Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
from the don't-slapp dept
At the end of last year we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous SLAPP suit filed by John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of a computer repair shop whose name became somewhat famous after the NY Post ran a story regarding what was apparently Hunter Biden's laptop that had been abandoned at the shop, which eventually found its way to Rudy Giuliani. When the initial story broke, both Twitter and Facebook moved to limit the spread of the article as there were some initial concerns about the veracity of the story. In Twitter's case, it said that the story violated its policy on "hacked materials" (a policy that we've argued was problematic for journalism).
Isaac then argued that because of Twitter's moderation decision over "hacked materials" that it had defamed him in calling him a hacker. Consider this the precursor to a flurry of other lawsuits we've seen recently of mostly bad faith actors arguing that the reasons they were moderated are defamatory, which is not how any of this works. The initial lawsuit was tossed the same day it was filed on jurisdictional grounds, but a substantially similar lawsuit was filed a couple months later that solved the jurisdiction question by adding Madbits as a defendant. Madbits was an image search startup that Twitter acquired many years ago and shut down. Isaac argues in the complaint that Madbits still exists (even though Florida records show the company was shut down after the acquisition) as a way for Twitter to somehow skirt Florida employment laws. Either way, the addition of Madbits provided the kind of diversity jurisdiction necessary to keep the case alive, unlike the initial version that got tossed.
Of course, it still didn't help -- and Florida's anti-SLAPP law now means that Isaac is on the hook for Twitter's legal fees. The ruling is pretty straightforward. This was not anything even remotely close to defamation. Regarding the "defamation per se" claims, the judge notes that Isaac's legal "theory is flawed for several reasons." Mainly because nothing Twitter did was in reference to Isaac himself.
Here, in contrast, the only persons identified in the Explanations are the NY Post, Hunter Biden, “Ukranian biz man” and “dad”—not Plaintiff, his business, or any other descriptive information that made Plaintiff’s identity readily ascertainable.... The Court is certainly sympathetic to the events that took place and could envision a plausible claim had the explanations identified the “Mac Shop,” “a Delaware repair shop” or even included a photo of the Repair Authorization. However, such is not the case here, and the law will not subject Defendant to liability where it was “meticulous enough” to preserve Plaintiff’s anonymity
And then we have Florida's anti-SLAPP law to thank for Isaac having to pay Twitter's lawyers' fees.
The Court agrees that Defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute. First, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s defamation claim is without merit....
Second, the instant suit arose from Defendant’s protected First Amendment activity—i.e., preventing the dissemination of the NY Post Article on its platform for violation of its content moderation policies. See Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc., No. 20-cv-81396-RAR, 2021 WL 626855, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2021) (first amendment protection for “hosting and moderating a debate on matters of public concern.”). Plaintiff maintains that the anti-SLAPP statute is inapplicable because “[Defendant] was not moderating a discussion of public issues[,]” but instead “attempting to suppress a discussion of public issues[.]” .... While this precise issue has not yet been addressed in the context of Florida’s anti-SLAPP Statute, the Court agrees with the numerous decisions of other courts that Defendant has a “First Amendment right to decide what to publish and what not to publish on its platform.”
That last line is an important reminder: every website has a 1st Amendment right about what can and cannot be published on its site.
Either way, SLAPP suit dismissed, lawyers fees must be paid by Isaac.
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: anti-slapp, content moderation, defamation, free speech, hacked content, hunter biden, john paul mac isaac, slapp
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Before any of the usual trolls even fucking says it, I’ll ask the question: How did Twitter “censor” Isaac? Remember that moderation isn’t censorship, no matter how much you want to believe it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'I have jurisdictional standing!' 'Yeah, about that...'
Well that backfired spectacularly. He included a dead service in order to claim jurisdictional standing in florida only to have to deal with florida's anti-SLAPP law as a result, and now he's on the hook for their legal fees. Should have let the matter die after the first dismissal but he just had to go for double-or-nothing and is now going to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People love to fuck around, but hate to find out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The big question he's got to ask himself is this
"All those rich people backing him and supporting his lawsuit and saying he's right etc. How many of them are going to reach into their pockets and pay these fees for the suit they encouraged him to file?"
The answer is, of course, none. He was just a handy moron to use as they did, and they stopped caring about him as soon as he stopped being useful, which was months ago.
Of course, like many in an abusive relationship, he won't leave his abusers, but will find excuses for them not supporting him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would also like to shut up the people who will come here and say that Twitter censored the NY Post.
The article was still available to read by going directly to NY Post's site, and reading it there.
Just because it wasn't allowed to be shared on Twitter, doesn't mean it was removed entirely from the Internet. In fact, being disallowed on Twitter probably gave the original article more coverage due to the fake outrage over being "censored" by Twitter. (At least by those who actually believe the story to be true.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as the saying goes:
Play stupid games...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's crazy talk that is, everyone knows that if you refuse to let me hold a rally on your lawn that's nothing less than censorship.
Private property and the first amendment be damned I had something to say and you refused to let me speak where I wanted to and that's nothing less than a heinous attack on the very concept of free speech, and telling me that I can still speak on my lawn and people can go there is just a red herring and not at all refutes that my inability to use your property against your will is a blatant violation of my freedom of speech(which of course has always included the right to co-opt private property, why just look at how often newspapers and tv stations are forced to host reader submissions).
Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to the local supermarket to rip into the management there for daring to tell me I'm not allowed to wander into the back areas and offices if I feel like it, if they didn't want people to have access to the entire building then they shouldn't have allowed access to any of it and you'd think they'd know that and stop trying to pretend that they're allowed to set 'rules' regarding access or acceptable behavior just because they might own the place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pity
Reading this makes me sad that you don't push for public utility of all social media. You just keep on with that right-wing talking point that "it's a private company" nonsense. And then put down anyone that tries to seek remedy for the totalitarian anti-American discrimination, censorship and smearing that goes on routinely.
I mean why. The laptop was "apparently" Hunter's? Are you high?
And not a word about the suppression of it all before the election by your BFFs the social media totalitarians.
Wow. someone who can believe that and could write like that must not realize: they coming for you next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pity
"You just keep on with that right-wing talking point that "it's a private company" nonsense"
Please, I think you mean "first amendment talking point".
"public utility of all social media"
ALL social media? What would "public utility" even mean? In the US we have "telecommunication common carriers for hire" in 47 USC, where carriers get certain legal protections in agreeing to accept any customer able to pay for their services. All the social media companies I know don't require subscription payments from their customers. Do we convert them all into user-paid services? I'm wondering how this business model works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pity
"it's a private company..."
nah man its a public house
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Social media isn’t a utility. No one—including you, you pathetic hit-and-run troll—has offered a rational reason why a social media service should be considered a utility.
That isn’t a right-wing talking point, though. American conservatives are trying to turn social media into a utility from which conservative opinions can’t be “censored”…even if they can’t articulate exactly which specific “conservative opinions” are being “censored”.
If someone wants to sue for defamation over something said on social media, they should sue the party responsible for the allegedly defamatory speech: the person who posted it.
Also, if you could please point to specific examples of (proven) illegal discrimination, (actual rights-infringing) censorship, and (first-party) “smearing” on social media, that would be great.
I haven’t seen any independently verifiable evidence that proves the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. I do, however, have a long list of questions about that story that need some answering…if you have such answers to give, that is.
The article literally mentions how Twitter did the stupid thing of banning links to the article on Twitter. You fail to mention that Twitter didn’t…
ban links to the article on Facebook or any other interactive web service
ban the New York Post from Twitter for linking to the article in the first place
ban anyone from discussing the contents of the article in general
get the original article deleted from the website that was (and still is) hosting it
So what “suppression” are you talking about, again?
I don’t use Facebook or Twitter. How the fuck can they come for me if I’m not using their services?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That isn’t a right-wing talking point, though. American conservatives are trying to turn social media into a utility from which conservative opinions can’t be “censored”…even if they can’t articulate exactly which specific “conservative opinions” are being “censored”.
In addition to what you pointed out about how for all the claims of 'conservative persecution' and how widespread it supposedly is no examples ever seem to be provided I find it rather interesting how property ownership is now apparently a 'talking point'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pity
Its not a "talking point", it's the law.
Now whether it's good law or not is another discussion. But whether it's good or not it is still the law as it currently stands.
You are free to lobby congress and exercise your first amendment rights to advocate for a change in the laws and/or constitution to make the status of these companies fit your ideals.
But if and until congress changes the laws and/or passes and has ratified any necessary constitutional changes to make your ideas a reality, it is what it is, that is, the law as it stands today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Note:
It can't be "defamation per se" when it's not defamation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It just means that, after having proven defamation, you don't then have to prove damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I thought you were all for right-wing talking points?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pity
You just keep on with that right-wing talking point
Welp, you had a guy in office who could have changed things, along with his toads in Congress.
But he didn't. And they didn't. Now you're stuck with it.
Don't blame us for your shortcomings, you lazy, simpleminded fuckwaddle. The problem is that ALL of you whiners just fucking complain instead of doing anything. Just like health care, the Mexico-funded wall, locking Hillary up...you get the idea. You complain, and complain, and complain...then, when you finally get control of the White House and both houses of Congress, you focus on <checks notes> your easy to win trade war, and a tax cut that benefitted the top 1% while increasing the deficit (that you're now, not surprisingly complaining about again).
Elections have consequences. I heard that somewhere before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I still wonder: the fact is twitter removed the article for “hacked materials” even if the materials weren’t hacked.
They did, eventually, restore some linking.
But, the materials weren’t hacked. The abandoned property’s ownership converts to the possessor after a set amount of time, varying by state. Those in possession have no limitation on access.
Be it a laptop, an Sd card, or a safe.
No “hacked materials” were released and thus he, via the article, didn’t supply hacked materials.
I don’t understand how this was a suit about “public participation”.
Twitter indirectly accused the man of supplying “hacked materials”, a term with a public perception on the level of wikileaks and illegal access… etc.
Politics aside, it’s not hard to see such a connotation hurting a computer repair man.
Despite the fact that he didn’t help himself, I still think the first case has merit.
Given the above text, where am I wrong on that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Announcer Voice *It wasn't even a little bit*
"Don't blame us for your shortcomings, you lazy, simpleminded fuckwaddle.'
You know they say to resort to name calling is to admit to losing the argument. But in order for that to be true it had to be an argument in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, it didn’t. It removed a link to the article. The article was still on the Post website—where, I might add, it still exists.
And as noted in the article, Techdirt has criticized Twitter’s reasoning for the moderation of that link.
Assuming the property in question was legitimately abandoned by its alleged owner, that is. No one, including the computer tech at the heart of this story, has offered conclusive evidence that the laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden. (“No one” includes you, too.)
