Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
from the this-is-not-a-winning-strategy dept
Twitter and Steven Biss (Devin Nunes' rather busy, but still terrible, lawyer) were in court on Friday to continue Nunes' frivolous SLAPP suit against a satirical internet cow who makes fun of Nunes. The current issue remains Twitter's unwillingness to reveal who is behind the @DevinCow account. Twitter, correctly, continues to point out that it doesn't need to give up the account info, that it's protected from doing so under Section 230, that the Cow has engaged in 1st Amendment protected speech, and more. And Biss's response appears to be... "but Twitter's mean to us, so it's not fair, it's not, it's not, it's not."
Needless to say, this is not a very good argument.
Nunes’ attorney Steven Biss said that Twitter should not qualify for immunity under the law, known as Section 230, contending it treats Nunes unfairly.
“They’re doing more than allowing Liz Mair, the cow and the mom to post a tweet,” Biss said. “They’re censoring, they’re promoting an anti-Nunes agenda, they’re banning conservative accounts and they’re knowingly encouraging it.”
Again, there's no evidence that Twitter is "banning conservative accounts" or "knowingly encouraging" anything involving an "anti-Nunes agenda," but even if they were, that's explicitly allowed (even encouraged) under Section 230, which flat out says that sites cannot be held liable for the moderation of constitutionally protected speech. At least the judge seems to recognize how faulty Biss' argument is:
“I don’t know of any requirement in the law that says these sites have to be neutral,” Marshall said. “Just because you don’t like it and asked to have them take it down, doesn’t mean they’re liable if they don’t take it down.”
Patrick Carome, an attorney for Twitter, argued that Biss wanted Marshall to carve out an exception for Twitter in the law, which is up to Congress, not the courts.
“Mr. Biss is asking the court to enact a new law,” Carome said. “And if he wants a new law, well, Mr. Nunes is a congressman.”
As an aside, Twitter's lawyer, Patrick Carome is not just "an attorney for Twitter," he was the lawyer who won the first big case about Section 230 that made it clear that it protected websites from liability for their moderation decisions. He understands the law inside and out. Biss... not so much.
According to Courthouse News, the judge even pointed out that Trump's silly executive order shows pretty clearly that Twitter's interpretation of 230 is correct:
“Doesn’t the existence of the executive order, which isn’t law, suggest the law can do what Twitter says it can?” the judge opined.
Biss also claimed that he was at a "dead end" in trying to determine the identity of who is behind the Cow account, which is kind of funny given the revelations that Biss tried to use subpoenas in wholly unrelated cases to try to unmask the account on the sly. Also, as Twitter pointed out, Nunes/Biss had not actually explored all legal avenues:
Carome listed the steps the congressman could take to get the identities revealed. They include filing subpoenas in Virginia and California and going through numerous steps to overcome each state’s unmasking laws.
“I don’t know why Nunes has been sitting on his hands,” Twitter’s lawyer said, pointing to the congressman’s original requests for the identities when the complaint was first filed over a year ago. “He’s wasted a lot of time.”
Of course, the reason that Biss hasn't done that is because he probably recognizes that he'll never overcome the bar to unmasking who is behind the Cow, because everything the Cow has said is protected speech, and the right to speak anonymously remains protected by the 1st Amendment as well.
That said, the judge (who had refused to dismiss the case earlier when he had the chance) pushed back on Twitter somewhat as well. Again, from the Courthouse News report:
But much like the first hearing in the case, Judge Marshall expressed some doubts about Twitter’s arguments as well. He pointed to a procedural issue involving the company’s failure to respond to numerous offenses Nunes alleges the company committed, ranging from shadow banning conservatives to acts of illegal defamation.
But Carome argued that procedurally, Twitter didn’t have to answer questions at this point in the case, while Marshall said state law might suggest otherwise.
The judge also expressed discontent at Twitter’s efforts to dismiss the case so early.
