Of course, the old scorecard didn't make a recommendation. It instead laid out a bunch of (somewhat) competing systems, and concisely gave information about which capabilities those systems had, and prospective users could decide for themselves how important any (or all) of those capabilities were to them. By ditching that in favor of "do your own research; here are a half-dozen articles telling you what to consider", EFF has really taken a step back.
No insurance covers the deliberate acts of the insured, so both homicides and suicides are excluded. What's left are accidents. And yes, accidents do happen with guns, but the numbers are quite low.
The headline confused me, until I realized that you apparently don't know how apostrophes work. But yea, though I generally agree with Prager, there's simply no basis for the suit. Even taking those two contentions (i.e., that "restricted" = censorship, and that it was being done for partisan political reasons) as true, there's still no "there" there.
Re: 9th Circuit notoriously "liberal"; don't rely on it. -- Then all hinges on "good faith" and "objectionable". But in NO event did Congress authorize corporations to become Censors and determine what ideas are acceptable.
"Liberal" or not (and they are), the 9th Circuit remains binding on courts in California. And while the Supreme Court isn't infallible, it is authoritative.
Yet again, you simply cannot get into your mind that USING SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT IS ILLEGAL.
That would be because it isn't true. It never has been true, and it isn't true today. We can hope it never will be true, but my crystal ball is in the shop. What you believe to be the law, simply isn't what the law is.
The thing is, despite blue's abuse of the phrase, "common law" is a real thing. The common law consists, roughly speaking, of the mass of court decisions in a relevant jurisdiction. Thus, if "common law" requires something, there's a court decision saying so, which can be cited. If "all statute" requires something, then there's a statute that can be cited.
So, if he can point to a decision since the enactment of the CDA that says, "despite Section 230's protections, site operators have an affirmative obligation to moderate comments made on their site, and that moderation must be done in good faith," then he'd be right. But of course he can't do that, as there is no such decision, which means he's wrong.
where I hold that corporations have actual duty to "police", and that must be done in good faith, in accord with common law and all statute.
You're free to believe what you like. But if you believe the law requires this, you're simply wrong (though I welcome any citations to applicable and relevant legal authority in the United States). Site owners/operators (be they individuals, partnerships, corporations, LLCs, trusts, or anything else) have no legal duty to "police" comments in any way, but if they choose to do so, are free to do so in any way they choose--in good faith, in bad faith, purely at random, or in any other way they like.
Apple has chosen to comply with the apparent Chinese legal requirement that they maintain the data, and the ability to decrypt it, in China. Their option was to not serve the Chinese market at all. This surprises you?
So people are in the country illegally, and are vocal about being in the country illegally, and they get picked up. That's a constitutional problem somehow? Sure, the First Amendment protects your right to confess to breaking the law, but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of breaking the law.
A notable omission from this piece is any discussion of the relevant law. Republication of defamatory material, even with the source credited, is itself defamatory. Thus, if blue wrote, as a factual claim, "Tim blows goats," I wrote that "blue says that Tim blows goats," and Tim does not in fact blow goats, Tim would (potentially) have a case not only against blue, but also against me.
Now here, it's going to be a hard case--Cohen will have to show not only that the claims made in these documents are false, but also that Buzzfeed knew they were false when they went to print. That's not impossible, but it is difficult--public figures rarely win defamation suits.
Well, no, it isn't a matter of contract law at all. The customer's issue with the hotel could be (ignoring any other governing consumer protection statutes), but the customer isn't a party to this case. The state is bringing this case, claiming (correctly, I believe) that its consumer protection statutes have been violated.
If there were a contract action, I think the hotel would lose, but not for the reason you state. Courts don't really look at whether both parties actually understood all the terms of a contract (how many people read all the fine print on everything they sign?). Rather, that provision would likely be thrown out as unconscionable.
Civilian ownership of machine guns is perfectly legal (highly regulated, and very expensive, but still legal) in most of the country. Are you quite sure there are no M2s on the NFA registry? Because I see a listing for a fully-registered and transferrable model from last year for $40k. See http://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1712-wts-browning-m2hb-50-cal/#comment-4319
Now, do I believe JLVD has a legal machine gun (of any flavor)? No, and I don't think that's what he's saying--I expect he's referring to a .50 BMG-cal rifle, not an M2 heavy machine gun.
Is he a gun {nut|enthusiast}? Don't know. But he is actually a lawyer, in that he has a law degree and is (at least for the time being) licensed to practice in a few states.
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
Suppose you're right. Suppose the allegations are completely false. Suppose the accusers subsequently recant completely. AMG still wins, unless Moore can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that what they printed was false, and they knew it at the time. It's not going to happen. It's nearly impossible for a public figure to win a defamation case as a plaintiff, and that's a good thing.
More precisely, 50 BMG (.50 Browning Machine Gun) is the cartridge, originally used in the (surprise!) .50 cal. Browning Machine Gun, but now used in a variety of firearms, mostly single-shot rifles, sometimes semi-automatic rifles, occasionally pistols. It's certainly possible he has a legal .50 cal machine gun, but highly unlikely that he actually fires it full-auto, as it would be obscenely expensive to do so. Ammunition is at least a few dollars per round, and the machine gun fires around 500 rounds per minute.
