Re: 'You're just giving me words, they're giving me money, so...
This is another case where the "Hanlon's Razor" benefit of the doubt should not apply.
Given the evidence:
A) . . . even after hearing testimony about how repair restrictions are harming health care providers during COVID by hamstringing access to essential repair technology and documentation or replacement parts
B) Even after folks clearly testified about the scope of the harm repair monopolies cause to agriculture, health care, and other sectors, and after folks clearly illustrated the environmental impact of a wasteful culture routinely incentivized to avoid repair and buy new, the lawmakers made oodles of comments suggesting they'd bought into corporate narratives on the subject:
and
C) In their own comments, the legislators repeated lines Apple and other companies often use to defend their repair monopolies.
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the legislators were bought out beforehand. It would be completely unreasonable to come to any other conclusion.
Shannon Bird (D), for example, said that manufacturers have the right to dictate how a customer uses its product.
This is clearly hypocritical because Shannon Bird seems to have ignored the manufacturer's dictates not to drink the joy juice and smoke the prime kush prior to legislative committee meetings.
Lack of training is often a feature, not a bug, from the cop's point of view, as it increases the plausibility of ignorance of "clearly established rights," etc. Often what training cops do get primarily involves techniques for avoiding accountability, such as yelling "Stop resisting!" over and over again as they repeatedly punch a person (who is clearly not resisting) in the face.
In my view, judges can begin to curb these ill effects by dialing down the deference—even slightly—and treating police officers like other expert witnesses.
Many non-cop "expert" witnesses are granted a great deal of undeserved deference, and often grossly exaggerate their qualifications and the evidentiary value of their opinions. Our criminal legal systems in general, and judges in particular, are notoriously bad at keeping charlatan "experts" and their snake oil "evidence" out of courtrooms. Juries are then left to determine the validity of an "expert's" testimony, often without having any objective or reliable way of determining the validity of the "expert's" qualifications to give said testimony to begin with.
It is a hole in our legal systems big enough to drive a convoy of honeywagons through.
even better if that can serve as the first step in the process of shutting down such an abhorrent practice.
Better still if that can serve as the first step in the process of charging, trying, convicting, and imprisoning the TSA and DEA theives / armed robbers that participated in such an abhorrent practice.
Once upon a time in the US one of the functions of journalism was to be a government watchdog, not so much "challenging" government wrongdoing as pointing it out, so that people could be well-informed and act on the basis of that information however they saw fit.
Today most of the larger journalism outlets are merely government lapdogs, leaving the watchdog function to much smaller outlets like Techdirt, Reason, ProPublica, The Intercept, and a host of others.
As long as the readership (viewership?) of these smaller watchdog outlets was fairly small, the government could simply ignore them. However, of late the number of these smaller outlets has grown rapidly, and their combined presence has been significantly amplified by the megaphone of social media, to the point where they can no longer be ignored.
Rather than try to crack down on the sources, (the many small investigative journalism outlets themselves, which would be a really bad look, and would be difficult, due to their growing numbers), the government has set it's sights on censorship by way of the amplifiers, with both factions presenting the issue in ways that appeal to their respective bases. Hence we are seeing the horror of bipartisan support for things like eliminating Section 230, which could very effectively accomplish the same censorious goal in ways that we read about repeatedly right here on Techdirt.
Usually lost in "tree view" discussions of issues of bipartisan evil-do, or just plain failure, is the admission that both "parts" have being doing the same shit for many decades (swapping sides occasionally, but the same shit nonetheless), and the admission that what we really need to do is kick both parts of our multi-generational bipartisan failure of a government to the curb and go with another option.
The bipartisan Punch & Judy / professional wrestling shit-show of corruption has been going on for far too long, and most of the issues covered by Techdirt provide rather clear evidence of that.
I think we are more likely to watch it fizzle into the dustbin of "old news that doesn't matter anymore (and never really did)" as we move on to the the next headline-making "(not really a) crisis" in the next few days.