“The Supreme Court of Virginia doesn’t want us to short-circuit cases. I’m reminded by lawyers of it frequently,” he said to some chuckles in the court.
But that's all procedural nonsense. The key point is this: Devin Nunes is filing a vexatious, frivolous suit (one of many) against some online critics who were making fun of him (some of them anonymously). He has no legitimate claim, and as such no legitimate reason to unmask the people behind the satirical accounts.
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: 1st amendment, anonymity, cda 230, devin nunes, devin nunes' cow, devincow, pat carome, section 230, steven biss, unmasking
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"“They’re censoring, they’re promoting an anti-Nunes agenda, they’re banning conservative accounts and they’re knowingly encouraging it.”"
...and there is no problem with any of this, legally or morally. Maybe Nunes would like to consider behaviour that doesn't lend itself so well to mockery, or that makes banning a certain group of idiots not so essential to its long-term business?
"“Mr. Biss is asking the court to enact a new law,” Carome said. “And if he wants a new law, well, Mr. Nunes is a congressman.”"
Classic! This is why this particular idiot is so amusing. He's in a position to draft changes to the law if he doesn't like it, instead he wants to force courts to say the law says something other than what's written, all because he was offended by someone pretending to be a cow.
It's pathetic enough when the usual gaggle of losers whine that Twitter is policing its own property, but it's especially dumb when an actual lawmaker is doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"He's in a position to draft changes to the law if he doesn't like it..."
I think even he realises there's nowhere near enough support in Congress for that to be successful. And the ricicule he'd receive for trying would be ten times what it is now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Meh, it's a very common thing for right-wingers - grandstand on some "moral" issue, introduce some bill that would never be passed, and often would be found unconstitutional even if it did somehow pass. If you win, you're a hero (but please ignore the removal of the bill for being illegal later on). If you fail, it's just more evidence of the grand conspiracy. Rinse and repeat.
I'm not sure how "judges need to selectively change the way the law works because a man pretending to be a cow was mean to me" has better optics than the above, but then I suppose that's probably not how it's being reported in the right-wing gutter press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone needs to inform the judge that truth is now what conservatives feel it is. If Nunes lawyer isn't prepared to do so, I'm sure one of the conservative commenters here will be more than happy to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
...
... He actually said that?
...
What the actual fuck.
A word for Biss: isn't this whole shitshow precisely because Nunes wants Twitter to censor, and they refused, you deceitful disingenuous dumbass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is much broader than Twitter
No matter how many times our parents told us to not make fun of the stupid and incompetent, we do. I shouldn't admit it, but I get a little kick out of giving a kick to someone that is applying his stupidity maliciously. Devin Nunes will always be a punching bag because he's such a perfect target. He's supposed to be part of an organization that makes the laws while he is so completely clueless about the law. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but he's looking to violate the first amendment. I have no doubt that more than just Twitter accounts make fun of him. No doubt grocery clerks do, too. With his lack of mental horsepower to understand how weak he looks for doggedly going after a parody account, I would be absolutely shocked if he understood how to use a debit/credit card reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is much broader than Twitter
Reminds me of the old joke about how stupid people are similar to a slinky. Both are good for a laugh when you push them down the stairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is much broader than Twitter
uphold the constitution
Are you sure that wasn't HOLDUP (1) (2) (3) the constitution?
(1) Delay, obfuscate, impede
(2) Robbery at arms
(3) to ridicule, mockery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one question
Just one question for you many geniuses and long time posters: Why does this site seem like it has a "hive mind"? Why does everyone agree so much? Why is there so little opposing opinion? Are you all DEMOCRATIC HIVE MIND members with NO OPINION OF YOUR OWN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
You'd have an easier time finding people willing to agree with you if you actually made some kind of on topic point. It'd also help if right wing views and policies weren't wrong pretty much all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Agree with my opinion? Here on Techdirt? Isn't that rather like getting Nancy Pelosi to agree that Donald Trump has done a good job? Isn't that like AOC giving president Trump a blowjob in public while shirtless? Isn't that like saying that maybe that policeman in Atlanta responded reasonably to that black man that put a Tazer in his face? Isn't that like saying that one bad cop is one bad cop and not more? Isn't that like saying that with so many cops and so many black criminals that's it's HIGHLY LIKELY that some will be black and some will be white?
