I don't think any state has "stand your asphalt" laws on the books that would allow motorists to intentionally drive over pedestrians constricting your car's freedom of movement
Perhaps you are not familiar with Florida's new S:870.07 created by SB1 (2021). The not very subtly concealed intent was that people should run over protesters having darker complexions. The effect is that someone in Florida running over people, such as Fields did in Charlottesville, should no longer be subject to damages.
I imagine that Florida is a leader on this. It was the most urgent bill for the 2021 legislative session, running even in front of the bill allowing the governor to issue an emergency decree of ``non-emergency'' to prevent local health regulation.
You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) they said that expression in yard signs is unique because of the way it identifies the speaker. Id. at 55. The identity of the speaker is important, they said, _id. at 56fn14, citing Aristotle, 2 Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2. A yard sign ``may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media'', Gilleo at 55, but its mere presence is part of the message.
You might consider an anti-war sign in a veteran's yard, id. at 56, or a sign saying no more than ``Vote for [Challenger]'' in the yard of one of the mayor's children. Closer to home, you might consider a sign promoting socialism in the yard of a wealthy person, Gilleo at 57, or a sign saying ``socialism sucks - biden blows'' in the yard of a person benefitting from federal mortgage assistance.
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you
Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer's desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.
And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable
It is hard to get to ``unconstitutional'' in a contract between private parties.
I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.
I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is ``easement'' for those of you keeping score at home.
I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.
The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.
Perhaps you were not paying attention. The government of Florida has three branches (executive, legislative, judicial), all of which are controlled by one party. That party, which has set the stage for the government to intrude into website operators' decisions, is the Republican party.
Physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation, and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages,
As previous comments have noted, these folks are clearly unsuited to be cops. For that matter, they are probably ill-suited for any job calling for performance by a ``competent adult''.
Still, I cannot help but think that there will be much greater mortification when they are seen to have their names on this complaint. Imagine if their friends or fellow cops found out that the ``Snowflake Five'' had let themselves be associated with this. They should probably move to a different state and change their names in order to avoid the shame and humiliation of having people think of them as being the sorts of people who would bring this.
And the lawyers? Well, in filing this thing, they have surely beclowned themselves. That may not be disqualifying in LA. or even in California. Still, imagine how they would feel if a search of Matthew S. McNicholas or of Douglas D. WInter or even of Emily R. Pincin were to reveal connection to this steaming pile. That simply cannot help them.
This might well be a symptom of a one-party state. There are three branches of government, all run by the same party. You also have a bunch of agencies, whose heads are all appointed by the same party.
For similar one-party result, look another 90 miles south.
This is just to attack GETTR, not solving any problem
Identification of the problems is an important step to solving them. We have identified some problems.
It is necessary to provide some sort of content moderation or your web site will become a cesspit of spam, furry porn, MAGAt droppings, troll-feeding, and neo-nazi ranting. TYou may wind up with parler, or daily stormer, or gettr.
Lying is a problem. Calling yourself a ``Free Speech'' site does not help. What appears implicit in the article is that these sites ought to be honest: they in some ways moderate speech they do not like. They have the right to do so. However, lying about it is an unfair business practice.
Inability for the MAGA crowd to provide a viable service suitable to their own needs is a problem. The solution is for them to recruit smarter people, the kind of people who can craft a viable platform. This may be the kind of people who want nothing to do with them.
Lack of ability to reflect is a problem. This may be caused by excessive television, but I cannot offer much hope of a solution.
Solving these problems probably requires your level of genius. It is certainly above my pay grade. Few people are going to switch off the television and actually, you know, attend public meetings.
"your building on a beach causes my insurance rates to climb"
In fairness, it does not cause the insurance rates to rise as much as they should. Two problems prevent this natural market operation.
First, subsidized flood insurance. Almost everyone who buys needs a mortgage loan, and the bank requires flood insurance when you are in a low area such as a beach. Flood insurance would be fabulously expensive in such areas, except for the federal subsidy which makes it much cheaper than would be actuarily sound.
Second, state supported ``catastrophe'' reinsurance, meaning that the risk of great damage is shifted to the taxpayers rather than the near-ocean property owners who present the greatest risk of suffering casualty. Here, some but not all of the state support is loaded onto regular insurance policies in safer areas.
Together, these operate as a sort of Reverse Robin Hood. The more impecunious taxpayers provide the support so that the better-off may own waterfront properties. Be assured that oceanfront property owners are generous at campaign contribution time.
In a sane market, it would be essentially impossible to obtain affordable insurance within a mile of the ocean. Underwriters would flee from such opportunities.
That is true, there were a bunch of small plans by lots of people
I will tell you the tip-off the FBI missed. The morning of 06-Jan, there was a large armed mob present near the Capitol. There was a platform set up and several rabble-rousing speakers were present to address the armed mob. The speakers did deliver their respective addresses, which were followed shortly by an armed march upon the Capitol.