It was an attempt to silence speech from Twitter—in this case, its moderation decisions concerning the link to that article and its reasoning for that moderation—that is 100% protected by the First Amendment. That turns the computer tech’s suit into a lawsuit designed to limit what you might call “public-facing” speech/expression from Twitter…or, to put it another way, a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
And the court said “that isn’t defamation”. Your opinion or the court’s ruling—which one do you think matters more?
Consider that said computer repairman gave the laptop of one of his alleged clients to a political operative for the sake of smearing said (alleged) client. That fact will probably do more damage than Twitter saying “a news article contained hacked materials” without actually saying the repairman was the one who “hacked” the computer.
The court disagreed. But by all means, read the actual ruling itself, then point out the flaws in the logic of said ruling.
I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ohkay, don’t be facetious. That’s exactly what I meant.
And I’m it discussing information, misinformation, or disinformation. In not discussing what twitter’s thought process was. For the purpose of my post it doesn’t matter if it belonged to the pope or Satan.
The laptop belonged to the repair man, more accurately to the shop.
You brought up “ Hunter Biden” which has nothing to do with my questioning post.
To me, mine.
But in reality:
The court ignores that the man will likely have lost business now that Twitter, a god in the eyes of many stupid social shites, has declared him a hacker.
—question—
Would you trust your computer there?
Politics again. If it wasn’t hunter Biden or any other piece of crap politician, celebrity etc, it was James I Drink Beer Jones’s laptop info…?
Link please, and I shall. I haven’t done so.
I’ve said before his logic was questionable.
Assuming, and I DO, the story was accurate, it’s Biden’s laptop…? I would have gone to Fox News with it, not Trump’s buddy.
I would have posted it to every site that would host it. Full, complete, and unredacted.
I would have sent it to wikileaks, the pirate bay, openftp, the internet archive.
His choice… is questionable.
But, Twitter declared the info “hacked”. The information was not. In doing so, the declaration, I would think it’s directly damaging to his business.
Given it’s one in which trust is implied.
So sure, I believe he went looking for his moment of fame. Rather than do the right thing.
But that should be besides the point, as should be whoever the prior owner was.
Do, remember, I was against his lawsuit the first time initially. I posted as much about the term, hacker, being accurate.
I have come to find that the term has a non-tech stereotype attached to it that is far more widely held than I previous thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then say what you mean.
Show me where Twitter clearly, definitively, and unequivocally referred to John Paul Mac Isaac as a “hacker”. I’ll wait.
No, because I don’t know if he’s going to fucking turn over my shit to a fucking political operative for the sake of attention and (most likely) money.
…we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation because nobody would give a fuck about John Q. Rando’s laptop contents being given to the Post except John. The only reason we’re talking about this case is because of who the laptop and its contents are alleged to have belonged to before Isaac handed it over to Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani.
There’s a link in the article. If you can’t find it, that’s your problem.
Bold of you to assume the story is 100% accurate without any credible proof to back up anything about the story, but you do you, son. I still have questions about it.
One of those questions I have runs along those lines: Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Except Twitter didn’t say John Paul Mac Isaac was a “hacker”. It said the article contained “hacked materials” (which is a different issue altogether), but it didn’t say who was responsible for the “hacking”. Twitter never mentioned John Paul Mac Isaac or his business by name in any of its posts about this issue. Hell, if anyone is to blame for any direct connection to Isaac and the “hacking” descriptor, it’s the Post—not for publishing his name in the original article (it didn’t), but for publishing a photo of his business in said article that people could use to figure out who he was.
What does that say about his credibility, especially in light of the many “I still have questions about this”–level discrepancies in re: the Post story?
And you should still be against it now. Twitter has a 1A-protected right to moderate speech on its platform. Twitter didn’t defame John Paul Mac Isaac even by implication. The lawsuit was a SLAPP and the courts ruled it was one. Until you point out a flaw in the reasoning of the ruling in this case, I’m not going to give any merit to your disagreement with that ruling. Neither should anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Assuming, and I DO, the story was accurate, it’s Biden’s laptop…? I would have gone to Fox News with it, not Trump’s buddy.
A distinction without a difference, really.
I would have posted it to every site that would host it. Full, complete, and unredacted. I would have sent it to wikileaks, the pirate bay, openftp, the internet archive.
Like maybe how a 'hacker' would?
His choice… is questionable.
Notwithstanding your choices though...
See, this is why I think you people are, to be blunt, kinda fucked up in the head. A computer shop divulging private information from a client's computer makes them something of a fucking scumbag doesn't it? It's not as if there's anything illegal on there. And you're not complaining about that, no. You're complaining he didn't go far enough.
Great fucking argument. If you're wondering why people like you get booted off social media, this is one reason. You're assholes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Politics aside, it’s not hard to see such a connotation hurting a computer repair man. Despite the fact that he didn’t help himself, I still think the first case has merit.
Yeah, this guy is a simple-minded piece of shit who only has himself to blame for his business tanking. I mean, how would you feel, abandoned property or not, if you turned over your computer to someone for repair and then found that the shop turned all of your emails (which are not alleged to be illegal) to <checks notes> the NY Post?
You don't think that, in and of itself, makes this guy look like a sleazy piece of shit?
You don't think everyone can now assume this guy can and will rummage through your personal materials? I'm not seeing the need for such a thing, especially since it was supposedly in for <checks notes again> water damage.