Agree with my opinion? Acknowledge my opinion? Not censor my opinion? Here? On Techdirt? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Agree with my opinion? Here on Techdirt? "
Yes, if your opinion is based on reality. If it's not, you'll be asked for evidence of your claims, then mocked if you refuse to provide them.
"Isn't that like AOC giving president Trump a blowjob in public while shirtless?"
Also not being an idiot helps. Have you tried that yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I really don't want to see Trump shirtless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Trump, shirtless, riding bitch on a horse with a shirtless Putin with a weird grin on his mug. Sounds like a meme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Sounds like therapy needed after seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I need brain bleach for just seeing the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Could be that bunker boy was going around shirtless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Isn't that like AOC giving president Trump a blowjob in public while shirtless?"
What is your problem? Must be some sort of sexual weirdo, idk.
Am I to assume that your opinions are as screwed up as your comments? What are your opinions? You seem to be having difficulty expressing them coherently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
That says a lot more about your opinions than about Techdirt, genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
Oh, there are opposing opinions here. But unlike you, we don't behave like assholes when we don't agree with someone who post cogent arguments.
Considering the amount of time you have spent shit-posting here, I can only assume that you are either to stupid to learn this or that you suffer from some kind of mental disorder that you should seek some help for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Only mildly opposing are allowed, ever. Really different opinions are always attacked. Try this: Patents are good, copyright is good, Both have a long history of being good and making America the most inventive and successful country that ever existed. Patents and copyrights contribute to the public good, the private good, and are just fabulous tools to incentivize the best and the brightest among us. Light Bulb. VelCro. Intermittent windshield wipers. Acts of sheer brilliance that would be encouraged, admired and promoted as heroic.
Or does the "hive mind" disagree, and will the "hive mind" reply with what it usually does, censorship in place of an argument.
Hive mind. Hive mind. HM HM HM. Bzzzzzzzz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Try this: Patents are good, copyright is good, Both have a long history of being good and making America the most inventive and successful country that ever existed."
That's not a bad start, and most here would agree to a point. However, if you decide to ignore the rest of the issue - that those laws have been changed so that they're nothing like the laws that existed during the times of the success of which you speak - you you'll rightfully be called out for being dishonest and/or not understanding what everyone else is saying.
"Light Bulb"
It's hilarious that your first example about how great patents are is that one. Read some history if you want to understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Oh, so your argument is a mystery for me to discover? How exciting!
Or is it because you shallow hive mind jerks have nothing to say? Could that be it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Oh, so your argument is a mystery for me to discover? How exciting!"
No, one of my arguments (I made a couple) is something that's obvious to anyone who understand the history of the issues at hand. An intellectually honest person would understand this, and thus why everyone thinks that recent changes to the system are highly problematic. You should know the basics of the subject you're arguing for.
But, I'm sure this has been explained to you many times and you just ignored the explanation in favour of acting like a ignorant fool, hence the reason why nobody's bothering to educate you any more. You'd rather just whine than learn, or even provide evidence for your own claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Word salad. You said exactly nothing.
Try this one:
That black fellow in Atlanta that the police shot. He was drunk. He resisted arrest. He posed an immediate danger to two police officers, and according to the video evidence, tried to overcome them both with physical violence. In return, he was shot. That saved a lot of money in terms of housing him, trying him, incarcerating him, and waiting for him to do the same thing again after he was released. He obviously had no respect for himself, the police, or other citizens. Shooting him was a net benefit to society.