There is some overlap, which would explain some of the media silence on this particular subject.
However, I think a better explanation that addresses most of the media's silence on a broad range of government failures is that most of the the media are very statist. This is always the case in authoritarian societies. The media dare not poke the bear too much, lest the bear bite back.
The only hint of criticism of "government" that you see in any of the major media outlets is really just parroting the performative partisan jabs of the red and blue teams. The reds and blues must keep this up in order to maintain the facade of a two-party system, and the media are their PR partners in this charade.
the fact that they're open about admitting that this was an attempt to punish someone for publicly disagreeing with them is all sorts of concerning and shows an open contempt for the first amendment, which is not something you want a politician to display.
It may, however, be one of the most honest things to come out of a politicians mouth in recent memory.
Amen! You got my vote. But it will be a hard sell because it removes power from prosecutors, and because many of the legislators and governors, etc, that would need to be on board are former prosecutors themselves.
We need to get rid of the prosecutor -> politician -> legislator -> governor pipeline, too. It does much to warp the entire governmental mindset.
Bail is not the only component of the law enforcement / prison (jail) / industrial complex that is a racket. Most all components of this system have devolved into rackets: bail bond services, communication services, food services, medical services, transportation services, clothing services, maintenance, equipment, supplies . . . . Basically everything involved is paid for by either the taxpayers, the prisoners themselves, or their family / friends. That is why the system has evolved to arrest so many people and keep them locked up as much as possible and for as long as possible.
The current trend toward some minor bail reform is a good, but small, step in the right direction. However, it, and all other reforms to the law enforcement / prison (jail) / industrial complex are being fought by all the beneficiaries of the status quo: the police, prosecutors, bail bondsmen, and scores of various contractors and suppliers.
In some places where bail reform has been enacted, judges are increasingly rendering the reform moot by denying bail entirely for most defendants. They are afraid of the Willie Horton effect.
There is a lot to be said for the concept that prison (jail) is for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at. But it takes a lot of political courage to support that kind of concept, and, as others have mentioned, political courage is in critically short supply these days.
It will take an absolute flood of complaints (as in "break the Internet" kind of flood) to stand even a snowball's chance of making a difference. It will be nigh impossible to generate enough public outrage to cause that flood. I also don't see this issue as being high on the Harris / Biden list of grandstanding / pandering topics.
The township claimed the defendant was keeping too much "junk" on their property, a tipping point that apparently could only be determined by circling overland.
If the excess "junk" can't be seen and photographed from the street, sidewalk, or any neighboring public or private property, but only from a drone hovering overhead, it cannot be considered an "eyesore" to anyone, nor can it even be considered a violation of some snowflake's imagined "rights," therefore it shouldn't be any of the government's damn business!
There is a significant distinction to be made between association and conspiracy.
I'll give two examples to illustrate the point:
The FBI conspires with individuals to induce them to commit acts for which those individuals can then be arrested and prosecuted as terrorists. In this case it would be completely appropriate for the FBI agents to face the same terrorism charges as the individuals with whom they conspired. Of course, it would be infinitely better if the FBI did not participate in the creation of crimes (or participate in politically motivated investigations, surveillance, etc) to begin with, but that is another topic.
On the other hand, you could be said to associate with the occasional anonymous troll, by virtue of being a fellow Techdirt commenter and sometimes posting replies to their ignorant, boorish, small-minded, idiotic, (list continued here, scroll about halfway down) remarks. In this case it would not be appropriate at all for your comments to be flagged as abusive/trolling/spam, as the troll's comments often are.
Big difference. While I have not actually answered the question "Where do you draw the line?" I think I have made it clear that "guilt by association" is a bad idea.
Drawing definitive lines in what is actually a very large gradient between what is definitely "OK" and what is definitely "NOT OK" is something people have been trying to do since there have been people, using various legal, moral, ethical, religious etc systems, with what I would argue has been a rather disappointing lack of success.