This guy is fucked because he's a slimeball that can't be trusted. It's his own fault, and I for one, love the comedy of thinking that moving the venue was supposed to be his 'winning move.' If nothing else, that should cause anyone to question his common sense, not to mention whether that applies to how he ran his business, or how he 'repaired' computers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would have posted it to every site that would host it. Full, complete, and unredacted.
I have been asking myself the same question for months now...
Why didn't Sidney Powell release all of her evidence? (Ditto for the other clowns in that car.)
Why didn't Mike Lindell release all of his evidence?
Why didn't this guy do it?
Why doesn't Trump or one his toads do it? They seem to know all the songs.
See, this is how you know it's a scam. If it was truly something that could withstand scrutiny, it'd already be out there.
But it isn't.
Still.
None of it.
And you're upset because this guy, like the other people I mentioned, threw their careers away because they couldn't even fabricate evidence correctly...bold move, Cotton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would have posted it to every site that would host it. Full, complete, and unredacted.
I have been asking myself the same question for months now...
Why didn't Sidney Powell release all of her evidence? (Ditto for the other clowns in that car.)
Why didn't Mike Lindell release all of his evidence?
Why didn't this guy do it?
Why doesn't Trump or one his toads do it? They seem to know all the songs.
See, this is how you know it's a scam. If it was truly something that could withstand scrutiny, it'd already be out there.
But it isn't.
Still.
None of it.
And you're upset because this guy, like the other people I mentioned, threw their careers away because they couldn't even fabricate evidence correctly...bold move, Cotton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You’re still making this political and looking at the whos.
Man recovers data from laptop abandoned at shop.
Man finds incriminating data.
Man sends data to somewhere
News company writes story.
Facebook blocks (relative links to the) story, explanation: hacked data policy.
As far as that goes… he does have his foot in the door.
Facebook implied in the policy reason that the source of the story was a hack. And therefore the story as a whole violated hack materials.
Doing so thus declaring the tech a hacker.
My initial comment back when stands, the problem is the primary media picture that hacker is a bad term.
The article links to the current case, not the first which i was discussing.
and I’m not sure the judge was correct.
As for the second case, right or wrong, the judge’s ruling teaks of politics, not case at hand.
My wonder is if this would have been different if it wasn’t Biden.
I shall. The Democrats made many bold assumptions about trump that the media ran with zero back-checking. Most of which turned out to be blatantly false.
But that’s not the comment at hand.
I’ve directly explained this to you before. I question it as well.
The point is that it’s still clearly possible.
Any person could use off-the-site tools to recover data. Quite easily.
Restoration is very different.
Every major windows email application stores data on your drive. Even if you have the default to download email turned off. Once you open it an email is downloaded. It’s called caching.
Most email apps on windows us binary lead XHTML or HTML file with binary data, stored as a source and directory pair; compressed in a zip file.
That zip file uses an eml or mht extension.
If an extension at all.
Recovering an email with free tools will usually dump the text from compressed file. Either in a windows code page or uc4 header text file.
The header and footer of an email, (the to/from etc data) are not coded as text/html and show up a “garbage” in the recovered file.
So possible.
if the emails are real then the cause of loss of meta is inexperience.
Or
Assuming he went to the cache file and ran them through a viewer he’d again find zip files, dump the files to uncompressed data, and, say, open the eml/mht file in notepad? Again a message and garbage at the top and bottom.
So we have
A) poor recovery
B) bad extraction
C) fraud
When 2:3 causes are not sinister then I’ll give the benefit of the doubt up front.
The longer we wait the less I believe the story. But I haven’t reached that tipping point yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taxi Hove
Regio Taxi Antwerpen biedt een persoonlijke service, waarbij u gegarandeerd bent van een veilige rit naar uw bestemming. Regio Taxi Antwerpen biedt naast taxivervoer ook andere soorten personenvervoer, zoals groepsvervoer en luchthavenvervoer. Wij (Regio Antwerpen Taxi ) rijden van en naar alle nationale en internationale luchthavens 24 uur per dag, 7 dagen per week. Mensen vertrekken dikwijls tijdens de feestdagen. Deze dagen zijn drukke dagen in onze sector, wij rijden dus op feestdagen.
32 465 80 76 83
Info@taxiregioantwerpen.be
https://taxiregioantwerpen.be/onze-diensten/taxi-hove/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, it wasn’t a client’s computer. Not anymore, it was a client’s data. semantics!
Yes. But… civilians didn’t complain about the pentagon papers, SonyGate, BankGate, or the CIA dumps, did they?!?
But there is alleged evidence of such dealings.
My complaint is he went to a political operative, not a reliable public entity, to publish his findings.
Much like a he NYT published the Pentagon Papers.
I would have cloned the drive and made it public for the betterment of my country.
And I would have done a far better job at preservation.
I’ve never been booted off a platform. But I only use social media maybe once or twice a year to post a reply somewhere.
I tend to read/watch, not post.
I’ve never been booted out of a comment system either. I play by the rules of each site. I have no interest in trolling or testing limits.
All I said was if the information was real and I was in his position my choice would have been a far more realistic publication, not a use-internally operatives.
My interest isn’t one campaign or the other, it’s the betterment of my country overall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You say that as if who’s involved isn’t important. It is—especially when their credibility is, at best, suspect.
Three things.
Twitter, not Facebook, was the company that blocked the link. Get the details correct if you expect me to take you seriously.
Isaac didn’t send the data to “somewhere”—he gave it to Rudy Giuliani, a known associate of Donald Trump.
Even if I agree that it did: So what? It never once claimed that Isaac or his business were behind the “hack” that produced the data.