Dispute that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Word salad. You said exactly nothing."
No, I explained to you in simple words what the situation is. If this basic explanation is beyond you, maybe the issue with you not communicating with others here is not the fault of the rest of us?
"That saved a lot of money in terms of housing him, trying him, incarcerating him, and waiting for him to do the same thing again after he was released."
So, you value dollars over due process? You're OK with police executing people (as it has been deemed to be homicide by the medical examiner) so long as you don't like them?
I don't have to dispute anything, your psychopathy and lack of respect for the law are clearly laid out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
By your reasoning, anyone not providing an obvious net benefit to society isn't worth anything.
That makes me wonder, what have you contributed to society that is a net benefit? Judging by your behavior here I can only conclude that you are a drag on society.
If we look back at history where people reasoned as you do, we only find horrors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Wow. Where to even begin? How about with what an utter piece of shit you are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
As he failed to comprehend the simple hint about how the light bulb is a bad example of patents being a net positive, he switched to stating how extrajudicial murder is OK, so long as he considers it to be value for money.
I'd hope it was obvious even to him what a shit he is, but I feel like it will go over his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Sounds like something a nazi would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
/dismiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
sorry - I meant the comment to which you replied sounded like a nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Actually, it sounds like the opposite of what you've been saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I'll just leave this right here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
It's not a mystery. You proposed to discuss the subject of "patents are good" while being woefully educated on the subject. If you don't understand the reference to the invention of the light bulb and what happened you aren't really equipped to talk about "patents are good" either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I support the general idea behind patents and copyrights.
There's only so much public benefit that can be had without them. With them, I think it is possible to achieve more for the public. But, the devil's in the details; too much protection, or the wrong kind, and and we'd be worse off. While I don't know if we're doing that badly right now, we could certainly stand to do better, and that probably means less (but not zero) patent and copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I've often said here that copyrights are necessary to some degree, as without them corporations could steal whatever they wanted and overpower the independent artist who cannot effectively fight them in the corporate marketplace.
But, copyright as it stands now, automatic and effectively infinite, is as bad if not worse. It clearly needs to be changed.
If AC above wishes to argue that people here never discuss this or that everybody here argues for zero protection, he's arguing with a strawman of his own invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"America the most inventive and successful country that ever existed"
Yes, the us has the best inventions. The us is great with inventions. No one has better inventions than the us - nobody!
and do not get me started on how successful is us is because as we all know, no one is more successful than the us, the us has the best success. We are having so much success that we are getting tired of being so successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Great examples... intermittent windshield wipers invented by Robert Kearns, and stolen and used by Ford and Chrystler without payment or attribution.
Sure he got to sue for infringment and may have received 10% of what Ford/Chrystler made by including the invention.
Have other examples of ideas stolen by corporations that you think support your point of 'patents are great'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Funny, because I don't see many opposing opinions here, especially ones that don't get censored.
What I see is a bunch of TD community members who flag all posts that are not in conformity with the community's political ideology.
And when someone does post an opposing argument, that person is harrassed and cursed at and called "stupid" and an "asshole."
And in the worst cases, people are accused of having "mental disorders."
You shitheads are making a huge mistake if you think people don't realize what you're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Because you're such a champion for advocating the opposing political ideology, aren'tcha Hamilton?
How'd that real Indian campaign by Shiva Ayyadurai go again? Wasn't he supposed to beat the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren? How'd that turn out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
Yeah - just one question for all you geniuses and troll time posters.
Why are so many of you opposed to punching yourselves in the balls? I just do not understand the logic behind this one sided opinion about not punching one's balls. Is this hive mind control from outer space? The mother ship demands ball punching, why do you not agree with your own opinions?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Look, ok, so let me put it in another light to make it more clear to you. You are hopeless idiot children with NO HEROES or appreciation of HISTORY. I posted a LOT of writing from Bill Ayers, who was the man that hosted Obama's coming out party. By any measure, he is a major HERO to Obama, and a major HERO to the left. But NO ONE HERE recognized his writing, you thought it was Russian, for Christ's sake. NO RECOGNITION of what SHOULD BE a HERO to ALL OF YOU COMMIE IDIOTS.