But that's the upshot to this decision: people who wish to speak anonymously online, in any capacity, won't be able to.
Sure they will--if the places where they're speaking don't gather the information in the first place. But most sites gather far more information than they have any legitimate need for. And having done so, they can be forced to reveal it, and they can also inadvertently leak it.
On the post: County Attorney Formally Asks ACLU To Stop Saying Factual Things About Pending Drug Legislation
So...
I guess she gets points for politely infringing the First Amendment?
On the post: There's No Quick Fix For Securing Communications: EFF Ditches Secure Messaging Scorebard
Recommendations...
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Broken Sarcasm meter
On the post: YouTube Shows Dennis Prager's Claim Of Discrimination Against Conservatives Is Laughable
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re: 9th Circuit notoriously "liberal"; don't rely on it. -- Then all hinges on "good faith" and "objectionable". But in NO event did Congress authorize corporations to become Censors and determine what ideas are acceptable.
On the post: The 2nd Circuit Contributes To Fair Use Week With An Odd And Problematic Ruling On TVEyes
Re: In short, (blah blah blah)
That would be because it isn't true. It never has been true, and it isn't true today. We can hope it never will be true, but my crystal ball is in the shop. What you believe to be the law, simply isn't what the law is.
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Put differently, section 230 (blah blah blah)
So, if he can point to a decision since the enactment of the CDA that says, "despite Section 230's protections, site operators have an affirmative obligation to moderate comments made on their site, and that moderation must be done in good faith," then he'd be right. But of course he can't do that, as there is no such decision, which means he's wrong.
On the post: DC Appeals Court Tosses Silly Lawsuit Woman Filed Against Google Because Someone With A Blog Said Mean Things
Re: Re: "Put differently, section 230 (blah blah blah)
You're free to believe what you like. But if you believe the law requires this, you're simply wrong (though I welcome any citations to applicable and relevant legal authority in the United States). Site owners/operators (be they individuals, partnerships, corporations, LLCs, trusts, or anything else) have no legal duty to "police" comments in any way, but if they choose to do so, are free to do so in any way they choose--in good faith, in bad faith, purely at random, or in any other way they like.
On the post: Apple Agrees To Store Chinese iCloud Data In China, Making It Much Easier For The Chinese Gov't To Access It
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
On the post: Trump's Personal Lawyer Sues Buzzfeed For Publishing Allegedly False Statements Written By Someone Else
Defamation law...
Now here, it's going to be a hard case--Cohen will have to show not only that the claims made in these documents are false, but also that Buzzfeed knew they were false when they went to print. That's not impossible, but it is difficult--public figures rarely win defamation suits.
On the post: Hotel That Charged Guest $350 For A Negative Review Now Facing A Lawsuit From State Attorney General
Re: Basic Contract Law
If there were a contract action, I think the hotel would lose, but not for the reason you state. Courts don't really look at whether both parties actually understood all the terms of a contract (how many people read all the fine print on everything they sign?). Rather, that provision would likely be thrown out as unconscionable.
On the post: FBI Celebrates Taking Down A 'Terrorist' Who Told Undercover Agents He Couldn't Go Through With An Attack
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Celebrates Taking Down A 'Terrorist' Who Told Undercover Agents He Couldn't Go Through With An Attack
Re: Re:
Yes, conspiracy is a crime. See, for example 18 U.S.C. sec. 371. Under that section, if
Then all are guilty of conspiracy, whether or not the contemplated crime is ever committed.
There are other, more specific conspiracy statutes, and state laws also provide for nearly-identical offenses.
On the post: The FCC Tried To Hide Net Neutrality Complaints Against ISPs
Re: Re:
On the post: Angry, Threatening Lawyer Fails To Sue As Promised, Drops His SLAPP Suit
Re: Especially funny since...
Now, do I believe JLVD has a legal machine gun (of any flavor)? No, and I don't think that's what he's saying--I expect he's referring to a .50 BMG-cal rifle, not an M2 heavy machine gun.
Is he a gun {nut|enthusiast}? Don't know. But he is actually a lawyer, in that he has a law degree and is (at least for the time being) licensed to practice in a few states.
On the post: Alabama Media Group Isn't Messing Around With Roy Moore's Silly Threat
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
On the post: Angry Lawyer Already Engaged In A SLAPP Suit Promises To Sue More Critics, Use His Machine Gun If Sanctioned
Re:
On the post: Ninth Circuit Lets Us See Its Glassdoor Ruling, And It's Terrible
Sure they will--if the places where they're speaking don't gather the information in the first place. But most sites gather far more information than they have any legitimate need for. And having done so, they can be forced to reveal it, and they can also inadvertently leak it.
On the post: California Appeals Court Issues A Ruling That Manages To Both Protect And Undermine Online Speech
Re: Fascist..
Next >>