I have so many problems with this ridiculous post that I would like to carefully address all of them.
"protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn't wise.
And? Pissing people off isn't a good idea, true. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to ever say anything ever.
Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence.
Back up a moment. Let's take a look at the "imminent violence" claim that didn't exist until you came along. Were there armed thugs on the property ready to shed blood if the cops didn't immediately step in and take action? No? Because established law--in fact, it literally IS common law--makes it pretty clear that anything short of a situation like that is not grounds for police intervention. Or any level of government intervention. (foreshadowing)
It's too bad that even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign.
The obvious way to...what? To prevent people being offended? To stop hypothetical violence that nobody has any reason to believe is imminent? Well, I've got news for you.
The First Amendment -- which foreigners don't even have written down anywhere -- still isn't absolute.
That middle part seems to be a total non-sequitur, but I'll agree with you on the rest of it. Yes, the First Amendment is still open to interpretation. We learn more about its reach with every major court decision. For example, this decision from last year, which affirms that Texas governor Greg Abbott did indeed violate the first amendment by removing a state-approved "nativity scene" parody. Note how it goes to great lengths to cite Matal v Tam, a supreme court decision that's barely a year old now. In fact, if it had been on the books just a little bit earlier, there would be no ambiguity about Abbott's personal liability in this situation (the court found he is liable regardless, but he's still appealing that decision because of course he is).
Anyway, that is a practical example of exactly what happens when the government steps in to try controlling "offensive" speech. Quite a bit different from the picture you seem to be painting.
And Celebrate American Patriots. We are learning who they really are.
Does this include the multiple people currently in or on their way to federal prison for blatantly breaking the law and/or lying openly about it in the process?
Your definition of "censorship" needs about as much work as your definition of "smearing." Sounds like a refresher on some basic facts couldn't hurt either.
Shitty Ayyamadumbass is a shameless liar who retroactively decided he invented something, and moved to weaponize the legal system to rewrite history to support it. He failed, and continues to fail after refusing to learn from his arrogance (ahem), to the point where some of his more vocal "supporters" on Facebook were revealed to be fake accounts. When confronted about this, what "sage" words did he have?
“You’re doing a racist interview right now because you’re a racist. You are."
He's a sore loser who shamelessly pulls the race card when things don't go his way. I think it's perfectly just that he gets his name dragged through the mud. He's already wallowing in it.
I'm also unaware of any instance where Masnick himself personally censored you, or anyone else here. Blame him all you want, but the one who hit the report button was me, as did many others. You're not being censored. You're being buried because that's where your bullshit commentary belongs. If that's too hard for you to believe, you're welcome to try suing me to make reality conform to you. It works for "the email guy," right?
Re: So you're saying "Report" buttons shouldn't be weaponized?
You keep getting flagged because you regularly openly lie about everything, make excuses when you're proven wrong, and hurl baseless insults every time you get called out on it. You are welcome to start participating if you can prove that you're able to behave.
Re: Streaming is being TORN TO SHREDS by ACE lawyers.
Haven't multiple TorrentFreak writers jumped into the comments here on multiple occasions specifically to call you out on your blatant misreading of both sites' content?
It's already clear that you have no clue what Section 230 is, but the casual mention of "SLAPP" makes me question if you have any clue what anything is. You're throwing baseless accusations left and right just because you know you can get away with it.
Fortunately for you, Techdirt makes it easy for your comment to be buried and ignored forever, otherwise you might genuinely have a potential libel case against you to worry about. Perhaps you should try understanding what the laws actually are before continuously insulting others over their superior understanding of them?
You need to stop lying. Section 230 has nothing to do with any of this, and I know you know that. You just hate it and like to blame anything you can on it.
There is no First Amendment violation because the ISPs here have to adhere to the GDPR if they want to do business in the EU. these companies have the FREEDOM to abandon that market but most seem to put speech over profit.