The truth - you hive mind idiots have no heroes. You only want to destroy real heroes and their statues and replace them with ANARCHY! Admit it! You are godless soulless anarchists without a principal, a conviction, a hero or a philosophy.
HIVE MINDERS! YOU! READ HISTORY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Why would anyone need heroes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Right - anything other than the "hive mind" opinion is met with violence, that's your point, right? Painful violence. This is Fascism, what you are practicing is Fascism. You behave like a single organism with a single opinion, like you are part of the greater whole and only want to repeat the same opinions that are approved by others. Not an individual thinker among you.
Hive mind. Bzzzzzz. Strictly speaking, Mike is the Queen of the Hive, it kind of fits him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
You are familiar with self-flagellation, right?
It's what you practice which was the point that totally passed you by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
The projection is strong with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
[same AC, half an hour later]
Well then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Are you having difficulty understanding sarcasm?
I have read that some people do not understand sarcasm as they take everything literally .... umm well I guess not literally anymore because they changed the definition of that word to mean figuratively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
"Why does this site seem like it has a "hive mind"?"
Because actual facts don't change no matter how many times you state them, and most of us who are armed with facts don't take kindly to those who come in and spread something other than facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Just to be clear, you all assert the same facts, and you all deny the same facts. Hive mind. You're just proving my point. Techdirt has a hive mind. Nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"Just to be clear, you all assert the same facts, and you all deny the same facts. "
Yes, we generally assert facts that are backed with evidence and deny "facts" that usually have either zero proof or are from hilariously obvious fiction peddlers like project veritas.
If you dislike this, try asserting facts that are based on actual evidence. It's not hive mind because we haven't bought into the same laughable fiction that you have, but it's down to you to prove that it's not fiction when you assert something. That you always fail to do so is on you, not the people demanding evidence for your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
That's a "hive mind" response.
No curiosity. No openness. No room for other opinions.
Fascists.
Hive mind.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
I have a question for you: why does it seem like every "conservative" who posts her has a hive mind? You all present the same lack of factual data, you all deny the same actual factual data, you all refuse to provide any kind of evidence of your claims, and you all resort to attacking the people who respond to you and accusing people of being close-minded, while simultaneously never once addressing the actual arguments, or attempting to engage in actual discussion.
Are you all connected telepathically? Or is there something else going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
he is more fascist that conservative, and fascism demands a hive mind, so that everybody marches in lock step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
You're not wrong. Thus why "conservative" in the scare quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"everybody marches in lock step."
All graduates from the school of silly walks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"No room for other opinions."
He says in response to a post where I told you there was plenty of room for other opinions, you just have to back them up if questioned.
Your willful ignorance and illiteracy are not my problem, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
So you have no counter-argument then? I'm not surprised since it actually requires some honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
"No curiosity. No openness. No room for other opinions."
Facts are facts. They're not subject to opinion. There's only one set of data which represents factual reality no matter what anyone thinks.
So naturally when we discuss the equivalent of 2+2=4 absolutely no one but you is going to wonder why we aren't discussing the hypothetical results of 5 or 6 instead.
"Fascists."
Yeah, that's typical projection from the guy so brainwashed by breitbart's adherence to the concept of "alternative fact" that he is no longer able to connect with actual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Just to be clear, if everyone you meet disagrees with you - that means that you are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Hey! Stop posting as me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
you don't have facts, you have opinion and baseless statements that you may 'think' are facts (if that grey matter can still generate sufficient static electricity to fire the neurons), but they are not. Link to sources for all your facts (that are not right wing nut job sites like @OANN).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
That's the beauty of facts: they're objectively true for anyone. Except Republican assclowns apparently. Also, just to be clear: you haven't mentioned ONE fact that goes against Mike's conclusion about Nunes being a pompous dick. How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Well here's a fact for you. We all believe that people need oxygen to survive. Does consensus of that fact make us a hive mind or is it that we all know the truth about requiring oxygen to live and no amount of speaking otherwise will change our minds?