And as soon as you point out the exact precise language in the ruling that brought you to that conclusion, I’ll be happy to discuss that with you. Until then: Fuck off with this point.
Now who’s making this political~.
Possible? Sure, I can agree to that. Plausible? The list of questions I have about this story—as well as the allegations made by other commenters about Hunter Biden being on crack when he allegedly dropped off the laptop that allegedy belongs to him—say otherwise. Until those questions are settled, I don’t see this story as anything but a story that was supposed to be a flaming October Surprise but ended up being a barely-warm bag of dogshit.
You’d think someone running a business dedicated to computer repair and data recovery would be using more advanced tools—including tools that can recover email metadata.
And this assumes he needed to recover the emails from a certain format that bungles the storage of email metadata. Nothing has yet proven that to be the case—assuming the emails are legit, anyway.
That’s your problem. Everyone else saw through the bullshit already because they’re not stupid enough to take obvious bullshit on good faith and wait out some imaginary clock on when that good faith expires.
Look at the list of questions I asked about this story. Ask them to yourself. If you can’t answer them with any level of satisfaction, ask yourself one more question: “Why am I willing to believe this story?”
Your willingness to believe bullshit so blatant that no one at the Post was willing to put their name on the byline for it probably has more to do with your Trumpist beliefs than you might think. I mean, if you’re willing to dismiss actual criticisms of Trump but jump all over implausible stories about Biden and his family as if they’re 100% true, you’re probably wanting to have your biases confirmed more than anything. Lucky for you, I’m not here to kiss your bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, ignoring the fact that my tech doesn’t go to computer shops, lol.
Well, civis didn’t complain about other major political leaks.
If true, it’s something the public needs to know.
The existence of the potential is something the public should know.
But yes, he’s a fuck.
But, again assuming it’s legit, I would have released them too under the same circumstances. My laptop. Incriminating data. Involved evil genocidal Ukraine.
It’s not even the who for me. If it was previously Don Jr’s laptop and I saw deals beneficial to Ukraine that were extra-political I would have dumped that too.
Any tech can. That’s nothing unique. Most don’t though.
But:
Maybe. yet it was abandoned. And thus his property. Within the confines of the law he could do whatever he wants with the data on the laptop.
If you support the dictatorship of Ukraine you have no right to political office. You surrendered that right. And I would do anything within the confines of the law to make sure you and anyone in your sphere of influence never makes it office.
Unfortunately we now have someone who cowtoes not just the the dictatorship of Ukraine but a terrorist government as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What’s a Cotten?
You mean like this
I did say:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Taxi Hove
Ik wijs je aanbod af, maar ik dank je
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You need to either watch more movies or learn more memes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Point taken.
Agree, should have gone to the Post directly.
And yet secret service logs don’t line up to other comments and records. So filed away, more than debunked.
True: but aren’t you one that believes in generic association? And this is more direct. Post makes connection to shop by article. Twitter claims, by removal tag, that Post article falls under hacked materials.
By that line, twitter->post->store twitter has connected the store, via the article, to hacked materials.
Sadly that’s rarely the case.
Be it Best Buy or computer nowhere: you’re rarely going to find quality recovery.
With water damage you don’t even look at recovery unless specifically asked. The largest repair footprint, Best Buy, doesn’t have any level of disk recovery beyond basic blank state ft/journal restoration.
With water damage you replace the drive, verify all components, replace corroded ICs, etc… and reinstall.
Data recovery from that state almost always is referred out to clean room facilities.
We don’t have the original sales order. We don’t know what was promised. But I doubt full scale binary rebuilding was part of it.
True.
Though like I said even he opened it up to a fully working laptop with the email downloaded for offline reading, you’re dealing with compressed files. Any data disruption and it won’t load in the source reader.
Most people would default to 7zip or PeaZip.
Or, less inclined would go to a viewer such as ClearViewer or Peek.
I’d really like to understand your conclusions.
So I’m splitting my reply between politics and case: see below
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for the case:
Ultimately I see a judge who passed off on a triable case simply because he could. And then used generic and irrelevant context to award fees.
Let’s start with
Just because you don’t have to doesn’t mean you shouldn’t
And the court backtracks slightly with
We have 1) the notice of removal, hacked materials policy.
We have 2) they removed link was not directed to hacked materials.
We have 3) twitter took no steps to verify their internal claim as it extended to an award winning publication
4) as with copyright and all other cases, this can held and postponed for trial, not required at submission of cause.
5)
By claiming the post article was hacked materials they associated the source of the files as supplying hacked materials.
1) as above, the term hacked materials
2)n/a per “or”
3) we here have distrust and contempt
4) is clear when pared with 3.
“hacker | 'haka | noun
gain unauthorized access to data.” ~Oxford new
The named target was an article: The store, however, is shown. As such the association is already made.
And here the article in question clearly associating the business as the source: twitter has declared the source to be illegal to the public.
And here is a glaring issue of concern. Twitter said the linked article was (or contained) hacked materials. The article clearly associated the materials with the plaintiff.
Here it is. The contents of the article, clearly defined by photo to be sourced of the plaintiff, are considered hacked materials.
Which is satisfied here via photo evidence.
The award of fees does not project from the statute.
To qualify for fees the case needed to be without merit and the case clears does have merit, as the judge submitted as much merit in the consideration of the per se argument.
The application of a California statute is questionable, not just in part.
As a ruling in state may not be influenced by other state’s regulations or restrictions. IG 10029.