Censorship is OK because you can always just move somewhere else? How about no? That's idiotic.
Masnick has a hidden agenda and ties to some really fucking evil people who just fucked with the wrong person at the wrong time, and in the wrong place.
Prove it. You keep making these baseless claims without a single shred of evidence to back it up. And you're outright lying about everything around it. What makes you think anyone is going to believe the part that's even more ridiculous?
Section 230 is a law protecting against intermediary liability. That is all. And your defamation example is entirely nonsensical. What are you trying to imply at all? That people can be misled into believing things that are blindingly untrue? Given how passionate you are in your complete failure to understand anything about Section 230 at all, I guess that's believable. It's just not illegal.
Mike's being disingenuous. The First Amendment isn't being violated, and American law already protects foreign judgments from being enforced in America if they don't comply with American law.
The one being disingenuous is you. The First Amendment is indeed not being violated here, and there certainly is American law barring non-compliant foreign judgements from being enforceable under certain conditions. For once, you have actually managed to state what the law really does actually mean. Congratulations!
This is FRANCE setting conditions on doing business in FRANCE. All Google has to do is abandon the EU market, though they apparently are working on a censored search engine in China, so don't hold your breath.
And here's the part where that previous praise gets taken right back, as it was completely irrelevant to anything here. You want Google to abandon all of the EU over one stupid ruling in France? And it's disingenuous to not immediately jump to that conclusion?
Section 230 is on the way out. This si the first step, and a welcome one.
Again, American law has nothing to do with this. You have a grudge against Section 230 because you don't care to understand it.
Until then, I remain, JOHN SMITH. Google THAT.
Keep up these idiotic non-sequitur posts, and Googling the name "John Smith" will just lead to massive brick walls of ignorance.
You're making things up. I don't think I've ever seen a single post from you about Section 230 that didn't completely misinterpret it. And at this point, I can't really pin it on ignorance or stupidity anymore.
So there's a "small cadre of lawyers" profiting off of this law that you don't understand? And you have evidence that it's true? But you won't share it or even reference any kind of specifics? Of course not, because you're blatantly lying. The burden is on you to give some kind of evidence that this isn't just a bogus conspiracy theory.
"Entitled losers stealing the work of creators . . ."
You mean like an alleged failure of an author who refused to adapt to the Internet, and now wants to punish those who found success just so he can go back to being a different kind of parasite?
Re: Today's ATT-ack! Barely hinting other corporations do same.
We get it, already. You have a massive hate boner for Google. Everything is Google's fault. Google is ruining the lives of everyone. Google Googled Google's Googles, bleh. I'll bet you're secretly a shill for another engine. Are you from Ask.com? Are you the butler?
Also, for future reference, the act of failing to mention completely irrelevant information is not equivalent to "IGNORING."
"Never settle" is a tactic used by quite a few companies, and it's been gaining more traction in recent years. Remember when Newegg fought back a bogus patent infringement suit that claimed to own the shopping cart? Everyone else (Amazon, eBay, other big retailers) settled. Newegg fought back, and lost. So they fought back again, and that patent was nuked and destroyed forever. Now no online store ever needs to worry about a patent troll company trying to shake them down over an abstract idea like that ever again. And as more companies have adopted Newegg's tactics, other trolls have started ducking out of these suits a lot faster.
Yeah, the lawyers walk away with a nice big check at the end, but I think it's fair to say they earned it.
I thought you were against corporations having rights. Well, this decision just gave them incredibly wide-spreading control over a common phrase, and they've already shown they have no problem going after individuals whenever they can.
And what lesson is to be learned here? That you like to bash anyone who dares question anything, while conveniently changing your view to fit whichever narrative demonizes others the best?
How many years have been pretending to read these articles and throwing garbage comments like this at it? You're barely even competent as a troll, but you're somehow getting WORSE at just being a hypocrite.
