuit reflects on someone's commitment to free speech:
"alt right" is now used as a casual synonym for fascist hatemonger. it's a slur. and if youre going to make stuff up about people, they are going to sue you. I dont know any free-speech champion who says let's gets of libel law. these are private legal actions between individuals
— Jonathan Kay (@jonkay) March 4, 2019
Alas, I imagine that, as with the other cases mentioned earlier, those who align in viewpoints with Di Franco and others will continue to twist themselves around in trying to justify this use of the government to silence a critic, while at the same time pretending to still support "free speech." But, just to be clear: suing other people for saying their mean opinions about you is not supporting free speech. It is very much anti-free speech and, again in my opinion, kinda makes you an asshole.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, defamation, doug ford, free speech, free speech asshole, michael buekert, michele di franco, students for free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Free Asshole?
Based on this article, I don't think it would be out of line to say that Di Franco is an asshole in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christ, what an [the remainder of this comment has been censored due to overuse].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know a lot of the people on that list of 'alt-righters' provided by Bueckert's lawyer, but I have watched a lot of Steven Crowder's videos because he's quite entertaining and have never seen one where he's expressed 'discriminatory views'. He does rile up a lot of leftist college kids by going to their campuses and putting them on the spot to explain their politics more elaborately than just shouted slogans and regurgitated talking points, and since they usually have no ability to do so, it embarrasses them and pisses them off.
But that's not discriminatory, nor do I see how that makes him 'alt-right'. And since those labels have been poorly applied to Crowder here, it makes me wonder how many other people on that list that I'm not familiar with have also been purposely mislabeled.
(Unless we've reached the point where merely being anything other than leftist or 'progressive' is considered both de facto discriminatory and 'alt-right', in which case the whole thing is just a bunch of steaming bullshit.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Counterpoint: Steven Crowder is an unfunny dolt. "Change my mind."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
o_O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But does the opinion that he is alt-right count as libel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These are the sorts who see the need to "call a spade a spade", until someone else has an opinion about them. Then it is completely not cool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can't speak for sure to Canadian law (though I gotta say, this reasoning sounds dubious), but here's a handy Popehat link explaining why that's definitely not the case in US law: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About The First Amendment.
(links and format omitted)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What do you mean by that? Applying labels to people based on their political views is discriminatory by definition, but it's not in any way illegal discrimination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are some different contours to how Canada's Charter rights apply in civil lawsuits, however the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Charter right to free speech is a critical guiding principle in civil defamation/libel law specifically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Steven Crowder comes into that distinction based on a variety of activities, id assume. Critisims of the Alt-Right lie at its association with White Supremacy and movements which are anti-feminist (by which i mean everything from claiming feminism is no longer necessary all the way to claiming we need to roll back feminist advances to pre-1900s) Looking at his actions and associations lead some to consider him at least sympathetic. His association with Prager University, a youtube channel which is seen as supporting the alt right by claiming the alt right is intellectually superior, is one such activity even if his video was on socialism.
The source image of the "change my mind" meme in which he claimed male privilege was entirely a myth is another.
His claims that a Biracial man made up his black ethnic heritage and used that to get a promotion is another.
His Change my mind segment on Louder with Crowder, which I have never seen, has had topics which suggest he holds alt-right viewpoints, but I have nto seen them and can not comment on how the context might improve that view.
This April 2018 tweet where he 'joked' about blaming jews for mass shootings and his followers didn't get the memo probably effects alt-right perceptions.
And that's a few minutes of googling. I could likely find more in his content. A lot of the individuals on that list are the Gateway drugs of the alt-right world. They often aren't overt like core alt-right presenters, but present surface level reasonable arguments that all happen to support alt-right views. They often can be shown to cherry pick data, using a small part of a scientific study to reach a conclusion that contradicts the very conclusion the study reaches when looking at the larger dataset. He might be included in that region. Again, I'd have spend more time looking at his content then I have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Asshole?
Shades of Judge Patrice Lessner!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Pretty much impossible to argue that in a court of law, which must remain neutral, even if I personally think that's a grievous insult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meanwhile, Facebook's "deboosting" scandal seems to validate censorship of conservatives:
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There were other allegations that go beyond opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Since you beat that dead horse, it is a PRIVATE company. If they are censoring, it is their prerogative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Regardless of whether we agree with it these platforms have every right to curate the content hosted on their services. It's not really news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Such as...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Project Veritas told me it was sunny and warm outside, I'd think "It must be snowing."
And I live in Phoenix.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And if Congress strips their Section 230 protection, it's their prerogative.