My problem here is he uses references to Texas, California, etc rulings on SLAPP statutes to guide his own. And the specific application of discretion in one state has no concurrency in another location outside the state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, not my kind of movie. Dodgeball. I watched it once and rated it 2/5. Missed the comment completely I guess.
And I don’t like memes. Generally they just appear to be stupid millennial crap. More the type of frat house humour as this one’s source film than actually funny.
Since I don’t use social media to any extent I rarely come across them anyway.
I’ve yet to see one on TD I recognised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[citation needed]
The Post never claimed Isaac or his business hacked the data out of the laptop, nor did it even name him or his business in the article itself. The photo was the only direct link to him.
It was a third-hand connection at best—and as the court ruled, it doesn’t amount to defamation.
My conclusion that the story is bullshit is based on a whole bunch of questions about the plausibility of the story (and associated accusations about Hunter Biden’s alleged drug use at the time) that no one has yet answered to my satisfaction. If and when those questions are answered, I’ll consider the story in that light. Until then, it’s bullshit.
As for your stuff about the case talked about in the article:
It also doesn’t mean you should do so as a default. If an allegation is bullshit, the legal conclusion underpinned by that allegation probably won’t hold up any better.
[citation needed]
“Can be” doesn’t mean “should be”.
Again, if you’ll note: Neither Twitter nor the Post directly named Isaac or his business as the source of the files or referred to either entity as a “hacker”. If you’re going to claim defamation, it would be a good idea to show the exact and specific statements that defamed you—and Isaac clearly couldn’t do that.
“Hacking” doesn’t necessarily imply a crime has been committed. I could hack a password-protected ZIP file I made for which I lost the password; what crime will I have committed by doing so?
And to bring up a point you raised: If the statute of limitations for ownership had already expired and the laptop was technically owned by Isaac, what crime did he commit by “hacking” his own property?
A person can have distrust and contempt for Isaac by virtue of his giving away sensitive personal information from a client’s computer to a political operative instead of proper authorities. That goes double for a political operative looking to use that data as a way to ratfuck a political rival—like, say, Rudy Giuliani trying to use the Hunter Biden story to ratfuck Joe Biden.
As mentioned: He put himself in harm’s way by giving away personal data from a(n alleged) customer to a political operative. “Hacker” or not, who the fuck is going to trust someone with their computer if that someone is looking to rifle through everyone’s data for the sake of somehow getting famous?
But it isn’t a direct association—and in defamation law, that’s sort of a big deal.
No, it didn’t. “Hacked” materials aren’t necessary “illegal” materials—and the “hacked” materials in question contained identifying personal information, which is why Twitter initially banned links to the story.
I’m looking at the earliest archived version of the article on the Internet Archive, and I’m not seeing any reference to either Isaac or his shop by name. The only photos in the story are either of documents with blacked-out personally identifying information or Hunter Biden. That hasn’t changed, judging by a quick look at the article as it stands today.
A different, later article on the story reference Isaac by name, yes. And a later article may have had a photo of his shop; that, I can’t confirm. But the initial story didn’t (and still doesn’t) reference him or his business by name or photograph.
Not according to the court, given how it ruled in favor of Twitter on the SLAPP fees and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
I see no issue with a judge referencing any relevant rulings from other jurisdictions as context for his own ruling, so long as they don’t claim those outside rulings are binding precedent within the specific jurisdiction of that judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ever made a reference to a movie or song you liked while in the middle of a conversation, on- or offline? That’s technically a meme, since—per Wikipedia—“[a] meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme”. (That doesn’t refer to Internet memes specifically, but the concept still applies.)
I’m the last person who should be saying this to you, but seriously: Get a fucking life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually, with your web archive link, the entirety of my questioning is moot. The original post article did not show a picture of the store.
No case.
That was my initial stance, that the situation wouldn’t hurt because every infotech is a hacker.
But highlighting hacker and clicking look up: the first thing people see is an illegal activity.
Had the NYP story shown a photo he had the associated reference to go on. No photo, no case.
Do mind you though the repair and the “hack” are distantly separate events. One thing to keep in mind in your cause dj.
This wasn’t a case of drop off-> hack
This was abandoning, oh, what’s this, interesting….
Thanks for enlightening me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lol, it’s just a phenomenon that never appealed to me.
Plaster words over pictures.
I also just don’t come across them often.
Web 2.0 just doesn’t appeal to me. The apps all suck, following conversations is difficult, and outside of specific groups of friends it generally all just ‘look at me’ noise.
I use texting to message friends. And conversations are easy to follow that way. Even with multiple people in group txts.
I’ve yet to find anything on SM/2.0 that you can’t do via texting (socially) or forum/commenting on the web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"I'm not a Republican, but I will stamp my foot if you dare hurt Donald Trump's precious fee-fees" - Lostinlodos for the umpteenth time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A meme doesn’t have to be in the format you’re talking about. It can be a line from a movie or TV show—or even politicians—that’s been quoted often enough to be used as some form of cultural shorthand. It can be a facial expression that sums up an emotion or reaction better than words ever could. It could even be as simple as a metaphor or an allegory, because what are those if not units for transmitting cultural ideas, symbols, or practices from one mind to another?
Like I said: Get a fucking life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irrelevant. “Hacking” as a word does not, in and of itself, denote an explicitly criminal act. Someone can “hack” their own computer to play around with settings they can’t access through normal means. Is that a crime?