The various law-enforcement and military operations laregely ignored this. Sure, there was also social media chatter, but since it was largely the KKK and ``blue lives'' sorts doing the chatter, it was also largely ignored.
Compare the non-armed-mob a few months prior for the BLM protest, and the storm trooper response thereto, and let me know if you have a good explanation for the different responses.
they're not prepared for what happens once they fucking get it
Most likely they will not get their bill in effect. A bill to similar effect here was struck down even before it could become effective. No doubt the state will appeal, but even the U.S. 11th Circuit is not going to uphold the stink-bomb that is SB 2021-7072.
If things move more slowly in Texas, or they do not provide an effective date, it may kick in. In such a case, I imagine that the bill will be so short-lived as to be of no real effect.
That one was regrettable. The law as stated appears correct, but the application on those particular facts may have been unfortunate. The cable service was transferred from the govt to a private entity in part to allow for viewpoint-based decisions. The govt could not prevent access by critics, where the corp could.
I am not sure how the supremes could reach a different result without some serious pretzel logic. Given how much we pay them to be smart, it might have been nice to see a more useful result. Making careful distinctions is part of their job. Compare Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, and Chiles v. C&O Ry, 218 U.S. 71, , to Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 210.
Still, genuinely private corps such as the operators of twitter or daily stormer are even more legitimately entitled to control the use of their respective properties.
Some judge is going to have to read this thing, including [Twitter pg 14]:
60. Likewise, with Plaintiff now removed from Twitter and other social media platforms, it has ended balanced, direct public discussions between competing political views on national and local issues.
Then he will know why there is no longer any direct public discussion of political issues in the U.S.
Without that information, he might have blamed the lack of U.S. public political discussion on this ``markdown'' stuff, which tried to change P:60 above to P:1 as though it were the first of a numbered list.
On the post: Florida's New Law Against Blocking Roads During Protests Already Being Ignored By Cops Policing Protests The Governor Supports
Re: Re: Re: Re: Equal opportunity
Perhaps you are not familiar with Florida's new S:870.07 created by SB1 (2021). The not very subtly concealed intent was that people should run over protesters having darker complexions. The effect is that someone in Florida running over people, such as Fields did in Charlottesville, should no longer be subject to damages.
I imagine that Florida is a leader on this. It was the most urgent bill for the 2021 legislative session, running even in front of the bill allowing the governor to issue an emergency decree of ``non-emergency'' to prevent local health regulation.
On the post: Techdirt Is Fighting A New Lawsuit
Re: Original Lawsuit
I downloaded a copy from the PB Clerk of Court.
On the post: Techdirt Is Fighting A New Lawsuit
Re:
Have another guess, but first a clue: the signature block says
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman__
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Florida Bar. No. 246220
7050 W. Palmetto Park Rd
Boca Ratob FL 33433
This may be reflective of the unwillingness of other attorneys in his county to touch this dumpster fire of a claim.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) they said that expression in yard signs is unique because of the way it identifies the speaker. Id. at 55. The identity of the speaker is important, they said, _id. at 56fn14, citing Aristotle, 2 Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2. A yard sign ``may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media'', Gilleo at 55, but its mere presence is part of the message.
You might consider an anti-war sign in a veteran's yard, id. at 56, or a sign saying no more than ``Vote for [Challenger]'' in the yard of one of the mayor's children. Closer to home, you might consider a sign promoting socialism in the yard of a wealthy person, Gilleo at 57, or a sign saying ``socialism sucks - biden blows'' in the yard of a person benefitting from federal mortgage assistance.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer's desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
It is hard to get to ``unconstitutional'' in a contract between private parties.
I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.
I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is ``easement'' for those of you keeping score at home.
I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.
The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.
On the post: Leaked Data Shows NSO Group's Malware Was Used To Target Journalists, Activists, And World Leaders
yanking licenses
Realistically, how would this work? Perhaps underpants gnome economics would apply, where NSO would
I'll wait here while you hold your breath until these things happen.
On the post: Using The George Floyd Protests As An Excuse, Minneapolis Police Destroyed Evidence And Case Files
Re: that's one dumb defense attorney
Probably to set up a spoliation argument. Sounds like a smart atty to me, though of course I am not licensed in Minnesota.
On the post: Using The George Floyd Protests As An Excuse, Minneapolis Police Destroyed Evidence And Case Files
Re: As Justinian has rightly said,
As Napoleon III famously answered, ``worse bandits''.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Re:
It might be worse than that. Even if the atty is honest, there seems to be a risk of non-payment associated with working for Trump.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Time for a you tube music video
Perhaps you were not paying attention. The government of Florida has three branches (executive, legislative, judicial), all of which are controlled by one party. That party, which has set the stage for the government to intrude into website operators' decisions, is the Republican party.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re:
Says the expert who carefully observes that this effort is led by
COOPER & KIRK , PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 220-9600
On the post: Five Palo Alto Cops Sue The City And Their PD, Claiming A Black Lives Matter Mural Harassed Them
They demand judgment for
As previous comments have noted, these folks are clearly unsuited to be cops. For that matter, they are probably ill-suited for any job calling for performance by a ``competent adult''.