Charges were brought, including one very damaging one: assisting a criminal street gang. Gang charges are automatic felonies with hefty sentence enhancements.
The whole concept of sentencing "enhancements" as a result of being part of a disfavored group, or as a result of committing crimes against a favored group (hate crimes, etc) is an affront to the principles of freedom of association and equal protection under the law.
It is also clearly unconstitutional.
While freedom of association, whether it be with "bad people" or a book club, is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it has long been recognized by the courts as a basic right. Equal protection under the law is, of course, guaranteed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Of course, unconstitutional affronts to basic rights and decency are stock-in-trade for cops, prosecutors, legislators, courts, Governors, Presidents...authoritarian government types in general.
Re: Re: Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment
These are not easy questions to answer factually.
Very true.
But as long as we are off-topic and speculating:
What about the proposition that more "good people with effective means of self defense" would correspond to a somewhat increased likelihood that one of them might be in a position to respond to a multiple murderer, and might be able to limit the tragedy the murderer is causing?
Or the similar proposition that fewer "good people with effective means of self defense" would correspond to a somewhat decreased likelihood that one of them might be in a position to respond to a multiple murderer, and might be able to limit the tragedy the murderer is causing?
Would we prefer an increased chance of a better ( or less bad) outcome, or a decreased chance of a better ( or less bad) outcome?
Your view on this might depend on whether or not you were next in line to be murdered.
On the post: Uninformed Legislators Shoot Down Right To Repair Legislation In Colorado
Re: 'You're just giving me words, they're giving me money, so...
This is another case where the "Hanlon's Razor" benefit of the doubt should not apply.
Given the evidence:
and
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the legislators were bought out beforehand. It would be completely unreasonable to come to any other conclusion.
On the post: Uninformed Legislators Shoot Down Right To Repair Legislation In Colorado
Wow.
This is clearly hypocritical because Shannon Bird seems to have ignored the manufacturer's dictates not to drink the joy juice and smoke the prime kush prior to legislative committee meetings.
On the post: Fourth Circuit Appeals Court Takes Aim At Police Officers' 'Training And Expertise' Assertions
Re: Re:
I believe the anwser is "Yes."
Lack of training is often a feature, not a bug, from the cop's point of view, as it increases the plausibility of ignorance of "clearly established rights," etc. Often what training cops do get primarily involves techniques for avoiding accountability, such as yelling "Stop resisting!" over and over again as they repeatedly punch a person (who is clearly not resisting) in the face.
On the post: Fourth Circuit Appeals Court Takes Aim At Police Officers' 'Training And Expertise' Assertions
"Expert" witnesses?
Many non-cop "expert" witnesses are granted a great deal of undeserved deference, and often grossly exaggerate their qualifications and the evidentiary value of their opinions. Our criminal legal systems in general, and judges in particular, are notoriously bad at keeping charlatan "experts" and their snake oil "evidence" out of courtrooms. Juries are then left to determine the validity of an "expert's" testimony, often without having any objective or reliable way of determining the validity of the "expert's" qualifications to give said testimony to begin with.
It is a hole in our legal systems big enough to drive a convoy of honeywagons through.
On the post: Judge Says DEA, TSA Can Continue To Be Sued For Stealing Cash From Airline Passengers
Better still
Better still if that can serve as the first step in the process of charging, trying, convicting, and imprisoning the TSA and DEA theives / armed robbers that participated in such an abhorrent practice.
No "Nuremberg defense" should be allowed here.
On the post: US Press Continues To Pretend The 'Digital Divide' Just Mysteriously Appeared One Day
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once upon a time in the US one of the functions of journalism was to be a government watchdog, not so much "challenging" government wrongdoing as pointing it out, so that people could be well-informed and act on the basis of that information however they saw fit.
Today most of the larger journalism outlets are merely government lapdogs, leaving the watchdog function to much smaller outlets like Techdirt, Reason, ProPublica, The Intercept, and a host of others.