These companies were denying what they were doing to conservatives, which actually can run afoul of consumer-protection laws. Regardless, it means their conversations are censored, which devalues them considerably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The ones in the screenshot of the complaint.
Perhaps your computer missed that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is Masnick an attorney?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Project Veritas is an organization that has been held criminally liable for his actions in the past, and lost a defamation lawsuit for using editing and framing to misrepresent the truth of statements made by ACORN employees.. They are known to setup undercover 'stings' to catch out the wrongdoing in liberal organizations. These stings inevitably rely on misrepresentation, using statements and quotes out of context, in many cases deliberately cutting out exculpatory context, or framing a situation in such a way to provide an inaccurate context. The famous ACORN sting, is a great one, with an establishing shot of a stereotypical 'Pimp' and 'Prostitute' outside the ACORN offices, and then jumping to the hidden camera, which never shows that the undercover individuals are now in standard business attire, changing the context of the conversation with the Social worker significantly. The AG of CA found that the video produced a false impression of ACORN's actions, and the GAO determined the funds were managed appropriately. As such, Project Veritas requires a greater level of proof to convince me of anything.
Much of the details about the policies needed to analyse and verify the claims of this video are not present. Several statements that appear to be anecdotal observations are instead presented as overarching company philosophy. None of this proves that content removal or moderation policies are biased on the basis of the political viewpoint of the content, rather than the content breaching community standards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
d, maybe (I think probably not). The rest IMO would clearly be considered opinion in a US court. Don't know about Canada.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please cite the specific consumer protection laws to which you refer, then explain how a private company potentially exhibiting a political bias might violate such laws. An answer that contains only your opinion on the matter is playground horseshit that has no place in this discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
d, maybe (I think probably not)
And even then, if you read the actual tweet (also reproduced in the complaint)... he never even calls Di Franco that:
https://twitter.com/mbueckert/status/1093148134119825409
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
People can discuss court cases and the law without having to pass a bar exam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It validates nothing aside from people wanting to play the victim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
PV is also behind:
The faked "Planned Parenthood sells baby parts" video
The faked "Twitter engineers admits they target Conservatives for censorship" video
And a PV agent is pretty much the only person so far to have faked their accusations of being abused by Roy Moore, as part of a failed attempt to sabotage The Washington Post and The New York Times's truthful coverage of the subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
DiFranco is a racist;
DiFranco is a bigot;
DiFranco is a Neo-nazi;
DiFranco is a race IQ scientist (or adheres to race IQ science)
DiFranco is a free speech asshole
So nope, it doesn't look like there's anything non-opinion there that Thad might have missed.
The problem must be on your end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No one (other than the crackpot whose posts everyone hides) is saying it's not, but if they're claiming to be viewpoint neutral, then it's valid to challenge their bullshit when the evidence reveals otherwise.
And if there is evidence to the contrary, that brings up issues of perjury, since the Facebooks execs testified under oath to Congress that they are viewpoint neutral.
It all hinges on whether there is real evidence or just a perceived bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it was WaPo reporters who discovered PV’s attempted sting in the first place by way of not falling for the obvious bait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that, of course, is the whole point. If it's not libel, then the case is pointless, and only serves as someone trying to suppress speech they don't like.
Regardless of what you think of Di Franco and his views, he is currently actively engaging in attempts to suppress speech, which is why he's got this article written about him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As a matter of fact, it did; I'm unable to view content from imgur.
But even if it hadn't? I'm not gonna do your homework for you. Gesturing vaguely at a screenshot doesn't cut it; if you're going to make a claim, it's on you to back it up.
What specific statements do you believe are defamatory?
You really don't seem to want to answer that question, which suggests that you do not have much faith in your answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a lot like when a climate "skeptic" says the Earth should start cooling, because It's all about solar cycles and CO2 is irrelevant, amd then baturally the opposite happens.
Veritas went in to WaPo to try to prove their false premise that WaPo gleefully and recklessly prints any anti-Right smear they hear about regardless of substance, only to get caught by WaPo's standard pracrice of not doing that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wish you the best of luck and all the tin foil needed for such a search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In fact, a major point to the way we handle the law, precedent based common law with judges formally explaining the law and the decision in the final decision, is designed to allow those without a degree to read precedent and understand how the law is applied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think this is my crusade? I'm merely commenting on the issue and pointing out the caveats inherent in your general statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being full of shit will also devalue you, case in point, Project Veritas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Common carrier, public square, state actor, etc. It's why the post office and phone company can't censor people.
My post, however, dealt with Facebook denying it was censoring, and that can run afoul of consumer fraud laws (misleading claims, etc.0.