People in this forum change their minds when sufficient evidence is presented. If the logical arguments are hard to follow you could ask for help understanding tough concepts. Or you could go research the facts and history of the subjects debated here.
Due to your history of troll posting people have run out of goodwill to explain things to you and now just tell you off instead of converse with you over your false or half-baked ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Goddamn hive of facts! Exterminate! Ex∙ter∙mi∙nate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
Yea, it's so unfair that Twitter is giving proven preferential treatment to Trump.
"This test proves Jack ain’t lying—Twitter treats Trump differently [UPDATED]
Repeating a call to shoot looters got @SuspendThePres a visit from the banhammer."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-twitter-for-repeating-t rumps-tweets-verbatim/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
"This test proves Jack ain’t lying—Twitter treats Trump differently [UPDATED]"
Of course they do. Trump is a major draw and free marketing for their service. On the other hand, nobody really cares about Nunes apart from the hilarious free marketing he's also providing here. They certainly don't care about the random test account set up to state the obvious.
It's all about profit, scummy people who make them money stay, those who don't, or worse even cost them money, go. This is the free market at work, something most of those whining about it pretend to believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
You literally tried killing this site with Shiva Ayyadurai, jackass.
Fuck knows why Masnick is still so magnanimous that he hasn't doxxed and banned you yet, but you're not entitled to getting fellatio from other readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question
Yes, in addition to the "hive mind", there are a few "wackos", like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
And by the way:
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email.
Mic drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
Said the assclown right winger whose members form nothing but a hive mind of idiocy. Projection much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question
"Why does this site seem like it has a "hive mind"? Why does everyone agree so much?"
Because unlike you most people tend to respect civil rights, human rights, and/or constitutional rights.
So naturally when you show up dropping some disingenious ad hom, a pack of falsehoods, or some troll rhetoric argument based on false assumption into the debate like a turd into a desktop fan, naturally we flag your ass and debate the actual topic at hand rather than cater to the broken logic introduced by the obvious troll.
It's no more strange than the fact that a person acting badly in a house gets shown the door.
That you don't get this probably means you should take your social cues from real life rather than whatever echo chamber you apparently live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point of order...
Thing is, laws are all about the details. Google "oxford comma lawsuit" if you don't believe me.
Perhaps you simply misspoke:
230 keeps Twitter immune to liability for the speech of its users. But as far as I know, Section 230 does not speak to the provider's duties (or lack thereof) to expose the identity of anonymous speakers. Nor yet does the linked article say anything like that.
That doesn't mean that Twitter is wrong in standing up for the anonymous speakers. The speakers themselves have legal representation; their lawyers have spoken with Twitter to pass on jurisdiction information. (Hmm... they aren't in Virginia. Wonder if they live in states with anti-SLAPP laws that Nunes doesn't want invoked?)
Nunes could continue his case against defendant Does, it's been done before. But ... he hasn't. Odd, isn't it?
And as noted in the article, both the 1st amendment and state laws present bars to unmasking the speakers.
But section 230? I don't think so.
But feel free to convince me otherwise, if you can.
ps: I'm getting solid 403 forbidden from anything from fresnobee.com (even their front page), so that link is broke. So if there's a direct link to either court document, it isn't easily at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point of order...
230 keeps Twitter immune to liability for the speech of its users. But as far as I know, Section 230 does not speak to the provider's duties (or lack thereof) to expose the identity of anonymous speakers. Nor yet does the linked article say anything like that.