As long as the readership (viewership?) of these smaller watchdog outlets was fairly small, the government could simply ignore them. However, of late the number of these smaller outlets has grown rapidly, and their combined presence has been significantly amplified by the megaphone of social media, to the point where they can no longer be ignored.
Rather than try to crack down on the sources, (the many small investigative journalism outlets themselves, which would be a really bad look, and would be difficult, due to their growing numbers), the government has set it's sights on censorship by way of the amplifiers, with both factions presenting the issue in ways that appeal to their respective bases. Hence we are seeing the horror of bipartisan support for things like eliminating Section 230, which could very effectively accomplish the same censorious goal in ways that we read about repeatedly right here on Techdirt.
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Forest view, anyone?
Usually lost in "tree view" discussions of issues of bipartisan evil-do, or just plain failure, is the admission that both "parts" have being doing the same shit for many decades (swapping sides occasionally, but the same shit nonetheless), and the admission that what we really need to do is kick both parts of our multi-generational bipartisan failure of a government to the curb and go with another option.
The bipartisan Punch & Judy / professional wrestling shit-show of corruption has been going on for far too long, and most of the issues covered by Techdirt provide rather clear evidence of that.
On the post: Georgia Republicans Try To Punish Delta For CEO's Statement About Voting Rights Law
Re: Watch it escalate
I think we are more likely to watch it fizzle into the dustbin of "old news that doesn't matter anymore (and never really did)" as we move on to the the next headline-making "(not really a) crisis" in the next few days.
On the post: US Press Continues To Pretend The 'Digital Divide' Just Mysteriously Appeared One Day
Re:
There is some overlap, which would explain some of the media silence on this particular subject.
However, I think a better explanation that addresses most of the media's silence on a broad range of government failures is that most of the the media are very statist. This is always the case in authoritarian societies. The media dare not poke the bear too much, lest the bear bite back.
The only hint of criticism of "government" that you see in any of the major media outlets is really just parroting the performative partisan jabs of the red and blue teams. The reds and blues must keep this up in order to maintain the facade of a two-party system, and the media are their PR partners in this charade.
On the post: Georgia Republicans Try To Punish Delta For CEO's Statement About Voting Rights Law
Re: Oh look, actual attempted censorship...
It may, however, be one of the most honest things to come out of a politicians mouth in recent memory.
On the post: California Supreme Court Says Keeping People Locked Up Just Because They Can't Make Bail Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Correction?
Amen! You got my vote. But it will be a hard sell because it removes power from prosecutors, and because many of the legislators and governors, etc, that would need to be on board are former prosecutors themselves.
We need to get rid of the prosecutor -> politician -> legislator -> governor pipeline, too. It does much to warp the entire governmental mindset.
On the post: California Supreme Court Says Keeping People Locked Up Just Because They Can't Make Bail Is Unconstitutional
Re: Bail in general is a racket
Bail is not the only component of the law enforcement / prison (jail) / industrial complex that is a racket. Most all components of this system have devolved into rackets: bail bond services, communication services, food services, medical services, transportation services, clothing services, maintenance, equipment, supplies . . . . Basically everything involved is paid for by either the taxpayers, the prisoners themselves, or their family / friends. That is why the system has evolved to arrest so many people and keep them locked up as much as possible and for as long as possible.
The current trend toward some minor bail reform is a good, but small, step in the right direction. However, it, and all other reforms to the law enforcement / prison (jail) / industrial complex are being fought by all the beneficiaries of the status quo: the police, prosecutors, bail bondsmen, and scores of various contractors and suppliers.
In some places where bail reform has been enacted, judges are increasingly rendering the reform moot by denying bail entirely for most defendants. They are afraid of the Willie Horton effect.
There is a lot to be said for the concept that prison (jail) is for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at. But it takes a lot of political courage to support that kind of concept, and, as others have mentioned, political courage is in critically short supply these days.
On the post: Amateur Online Detectives Have Apparently Decided Facial Recognition Tech Is Good As Long As They're The Ones Using It
Is this even possible?