Still, I cannot help but think that there will be much greater mortification when they are seen to have their names on this complaint. Imagine if their friends or fellow cops found out that the ``Snowflake Five'' had let themselves be associated with this. They should probably move to a different state and change their names in order to avoid the shame and humiliation of having people think of them as being the sorts of people who would bring this.
And the lawyers? Well, in filing this thing, they have surely beclowned themselves. That may not be disqualifying in LA. or even in California. Still, imagine how they would feel if a search of Matthew S. McNicholas or of Douglas D. WInter or even of Emily R. Pincin were to reveal connection to this steaming pile. That simply cannot help them.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe:
This might well be a symptom of a one-party state. There are three branches of government, all run by the same party. You also have a bunch of agencies, whose heads are all appointed by the same party.
For similar one-party result, look another 90 miles south.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: It's quite a problem. How do YOU handle it?
Identification of the problems is an important step to solving them. We have identified some problems.
It is necessary to provide some sort of content moderation or your web site will become a cesspit of spam, furry porn, MAGAt droppings, troll-feeding, and neo-nazi ranting. TYou may wind up with parler, or daily stormer, or gettr.
Lying is a problem. Calling yourself a ``Free Speech'' site does not help. What appears implicit in the article is that these sites ought to be honest: they in some ways moderate speech they do not like. They have the right to do so. However, lying about it is an unfair business practice.
Inability for the MAGA crowd to provide a viable service suitable to their own needs is a problem. The solution is for them to recruit smarter people, the kind of people who can craft a viable platform. This may be the kind of people who want nothing to do with them.
Solving these problems probably requires your level of genius. It is certainly above my pay grade. Few people are going to switch off the television and actually, you know, attend public meetings.
On the post: Elon Musk's Pointless, Subsidized Tunnels Head To Flood-Prone Florida
Re: Re: Soil dynamics is your enemy
In fairness, it does not cause the insurance rates to rise as much as they should. Two problems prevent this natural market operation.
First, subsidized flood insurance. Almost everyone who buys needs a mortgage loan, and the bank requires flood insurance when you are in a low area such as a beach. Flood insurance would be fabulously expensive in such areas, except for the federal subsidy which makes it much cheaper than would be actuarily sound.
Second, state supported ``catastrophe'' reinsurance, meaning that the risk of great damage is shifted to the taxpayers rather than the near-ocean property owners who present the greatest risk of suffering casualty. Here, some but not all of the state support is loaded onto regular insurance policies in safer areas.
Together, these operate as a sort of Reverse Robin Hood. The more impecunious taxpayers provide the support so that the better-off may own waterfront properties. Be assured that oceanfront property owners are generous at campaign contribution time.
In a sane market, it would be essentially impossible to obtain affordable insurance within a mile of the ocean. Underwriters would flee from such opportunities.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Re: [lots of small plans]
I will tell you the tip-off the FBI missed. The morning of 06-Jan, there was a large armed mob present near the Capitol. There was a platform set up and several rabble-rousing speakers were present to address the armed mob. The speakers did deliver their respective addresses, which were followed shortly by an armed march upon the Capitol.
The various law-enforcement and military operations laregely ignored this. Sure, there was also social media chatter, but since it was largely the KKK and ``blue lives'' sorts doing the chatter, it was also largely ignored.
Compare the non-armed-mob a few months prior for the BLM protest, and the storm trooper response thereto, and let me know if you have a good explanation for the different responses.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Go ahead and fucking try
Most likely they will not get their bill in effect. A bill to similar effect here was struck down even before it could become effective. No doubt the state will appeal, but even the U.S. 11th Circuit is not going to uphold the stink-bomb that is SB 2021-7072.
If things move more slowly in Texas, or they do not provide an effective date, it may kick in. In such a case, I imagine that the bill will be so short-lived as to be of no real effect.
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
That one was regrettable. The law as stated appears correct, but the application on those particular facts may have been unfortunate. The cable service was transferred from the govt to a private entity in part to allow for viewpoint-based decisions. The govt could not prevent access by critics, where the corp could.
I am not sure how the supremes could reach a different result without some serious pretzel logic. Given how much we pay them to be smart, it might have been nice to see a more useful result. Making careful distinctions is part of their job. Compare Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, and Chiles v. C&O Ry, 218 U.S. 71, , to Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 210.
Still, genuinely private corps such as the operators of twitter or daily stormer are even more legitimately entitled to control the use of their respective properties.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
A Serious Problem
Some judge is going to have to read this thing, including [Twitter pg 14]:
Then he will know why there is no longer any direct public discussion of political issues in the U.S.
Without that information, he might have blamed the lack of U.S. public political discussion on this ``markdown'' stuff, which tried to change P:60 above to P:1 as though it were the first of a numbered list.
Next >>