It does to the extent that a court would hold them liable for their speech, including their anonymity. The argument is that if Twitter does not reveal who they are, it would be held liable by the court, and that would go against 230. So basically any attempt to hold Twitter liable for refusing to unmask the speakers would hit a 230 roadblock, because it would make Twitter liable for the speakers' decision to remain anonymous.
ps: I'm getting solid 403 forbidden from anything from fresnobee.com (even their front page), so that link is broke. So if there's a direct link to either court document, it isn't easily at hand.
There's no "document" as this is just a report of a courtroom hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Point of order...
Thanks for the clarification, Mike.
Though, to me, the argument that Twitter's speech (failing to identify the speakers) being protected by 230 seems exceptionally weak. But ... IANAL. And even if it is weak, sometimes the donkey, as it were, DOES learn to sing.
On Fresnobee, I was getting 403 on EVERYTHING from them. On the plus side, you say I wasn't actually missing any court documents from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Point of order...
Only if you forget that Acts of Moderation are a form of speech. Twitter's protected speech, in this case, is their choice to keep allowing the account in question to stay on their site, and to keep posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm beginning to believe that Biss's name in an acronym for "Boy Is Seriously Stupid"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps "Boy is Stubornly Stupid" - judging by his inability to stop shooting himself in the foot and doubling down like a bad gamboler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, I say, that boy ain't right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Foghorn Leghorn
My other favourite: "Thet boy, Ah say, thet boy's about as sharp as a bowlin' ball!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Underestimate your enemies at your own risk, that he's throwing out terrible and/or stupid arguments does not necessarily mean that he is stupid, it's entirely possible if not likely that he knows exactly what he's doing.
If you don't actually have to win your court case to attain your goal that opens up a lot of options that would otherwise be off the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He knows exactly what he's doing. Through highly publicized litigation he's reinforcing the narrative that FB, Google, etc. are all anti-conservative (when the opposite is true). It doesn't matter what the truth is (see the IRS "scandal," Benghazi, Trump/Ukraine, etc. The GOP knows this and they get a win-win-win. Either they pass laws that further curtail "factual" moderation, they use them as a boogeyman for fundraising and votes, and/or they scare these platforms into allowing this false content to remain, further reinforcing the idea that it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law makes all those questions moot, so Twitter doesn’t need to address those allegations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correct me if i’m wrong but if the claims against twitter are thus:
Then why is Devin Nunes’ Ciw adjoined to this lawsuit? I would think that the Cow would face a different fact pattern to defamation performed by twitter, and the cow can’t be responsible for shadow banning anyone. Under what legal theory does the court believe Twitter would be liable for shadow banning? Wouldn’t that fall under the Sec 230 allowances for moderating as they see fit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This does appear to be a case of improper joinder. Here’s what I think is the issue.
Nunes is suing Twitter under multiple causes of action, including shadowbanning and for not removing the defamatory content or something. Since Twitter is the defendant for both causes of action, and both have the same plaintiff, joinder is proper. Then, since one of the causes of action involves Twitter’s behavior regarding Devin Nunes’ Cow, there is one act involved, so joinder is proper.
I’m just guessing, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like watching an angry toddler...
'They're mean to me, that means the laws don't protect them because people who are mean to me don't deserve protection!'
Not sure if they're getting increasingly desperate(unlikely, the longer the case goes the more Nunes can use if for his persecution narrative) or they're just running out of even remotely sane sounding arguments and are throwing whatever comes to mind in an attempt to drag this thing on longer. Whatever the case nice of the judge to give it the treatment it deserves and toss his latest laughably bad argument into the garbage where it and the one who filed it belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consistency of Thought
How many people here agree with this?
Devin Nunes published a lot of information about the Russia Hoax that turned out to be much more accurate and factual than Pencil Neck
When you resist arrest, and physically try to overcome and injure a Police Officer, and threaten him with a weapon that can cause permanent injury, the police officer is justified in shooting you and killing you.
