Your lame attempts to get back at me are truly amusing. I deduced and inferred that you hadn't read it because you were all like "Why is that happening? I don't understand it? What's going on here?" If you had actually read the ruling, you would have understood where the court was coming from and you would have commented on the substance of the court's ruling. Funny how you aren't saying here and now whether you actually read it. This only bolsters my original conclusion that you had not. And what does my fact-checking have to do with anything? Nice try, but irrelevant. I don't run a blog. I don't put myself out there like you do.
I'm talking about duty and integrity and ethics. I know you don't understand, Mike. I know.
Sigh. If he's going to write an article about how a court got it wrong, shouldn't he actually know what the court said? Basic, fundamental stuff. If he's lazy with the obvious stuff, just imagine how lazy he is with the not-so-obvious stuff.
Not sure what to tell you. My point is that since he admittedly doesn't do the things that would warrant the public to take him seriously, it makes no sense for people to take him seriously. He chimes in to point out that people do in fact take him seriously. I don't doubt that. In fact, that's part of my point. Why should they take him seriously? That's the question and the point.
That's your response? Hilarious. Shall I link to the posts from a few weeks ago where I kept asking you if you researched your posts and you refused to answer? Instead, you kept asking me if I researched my comments. WTF? You ADMIT that you have no journalistic integrity, but then you think people should take your words seriously. You can't have it both ways, buddy.
I'm saying that if he wants people to take his words seriously, then he needs to put in the minimum amount of background work that would justify people taking his words seriously.
Mike's so sure that the court's reasoning is wrong--how can this guy's tweets cause a mistrial?--but, of course, Mike didn't actually take a few minutes to find out what the court's actual reasoning was. What kind of an idiot writes a post about how the court's reasoning is wrong without actually looking at what the court's actual reasoning was in the first place?
That sort of idiocy is unfortunately the norm on Techdirt. It's one thing to think the court's reasoning is wrong. It's another to declare it wrong when you don't even know what it is. It took me 10 seconds to find the .pdf of the opinion, and five minutes to skim it to see what the court was saying. If I were going to write a story about how the court got this one wrong, I would have invested those five minutes.
Just because Mike is offering his opinion on things, that doesn't relieve him of the ethical duty to do a bit of research first. Around here it's shoot first and ask questions later, if ever.
This site has entertainment value, and the "articles" are usually about subjects I'm interested in. It's Mike's complete lack of journalistic integrity that irritates me. It's one thing to be opinionated. That's fine. I'm opinionated too. But it's another thing to purposefully misrepresent things, or to present only part of the story while leaving out the parts that are contra to your position, etc.
Mike should decide whether he wants to be taken seriously or whether he wants to be the schoolyard gossip. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to do the basic sorts of things that journalists do. Instead, he's all too happy to admit that he doesn't research, fact-check, present both sides, etc. He can't have it both ways.
Just like the pirates, Mike wants to have something that he hasn't earned.
They are supposed to file a forfeiture complaint for the property, but there's no need to file criminal charges against the property's owner. The forfeiture complaint deadline can be pushed back with court approval. Here (if Mike's "story" is true), the owner of the property is working with the feds to get the property back. Sounds like the feds are being nice to me.
I fail to see how those should lead to the end result being suspect in any way. It doesn't appear he discussed the case at all, but merely shared some of his general thoughts. It appears the court would prefer that he pretend he not even have those thoughts at all. How does that possibly make sense? Denying someone from mentioning what they're thinking doesn't stop them from thinking what they're thinking.
Rather than guess about what the court was thinking and rebut hypothetical arguments, you could actually read the opinion and find out for real (you know, basic journalism stuff): http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2011/12/08/1323359339-twittercaswe.pdf Imagine how powerful your rebuttal of the court's reasoning would be if you addressed the court's actual reasoning in your analysis. Without that, it's just tinfoil hat psychobabble.
Getting a seizure warrant from a magistrate judge upon a showing of probable cause is due process. That's what happened here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/12/dajaz1.pdf You don't have to have an adversarial hearing before a seizure warrant is issued. The affidavit stating probable cause is sufficient. Criminal charges do not have to be filed in order for civil forfeiture of property to occur. You're not making a lot of sense. If you think that this violates due process, make your argument. The constitutionality of asset forfeiture has been upheld in the courts. You don't have much legal leg to stand on. And really, "Nuremberg"? Not impressed.
Too bad quantity isn't a substitute for quality. I suppose it's easy to spout off thousands of posts when you're not encumbered by silly things like journalistic integrity. God forbid any kind of ethics slow you down.
Removing a channel that people are using to access protected speech invokes the First Amendment. I'll produce the caselaw that says that another day... Have a good one.
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm talking about duty and integrity and ethics. I know you don't understand, Mike. I know.
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike's so sure that the court's reasoning is wrong--how can this guy's tweets cause a mistrial?--but, of course, Mike didn't actually take a few minutes to find out what the court's actual reasoning was. What kind of an idiot writes a post about how the court's reasoning is wrong without actually looking at what the court's actual reasoning was in the first place?
That sort of idiocy is unfortunately the norm on Techdirt. It's one thing to think the court's reasoning is wrong. It's another to declare it wrong when you don't even know what it is. It took me 10 seconds to find the .pdf of the opinion, and five minutes to skim it to see what the court was saying. If I were going to write a story about how the court got this one wrong, I would have invested those five minutes.
Just because Mike is offering his opinion on things, that doesn't relieve him of the ethical duty to do a bit of research first. Around here it's shoot first and ask questions later, if ever.
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re:
Mike should decide whether he wants to be taken seriously or whether he wants to be the schoolyard gossip. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to do the basic sorts of things that journalists do. Instead, he's all too happy to admit that he doesn't research, fact-check, present both sides, etc. He can't have it both ways.
Just like the pirates, Mike wants to have something that he hasn't earned.
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tweeting Juror Leads To Retrial For Guy Convicted Of Murder
Rather than guess about what the court was thinking and rebut hypothetical arguments, you could actually read the opinion and find out for real (you know, basic journalism stuff): http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2011/12/08/1323359339-twittercaswe.pdf Imagine how powerful your rebuttal of the court's reasoning would be if you addressed the court's actual reasoning in your analysis. Without that, it's just tinfoil hat psychobabble.
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re:
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re:
Were these pirates friends of yours? They're lucky they're not in jail.
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
On the post: Congressional Investigations Into Dajaz1.com Censorship Begin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>