On a practical level, censorship poisons debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
People who impute mental illness upon others will one day be the ones who have it imputed upon them, based on their actual behavior.
At some point they will be unemployable and generally ostracized, much like those who used the N-word years ago now find themselves, never dreaming that language which was acceptable at the time could bite them years later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
social media networks have not been declared common carriers under Title II
declaring private property to be the "public square" is very rare, and has only (and under current law pretty much can only) happen at the state level, whereas SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to do so
"state actor" would only come into play if a social media network was directly conspiring with government officials to censor conservatives. please tell me you're not that paranoid
you're going to need a hell of a lot more evidence than you've got to make a consumer fraud case. feel free to spend your time fruitlessly searching for it, though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
These are generalized notions, not specific laws. Also: Facebook is not a government-owned entity.
Please cite the exact law that Facebook might be breaking in this regard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: change my mind
If he didn’t want to be called alt right he shouldn’t have dressed like he wanted it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ol blue never had a clue
I can’t even be mad that you used tried using project veratas as a source. It just sad how fucking divorced from reality and how batshit insane you are to think that those idiots have a shred of credibility. Not to mention that out of all the shit going on, this is the turd you throw in the punch bowl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We can call them pirates if that will make you feel better Jhon boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For an interesting take on Ken "Popehat" White of Brown White & Osborn LLP (Kenneth P. White), or at least someone he deals with, Marc J. Randazza, this article should be interesting:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-lawyer-marc-randazza_us_5c1c283ae4b08aa f7a86b9e4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool story bro. Do you cut and paste all your little bullshit saying or do you rewrite them every time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And their opinions are literally worthless in the eyes of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Reading is not writing, however.
Is Masnick an attorney?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you brought it up. We look foreword to your findings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t suppose you are going to apologise to the class for being demonstrably wrong again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you?
No.
Then shut the fuck up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: your point much like your dick is flaccid
Randazza is a piece of shit. So what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
By that logic, your opinions are worthless as well — which means, according to your own logic, we can ignore them without reservation or regret.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow I struck a nerve
Poor thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I comment on piracy as a publisher, not giving legal analysis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yet you come here every day talking about Article 13 and what that law will and will not do, so your logic still applies. Sucks, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What direct relevance does Mark Randazza have to the article in question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Check twitter for the current flame war relating to Randazza and Kenneth P. White, a/k/a "Popehat," of the law firm Brown White & Osborn LLP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Masnick shouldn't allow that type of language
It reflects poorly on him, his blog, and those who stand near him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Masnick should not allow that type of language
It's disgusting, and a poor reflection on him, his blog, and those who choose to stand near him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, now I'm being MODERATED!
Can't imagine why LOL.
Won't help much since many other sites are beyond the reach of the OUTRIGHT CENSORSHIP practiced here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And what relevance does that have to this Techdirt article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminder:
Moderation is a platform operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Discretion is you saying “I won’t do that there”. Censorship is someone saying “you can’t do that anywhere” alongside threats of either violence or government intervention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Seriously! Now WHAT could have TRIGGERED the snowflake CENSOR on this site?
Fortunately there are many other places to post, and a lot more is about to be posted.
Masnick thinks it's funny to let his commenters bully people online. Some don't agree.
Get ready, Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, it seems to be just a computer glitch, but the timing was odd.
Let's test the limits of free speech here, however, and let's also see if some of the more vociferous types here can restrain themselves from breaking all measures of the law. Most don't, sadly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reminder:
It was just a software glitch or something, but given what will be posted here not too long from now, this site's commitment to "free speech" will be tested like never before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reminder:
You reply faster than a social media manager who earns an actual salary. Impressive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Dude, zip up your pants, your impotence is exposed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Sadly"
Sadly? As in, you were actually thrilled to be "censored" because it gave you a basis on which to paint yourself as a martyr and yell at Techdirt? Or what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Won't help much since many other sites are beyond the reach of the OUTRIGHT CENSORSHIP practiced here.
As always, a simple challenge: name a single blog with comments that are less moderated than Techdirt's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I comment on piracy as a publisher
You're a publisher? Prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anyone can post with no need to create an account or even post under a name, the only 'bar' is a few spam filters that can occasionally catch legitimate posts, so to get less moderated you'd have to have no spam filters, and good luck not having that spammed into oblivion inside a week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I’m honestly surprised I haven’t yet gotten dinged for my overuse of “Christ, what an asshole”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reminder:
What, like more of the anti-Techdirt/Randazza/Pissedconsumer libel Roca Labs concocted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Posting the exact same comment multiple times soonish after each other can get it flagged/held for moderation, but unless I missed something you've only used that phrase twice recently, and the wording of the comment was different, such that I'm not surprised it hasn't reached that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have yet to actually prove that bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reminder:
Ohhh it’s the long awaited police investigation. Or wait is it the FBI report? No it’s the Fox News Expose. Or wait it’s local channel 9 report. Wait wait it’s the SEC investigation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still projecting like a champ.