And that’s part of the reason why Isaac couldn’t be defamed by Twitter: Through his own actions, he brought negative attention to himself.
Let’s grant that the Post identified him in a later story about the laptop, either directly or through a photo. He still fucked himself over by being the kind of person who doesn’t just “retrieve” data, but sifts through it as if he has that right. You can say “but the laptop was his property by then!” all you want; from where I sit, any computer tech who sifts through other people’s data like that is, for lack of a better term, a gigantic gaping asshole.
And that leaves open more questions about this story: How long was the period of time between when the laptop was dropped off and when the laptop became the default property of John Paul Mac Isaac? How long was the period of time between when the laptop became Isaac’s property and when Isaac sent the data off to Giuliani? When did Isaac first look at the data on the laptop—after it was first dropped off or after the laptop defaulted to his possession? If it took Isaac weeks or months instead of days or even hours to send Giuliani the data after first seeing it, what was the delay about?
Neither Giuliani nor Isaac seem capable of answering such questions. The Post didn’t seem to care, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You aren’t capable of ‘just being correct’ are you?
Don’t turn into alt chosen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe I’d rather be thorough enough to question the thought process behind a talking point, whether it’s bullshit or legit, and dismantle it if it is bullshit. In doing so, maybe I can teach you to do the same, since you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid. It also lets me sharpen my own thought processes, which is always a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ok. Have fun then, I guess? Lol
But
The NYP is far from right wing. It leans no more right than the NYT leans left.
Is said it was possible. And I’d wait for the evidence. I also gave very likely ways the situation of the files makes sense.
All I saw was someone close to Biden having potential business ties with the terrorist government of Ukraine.
Anyone who does business with them, or supports them in any way, yes including Trump, has done the world a disservice.
Any I want anyone with any ties to be investigated.
Aid and support to Ukraine was one of the worst things trump did in my review of his term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And by that claim you are saying that given any opportunity you would snoop through a persons possessions just because you could. Would you rummage through drawers and cabinets if left alone in somebody else's house?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You intentionally take it out of context.
I support the release (if legit), not how he got there.
But;
No, generally if it is abandoned with me i first run a boot and encrypt UNIX tool I wrote for that reason, then I pull the drive, take it apart, and do a manual wipe of the bare platters.
things are abandoned for a reason. Without knowing the reason it’s safer to just start over. Punish the memory with a full write MemTest, wipe all chip cache with CacKil…
I do the same even if it was abandoned after a repair. (Usually because they Scoff at the price they agreed to before).
I’m not interested in your files. And I don’t need a hole in my head for seeing something without clearance.
And I don’t/won’t resell computers with a disk drive
Installed anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And that’s all it seemingly took for you to accept the story as genuine and objective fact. You apparently didn’t even bother asking questions about the veracity of the claims made by the story or its follow-ups.
When I said “you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid”, that’s what I meant: You mindlessly swallow anything that criticizes left-wing politicians (or anyone associated with them) without actually asking questions about what you just swallowed until well after you’ve been “poisoned”. A GOP Senator could go on Meet the Press tomorrow morning and say “AOC campaigned for open borders, forced abortions, and internment camps for the unvaccinated at a 9/11 memorial speech yesterday” and you’d probably accept that as fact because they’re saying things you want to hear about a left-wing lawmaker.
I’ve no love for Republicans, but if I ever fuck up when talking about shit they’ve said and done, I’m willing to admit it and make sure I correct my thinking. But the only way I can do that is to admit that my thought process was fucked up—that I essentially jumped to a conclusion without thinking. You’ve done no such thing.
Re-read the list of questions I have about the Hunter Biden laptop story—including the ones I added a few comments above this one. If you can’t answer those questions, but you can still believe the story is plausible despite the lack of answers to those questions, I would love to know how you keep that cognitive dissonance intact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not sure why you think that. I never stated such a case.
Not anything, and not left. And not mindlessly.
In reality, I’ll wait for the evidence but:
Anything that has even the slightest possibility of being true and is against the clintons or bidens, (and the far left progressives), there’s little doubt I’m begging for it to be true.
But I’ll wait for the evidence.
I wouldn’t know about it for a few days. I don’t watch Meet the Press or any other news programs. Outside of CSPAN.
I may read about it two days later. But it’s unlikely.
As do I. I even thanked you for correcting me about the NYP story.
The actuality of the laptop’s contents has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
The truthfulness has yet to be proven or disproven.
And I honestly don’t care either way today. President biden has proven himself to work with terrorist governments in practice. Ukrain and Afghanistan.
My hold was always pissgate got 24-7 coverage and laptopgate was buried.
The primary news of this country ran story after story of full on made up nonsense for 5 years about trump and ran nothing factually negative, let alone equivalent conspiracy, about biden.
Even if the laptop emails are 100% true it doesn’t mean anything about the President in office today, easily the worst since carter.
So his kid made money from those genocidal terrorists? So he made money from foreigners. It was hardly different from any post WWII president.
Pay for play is normal; and I’m not really against it, just don’t support it.
My problem is who he chooses to play with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And in the meantime, you’ll treat it as true anyway because you have a (likely literal) hateboner for left-wing politicians and their associates. Which is largely what you’ve done here.
You’re still leaning in the “this is absolutely proven” direction despite the lack of answers to several outstanding questions about the story. Anyone who was truly a skeptic would be questioning the veracity of the story up to the point where credible sources were saying “yes, this is legit”. Consider, then, how sources with that level of credibility didn’t pick up the Hunter Biden laptop story—and that a Post writer apparently didn’t consider the story credible enough to have his name attached to it.