As for "IGNORING reality in favor of your notions so completely", there is a Chinese proverb involving glass houses and stones that I think applies. It goes something like this: You're a dick.
since Section 230 is having two clear exceptions, for revenge porn and sex trafficking, also carved out.
a) The "exception" in the form of FOSTA-SESTA is currently facing a very strong court challenge. Even without the blatant constitutional conflicts, the government's best argument so far has been that it's OK because it's basically the same as an existing anti-trafficking law. Soooo, what was the point of it again?
b) There is no "revenge porn" exception, nor will there ever be one. A lot of states have tried enacting their own, but they keep getting struck down as unconstitutional. It's a fundamental incompatibility since they need to be simultaneously overly broad and narrowly tailored. Also not helping is a familiar argument that the law, even if interpreted only as the state wants, is redundant since it criminalizes something that's already a crime. So yeah, yet another "exception" that doesn't actually help anything.
That's for a rational committee of thought leaders and policy experts to decide.
That already happened. It was Congress when they debated whether or not to accept the proposed amendment to the Communications Decency Act that ultimately became section 230. And barely even a year later, the freaking SUPREME COURT upheld Section 230, despite striking down everything next to it.
On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn
I have so many problems with this ridiculous post that I would like to carefully address all of them.
And? Pissing people off isn't a good idea, true. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to ever say anything ever.
Back up a moment. Let's take a look at the "imminent violence" claim that didn't exist until you came along. Were there armed thugs on the property ready to shed blood if the cops didn't immediately step in and take action? No? Because established law--in fact, it literally IS common law--makes it pretty clear that anything short of a situation like that is not grounds for police intervention. Or any level of government intervention. (foreshadowing)
The obvious way to...what? To prevent people being offended? To stop hypothetical violence that nobody has any reason to believe is imminent? Well, I've got news for you.
That middle part seems to be a total non-sequitur, but I'll agree with you on the rest of it. Yes, the First Amendment is still open to interpretation. We learn more about its reach with every major court decision. For example, this decision from last year, which affirms that Texas governor Greg Abbott did indeed violate the first amendment by removing a state-approved "nativity scene" parody. Note how it goes to great lengths to cite Matal v Tam, a supreme court decision that's barely a year old now. In fact, if it had been on the books just a little bit earlier, there would be no ambiguity about Abbott's personal liability in this situation (the court found he is liable regardless, but he's still appealing that decision because of course he is).
Anyway, that is a practical example of exactly what happens when the government steps in to try controlling "offensive" speech. Quite a bit different from the picture you seem to be painting.
On the post: Facebook, Whose Support Made FOSTA Law, Now Sued For Facilitating Sex Trafficking Under FOSTA
Can you say "projection?"
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 30th - October 6th
Does this include the multiple people currently in or on their way to federal prison for blatantly breaking the law and/or lying openly about it in the process?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 30th - October 6th
Your definition of "censorship" needs about as much work as your definition of "smearing." Sounds like a refresher on some basic facts couldn't hurt either.
Shitty Ayyamadumbass is a shameless liar who retroactively decided he invented something, and moved to weaponize the legal system to rewrite history to support it. He failed, and continues to fail after refusing to learn from his arrogance (ahem), to the point where some of his more vocal "supporters" on Facebook were revealed to be fake accounts. When confronted about this, what "sage" words did he have?
He's a sore loser who shamelessly pulls the race card when things don't go his way. I think it's perfectly just that he gets his name dragged through the mud. He's already wallowing in it.
I'm also unaware of any instance where Masnick himself personally censored you, or anyone else here. Blame him all you want, but the one who hit the report button was me, as did many others. You're not being censored. You're being buried because that's where your bullshit commentary belongs. If that's too hard for you to believe, you're welcome to try suing me to make reality conform to you. It works for "the email guy," right?
On the post: Now Twitter's 'Report' Function Being Used To Disappear Complaint About GDPR Being Used To Disappear Public Court Document
Re: So you're saying "Report" buttons shouldn't be weaponized?