Coming from toddler John on his fourth crying jag of the day that’s rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Censoring conservatives' conversations doesn't devalue them - it improves them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The last time you told us to get ready was the middle of last year.
I've yet to see SWAT teams burst through my ceiling.
Said it before, I'll say it again: you're firing blanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Unless we've reached the point where merely being anything other than leftist or 'progressive' is considered both de facto discriminatory and 'alt-right', in which case the whole thing is just a bunch of steaming bullshit."
Anyone who whines about one label being applied to them while throwing out meaningless labels to apply to everybody else is already spouting massive piles of the stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Common carrier, public square, state actor, etc. It's why the post office and phone company can't censor people."
Which would explain why ISPs shouldn't be censoring people, whether by blocking sites or violating net neutrality.
What does that have to do with Facebook?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm constantly amazed. I mean, you'd have thought you'd have found a source somewhere that wasn't a proven producer of fiction, yet everything you source as factual proof is known to outright lie to its audience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You comment as a moron - you have provided zero proof that you are anything but that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reminder:
You reply equally fast if not faster....hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Masnick should not allow that type of language
And...? I thought nobody took Masnick seriously and people don't read this site.
If people don't read this site, why does it matter to you so much what appears on it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tough titties
Stop acting like a little bitch and we will stop treating you like one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
For what? You to shit your pants again? I think thrice in one day is plenty Jhon boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It helps if there's a significant period of time between the postings. Plus, Stephen's put it on entirely different articles. So yeah. It's not triggering any flooding/spam protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why is it the ones who cry the loudest when subjected to criticisms or insults, are almost always the same ones who believe they should be the only ones entitled to insult and criticize? And its almost a given they hold bigoted views of others, and openly express those views, but whine incessantly when subjected to anything resembling the language they use. Add to it this claim of free speech, then throw a complete hissy fit when someone else exercises their free speech in challange of them, exposes them as hypocritical snowflakes.
They want free speech, but they believe free speech is them being able to say anything they want, free from challenges and consequences of their words, free speech is only for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Businesses that provide Internet services in California, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are subject to §51 of the California Civil Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, religious affiliation, or political or religious beliefs, including speech expressing those beliefs. [California Civil Code §51 (Compl. ¶¶ 46-53)]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there you go. Your inability to grasp basic logic is where you fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Businesses that provide Internet services in California, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube,
Error: contradictory
"Providing services over the internet" =/= "Providing internet service"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Woah there!
You just straight up imagined that the Unruh Act covers "political affiliation". Like most anti-discrimination rules, it does not.
California Civil Code s.51, aka the Unruh Civil Rights Act, prevents discrimination based on:
Not political affiliation. It's very interesting to me that you simply assumed (or intentionally pretended?) that political affiliation was on that list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
(It has been held, in some circumstances, to cover certain aspects of political views - but that is most certainly not in the text of the act)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Besides the fact that section 51 doesn't cover political affiliation, it's also not clear to me it covers information service providers. It guarantees "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." The section does not include a definition of "business establishment" but I would think that means a physical location. So as far as I can tell, both components of your claim are incorrect.
http://www.search-california-law.com/research/ca/CIV/51./Cal-Civil-Code-Section-51/text.h tml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose that to some people their political affiliation is essentially a religion? I know for a fact it's sometimes easier to reason with actual religious cult members than Trump supporters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, so after mocking for 'just assuming', you follow up with "Well, yeah, it has been held to cover that', then pretend you were still right because it's not in the text of the act, as if I had quoted directly from the act in the first place.
It's very interesting to me that you simply assumed I was quoting directly from the statute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digital Media Agency Karachi
MiniBigTech is the renowned <a href="https://www.minibigtech.com">Digital Media Agency Karachi</a> which has been here for a long time as well as it has been providing superior quality of services. That’s why we have a plethora of proud clients all over the world who are with us since commencing time. And they all are satisfied our organization because our first priority is to be committed our clients.
We have colossal variety of services such as, Web designing, Mobile Applications, Graphic Designing, Software Development, Digital Marketing, and Web Development. We are expert in above mention resources owing to the fact that we have more than five year experience employees team who are proficient in their field along with they have a passion to play the new challenges as well as they are facing the new challenges every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Güre Saruhan Termal Otel
https://www.guresaruhanotel.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]