Black lives matter endorsed, repeated and amplified public speech threatening the lives of Policemen
AntiFa is a violent group that has been filmed repeatedly applying violence to peaceful citizens and should be condemned as a terrorist group
Nancy and Crying Chuck are terrible leaders, politicians and continue to embarrass themselves on national news
National news itself, with but one or two exceptions, are pushing obviously bullshit propaganda, such as the Russian Hoax, and the "peaceful" protesters, documented with shots of building that rioters burned down as they comment that the protests are "mostly peaceful"
Or does absolutely everybody here disagree with absolutely every obvious fact above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
You make me horny when you say those things, because Masnick gets angry when you do. That's what I look for in a partner. I'm sorry Shiva Ayyadurai didn't quite serve Masnick's pretty boy ass to Trump on a silver platter, but I know with the power of true love we'll make it happen.
Oh god I'm so hard. Fuck me, sweet thang. Daddy Pai won't mind just this once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Hive Mind Has Spoken
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
All together now, Buzz the SAME WAY! OR ELSE!
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Hive Mind Has Spoken
... projects the meth-deranged NPC butthurt because us real posters are too smart to be his echo chamber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
No. The police officer is justified in using the least amount of force necessary to subdue. Use of lethal force should be extremely rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consistency of Thought
Oh, well, I see, you are a former police officer, like me, right? Let me tell one thing about every counter with the police - there is a weapon involved, a lethal weapon. The officer's weapon. So, it is up to the officer to decide when to deploy lethal force. Now, watch the video. This idiot nigger first tried to fight with the police, had the strength of a gorilla, beat down 2 police officers, took at least one weapon, and ran away, when legally drunk on his ass. Then, as he was running, turned, aimed and fired a weapon at the officers. And then tell me about how you, in your experience, when faced with a similar situation, in a struggle for your life, after a physical altercation and in foot pursuit, when the suspect turned and aimed a weapon at your face, would NOT fire at center mass of the subject. Tell me about that. Tell me about your training. I'm interested, really. Did you go to leftie police training? Would you have shot him in the leg, like Biden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consistency of Thought
"former," eh? Can't imagine why~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
AntiFa is a political movement/ideology, not a singular organization or group. There are many small organizations which declare themselves in favor of AntiFa, and for particular organizations it might make sense to declare them terrorist, but that shouldn't apply to all other groups or individuals that declare themselves in favor of AntiFa.
The protestors and the rioters aren't identical sets of people. Unless there's some evidence that the majority of people marching around with signs later go on to riot, I think it's accurate to call the protestors peaceful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the rules are different if you have a badge I guess...
The protestors and the rioters aren't identical sets of people. Unless there's some evidence that the majority of people marching around with signs later go on to riot, I think it's accurate to call the protestors peaceful.
Hold on now, let's not toss the argument just yet, as if they really want to run with the 'paint the entire group due to the actions of a small percentage of people within or hiding behind that group' idea then it strikes me that they just confirmed that people are if anything being far too restrained in protesting police, as police are all racists, killers and bigots by that argument, imminent threats to the public that need to be disbanded and locked up immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
Hoax, my ass. What could be the only reason Republicans would not allow the hearing of witnesses, genius?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consistency of Thought
Clearly that's because they knew that the witnesses would all provide evidence to support their predetermined conclusion of 'not guilty' and just wanted to save everyone the time and effort of dragging the thing on.
I mean really, what possible other reason could they have to not wanting people giving testimony related to the case other than saving the taxpayers that they care so much about from extra hassle and costs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consistency of Thought
Care to supply some citations for your "obvious facts" ? So far I've seen no facts, just your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could it be that Shiva's run for office in Senate election in Massachusetts can't be doing well so he's having a big bitch hissy fit here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's actually at it again? Wasn't he tripping on his ayurvedic turmeric claptrap?
What, was the Elizabeth Warren ass-whupping he got not enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]