On the post: FCC Wants To Hear Your Thoughts On Crappy US Broadband
I filled out the form, but . . .
It will take an absolute flood of complaints (as in "break the Internet" kind of flood) to stand even a snowball's chance of making a difference. It will be nigh impossible to generate enough public outrage to cause that flood. I also don't see this issue as being high on the Harris / Biden list of grandstanding / pandering topics.
On the post: State Appeals Court Says Flying A Drone Over Someone's Property Violates The Fourth Amendment
Missing the underlying point
If the excess "junk" can't be seen and photographed from the street, sidewalk, or any neighboring public or private property, but only from a drone hovering overhead, it cannot be considered an "eyesore" to anyone, nor can it even be considered a violation of some snowflake's imagined "rights," therefore it shouldn't be any of the government's damn business!
On the post: Biden Administration Says There's Nothing Wrong With ICE Setting Up A Fake College To Dupe Foreign Students Out Of Their Money, Residency
RICO?
Government may not qualify as RICO but it sure as hell qualifies as organized crime.
On the post: Recordings, Transcripts Show Police, Prosecutors Lied To A Grand Jury To Bring Gang Charges Against BLM Protesters
Re: Re: Gang Charges
There is a significant distinction to be made between association and conspiracy.
I'll give two examples to illustrate the point:
The FBI conspires with individuals to induce them to commit acts for which those individuals can then be arrested and prosecuted as terrorists. In this case it would be completely appropriate for the FBI agents to face the same terrorism charges as the individuals with whom they conspired. Of course, it would be infinitely better if the FBI did not participate in the creation of crimes (or participate in politically motivated investigations, surveillance, etc) to begin with, but that is another topic.
On the other hand, you could be said to associate with the occasional anonymous troll, by virtue of being a fellow Techdirt commenter and sometimes posting replies to their ignorant, boorish, small-minded, idiotic, (list continued here, scroll about halfway down) remarks. In this case it would not be appropriate at all for your comments to be flagged as abusive/trolling/spam, as the troll's comments often are.
Big difference. While I have not actually answered the question "Where do you draw the line?" I think I have made it clear that "guilt by association" is a bad idea.
Drawing definitive lines in what is actually a very large gradient between what is definitely "OK" and what is definitely "NOT OK" is something people have been trying to do since there have been people, using various legal, moral, ethical, religious etc systems, with what I would argue has been a rather disappointing lack of success.
On the post: Recordings, Transcripts Show Police, Prosecutors Lied To A Grand Jury To Bring Gang Charges Against BLM Protesters
Gang Charges
The whole concept of sentencing "enhancements" as a result of being part of a disfavored group, or as a result of committing crimes against a favored group (hate crimes, etc) is an affront to the principles of freedom of association and equal protection under the law.
It is also clearly unconstitutional.
While freedom of association, whether it be with "bad people" or a book club, is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it has long been recognized by the courts as a basic right. Equal protection under the law is, of course, guaranteed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Of course, unconstitutional affronts to basic rights and decency are stock-in-trade for cops, prosecutors, legislators, courts, Governors, Presidents...authoritarian government types in general.
On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment
Very true.
But as long as we are off-topic and speculating:
What about the proposition that more "good people with effective means of self defense" would correspond to a somewhat increased likelihood that one of them might be in a position to respond to a multiple murderer, and might be able to limit the tragedy the murderer is causing?
Or the similar proposition that fewer "good people with effective means of self defense" would correspond to a somewhat decreased likelihood that one of them might be in a position to respond to a multiple murderer, and might be able to limit the tragedy the murderer is causing?
Would we prefer an increased chance of a better ( or less bad) outcome, or a decreased chance of a better ( or less bad) outcome?
Your view on this might depend on whether or not you were next in line to be murdered.
On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230
Love versus hate
Like so many things among the completely unprincipled, his opinion of a law just depends on which side of the lawsuit he's on.
Next >>