On the post: Thanks To Streaming Fragmentation, Bittorrent Traffic Is Suddenly Rising In Traffic Share
Re: Streaming is being TORN TO SHREDS by ACE lawyers.
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Fortunately for you, Techdirt makes it easy for your comment to be buried and ignored forever, otherwise you might genuinely have a potential libel case against you to worry about. Perhaps you should try understanding what the laws actually are before continuously insulting others over their superior understanding of them?
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
Re: Re: ISP
You need to stop lying. Section 230 has nothing to do with any of this, and I know you know that. You just hate it and like to blame anything you can on it.
Censorship is OK because you can always just move somewhere else? How about no? That's idiotic.
Prove it. You keep making these baseless claims without a single shred of evidence to back it up. And you're outright lying about everything around it. What makes you think anyone is going to believe the part that's even more ridiculous?
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Re:
The one being disingenuous is you. The First Amendment is indeed not being violated here, and there certainly is American law barring non-compliant foreign judgements from being enforceable under certain conditions. For once, you have actually managed to state what the law really does actually mean. Congratulations!
And here's the part where that previous praise gets taken right back, as it was completely irrelevant to anything here. You want Google to abandon all of the EU over one stupid ruling in France? And it's disingenuous to not immediately jump to that conclusion?
Again, American law has nothing to do with this. You have a grudge against Section 230 because you don't care to understand it.
Keep up these idiotic non-sequitur posts, and Googling the name "John Smith" will just lead to massive brick walls of ignorance.
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
So there's a "small cadre of lawyers" profiting off of this law that you don't understand? And you have evidence that it's true? But you won't share it or even reference any kind of specifics? Of course not, because you're blatantly lying. The burden is on you to give some kind of evidence that this isn't just a bogus conspiracy theory.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
You mean like an alleged failure of an author who refused to adapt to the Internet, and now wants to punish those who found success just so he can go back to being a different kind of parasite?
On the post: After Nabbing Billions In Tax Breaks, AT&T's Promised Job Growth Magically Evaporates
Re: Today's ATT-ack! Barely hinting other corporations do same.
Also, for future reference, the act of failing to mention completely irrelevant information is not equivalent to "IGNORING."
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
Re: Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
Yeah, the lawyers walk away with a nice big check at the end, but I think it's fair to say they earned it.
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
And what lesson is to be learned here? That you like to bash anyone who dares question anything, while conveniently changing your view to fit whichever narrative demonizes others the best?
How many years have been pretending to read these articles and throwing garbage comments like this at it? You're barely even competent as a troll, but you're somehow getting WORSE at just being a hypocrite.
As for "IGNORING reality in favor of your notions so completely", there is a Chinese proverb involving glass houses and stones that I think applies. It goes something like this: You're a dick.
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
On the post: Wikimedia Warns: EU Copyright Directive Could Drastically Change The Internet We Know And Love
Re:
a) The "exception" in the form of FOSTA-SESTA is currently facing a very strong court challenge. Even without the blatant constitutional conflicts, the government's best argument so far has been that it's OK because it's basically the same as an existing anti-trafficking law. Soooo, what was the point of it again?
b) There is no "revenge porn" exception, nor will there ever be one. A lot of states have tried enacting their own, but they keep getting struck down as unconstitutional. It's a fundamental incompatibility since they need to be simultaneously overly broad and narrowly tailored. Also not helping is a familiar argument that the law, even if interpreted only as the state wants, is redundant since it criminalizes something that's already a crime. So yeah, yet another "exception" that doesn't actually help anything.
On the post: Wikimedia Warns: EU Copyright Directive Could Drastically Change The Internet We Know And Love
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
That already happened. It was Congress when they debated whether or not to accept the proposed amendment to the Communications Decency Act that ultimately became section 230. And barely even a year later, the freaking SUPREME COURT upheld Section 230, despite striking down everything next to it.
Next >>