If someone told me that Donald Trump planned the entirety of the January 6th insurrection, I’d want it to be true with every last atom of my entire carbon-based being. But without proof that could withstand close scrutiny, I wouldn’t treat that claim as true (or even plausible) despite how much I’d want it to be true. What makes you unable or unwilling to do the same with the Hunter Biden story?
[citation needed that he has materially supported foreign terrorists while serving as POTUS]
The Trump dossier had more credibility because of the sourcing and the contents. The alleged pisstape was an outlandish claim, to be sure—and even I doubt such a tape exists. But that was a single outlandish claim within a host of more plausible ones. Maybe the dossier was all complete bullshit, but it was at least plausible bullshit. (Though I should note that there was confirmation that at least some of the information in the dossier was legit.)
Compare that to the Biden laptop story. No other news outlet was given a copy of the hard drive or allowed to directly view its contents. The only people we know for sure had direct knowledge of those contents are Isaac and Giuliani, and their political bias is…known. No one has fully confirmed the authenticity of the contents of that drive, emails included. And meetings that the emails purport to have happened either didn’t happen or at least aren’t confirmed to have happened.
Given the credibility and plausibility of the two stories, even you could probably figure out why the dossier story got more play in mainstream press than the laptop story—and that’s before you get into how the pisstape claim was basically off-limits on many news networks and newspapers.
I don’t recall Joe Biden effectively sitting on his hands while a pandemic surged through the country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t remember Joe Biden telling a militant white nationalist group to “stand back and stand by” before an election he claimed would be “rigged” and “fraudulent”. I sure as shit can’t think of any moment when Joe Biden referred to a large group of violent white supremacists marching in defense of a Confederate statue as “very fine people”. And I definitely can’t recollect Joe Biden claiming to have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act after repealing it but never showing off that plan to anyone.
But you know who did do all of that? Someone who, barring a major catastrophic event on the level of the COVID-19 pandemic, will always be a worse president than Joe Biden: Donald Trump.
Don’t get me wrong here, I think Biden is a centrist dickhead chump. He lacks the balls needed to throw some metaphorical elbows and get shit done. (That he hasn’t torn into Manchin and Sinema for their continued support of the filibuster is proof enough of that.) The only reason he got elected was to stop the bleeding that four years of Trump caused (and another four years of Trump would’ve worsened). But he is competent enough that I will take him over Old 45 every day of the week and thrice on Sundays.
Criticize Biden all you want; I could give a rat’s ass. But calling him the worst president in history when we had Donald Trump in the Oval Office—when we had a POTUS who literally believed Article II of the Constitution gave him the power to do basically anything he wanted without consequence—is, at best, the claim of a laughingstock of a human being.
I don’t suppose you had a problem with Trump playing lovey-dovey with dictators and fascists like Erdogan, Putin, and Kim Jong-Un, did you~.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nope, thus the three small groups i mentions.
Outside of right to arms, and security/law, I tend to be all liberal.
The truthfulness has yet to be proven or disproven. And I made clear my thoughts on possibility explaining away most of those questions rationally multiple times.
Oh, about that. Maybe the writer was afraid of retribution?
From Democrats?
The truthfulness has yet to be proven or disproven.
I didn’t make up my mind.
Well, little-b-biden ordered military equips abandoned rather than destroyed, arming the taliban.
That’s material support.
But since I didn’t say material, :
https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/biden-hosts-ukraine-president-psaki-says-no-to-talk-of-hunter/amp/
H osting him gives the terrorists legitimacy.
Wasn’t that the claim used when trump had meetings with kim of North Korea?
And kim was nothing more than a blow hard dictator. Not a genocidal terrorist. One with nukes.
Did you read the linked article? I did. Notice nothing directly related to trump is specifically mentioned?
The weighted headline is typical of all media that intentionally chooses a side in politics: left or right.
Interesting!
I figured you wouldn’t read fox so here this
https://whitehouse.news/2020-10-28-secret-service-logs-align-biden-emails.html
I’d go with the Chi Tribune but it’s paywalled.
More? It was 24/7 and the whole thing has been debunked when it come to trump.
Neither did trump. He worked to get the government in a position to create, and prefund, the fastest vaccination development in history. He removed all red tape from the process. And then his administration set up a system of distribution.
No, he stood back and stood down and ignored every major thing that has happened in his presidency.
Funny, trump didn’t either.
Nor did trump. He called for repeal and replace. He called in congress, those that creat the laws, to come up with something.
No he rolls over and wags tail at every bill sent to him.
If it’s killed:
You’ll miss that with the next Republican majority.
Just remember that when you birch about Republican bills later.
Because I sure as shite smells don’t want 51 republicans passing a bunch of pro religion bills.
That’s what your asking for.
I didn’t. I said he the worse since carter.
Erdogan, yes
Putin, no
Kim Jong-Un no
Are you going to call out the genocides committed by China? Ukraine?
How about the Iranian purges that have been ongoing since 2014?
The latter, well the Obama administration made it’s biggest blunder in handing of $1bil cash bounty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whether you call it SLAPP or anti-SLAPP, whenever one person can afford 100 times the legal fees of another, and the poorer party knows that not only will he certainly lose the case but be hit up with 100 times more legal fee than he can afford, the only proper form of lawsuit is "Yes M'lud. Thank You, M'lud. It wasn't a very good business anyway, M'lud."
[ link to this | view in thread ]