I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.
The question asked:
[W]here is your specific proof that [Dave Rubin] was suspended because of his specific statement about the booster shot? And if you have no proof, how do you expect us to believe anything else you have to say?
Your first “answer”:
Well Im a big dude. 6'2" 250lb former college athlete. I'll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
I've worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.
First of all, that does not answer the question. At all. What does that have to do with Dave Rubin?
Second, in most states, the law says that the amount of force used to physically remove someone from your private property that they have no ownership of must be proportional. In most of those states, it is considered a right, not a privilege, to use proportionate force to remove a trespasser. Maybe that wasn’t the case in your state, but that is neither here nor there for several reasons.
Third, you talk about “backwards ass states like Texas” as if they don’t count, but we’re specifically talking about a Texas law here.
Fourth, you’re only talking about the amount of appropriate force to remove a trespasser, not when, why, or how you can declare someone a trespasser or whether that trespasser can be removed from the premises at all by someone.
So this claim:
You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.
is wrong (in most states) and irrelevant here. I mean, when you kick someone off your platform, you aren’t physically kicking them out, so there’s no issue of battery at all. This isn’t a discussion of how to remove someone from the property once the decision is made that they are to be removed. This is a discussion of how or when to make the decision to remove them at all by whatever means are legal, necessary, and/or appropriate. So, any laws in place regarding how to exercise the right to have someone removed from your property are completely immaterial here.
Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?
It’s not a strawman if there are actually people who claim this.
The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it.
Being wrong doesn’t make it a lie, no matter how ridiculous you may think the claim is.
The law does do that.
Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with 'this is my job so I know it' he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.
It’s not even remotely close to practicing law without a license. Stating an opinion or fact about the law with regards to an issue to the general public—without more—is not and has never been the unlawful practice of law. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make public claims about the law or a particular law. He also doesn’t “blather[] with ‘this is my job so I know it”. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.
It is common for contracts to set out a procedure for appeal and curing. It is not common to for the government to require a procedure for appeal and curing to be in any contract that doesn’t involve the government or a government function.
States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don't want their courts burdened with contract disputes.
But that’s exactly what this bill would do! It would burden their courts with contract disputes. By contrast, §230 does remove many alleged contract disputes from courts, along with many other issues.
The way TOS are written today is 'neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it'
This is technically true, but that’s largely to prevent an issue with contract disputes. That said, Facebook and Twitter do have mechanisms for appealing a moderation decision.
this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.
No, because by writing the TOS in such a way that your content can be removed for any reason (or maybe even no reason at all) and not providing any opportunity for an appeal or curing, there is no way that the platform holders could possibly breach the contract, so there would be no remedy by suing for breach of contract, either. Such a lawsuit would be completely without merit on its face (assuming the TOS is written as broadly as you claim), and it would be dismissed very early on.
By contrast, requiring contracts to have an appeal-and-cure provision would make it far easier to be able to sue under breach of contract and get past dismissal, plus lawsuits over contracts that don’t contain the necessary clause. You have it completely backwards.
Also, on a related note, I don’t think it matters much to the courts whether it’s a state claim for breach of a law vs a state claim for breach of contract.
I wasn’t aware that all but one of the social media sites were run by a single person per site out of their garage and were only available within a single city per site.
So, which is the only social media platform not run by a single person out of their garage only available within a single city? Is it Facebook? Twitter? Parler? Gab? Gettr? MySpace?
Well, which is it?
All of these, as far as I can tell, are run by a corporation itself run by multiple people out of actual offices, all of them are available across the country (or even in other countries), and all of them are online social media platforms. The amount of success each has may vary, but they are all still competing in the same market in the same geographic locations, so clearly none of them are monopolies by any stretch.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
SEE THE REGIME HAS NOT THE POWER TO SILENCE THE DISSENTERS TOTALLY!!
THIS IS THE PROOF CENSORSHIP IS GOOD!
If you can still say it somewhere, and the government isn’t punishing you for saying it, it’s not censorship. And no, privately owned social media sites are not the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
This is the Only site I use where bbs markup doesn’t work.
It’s used on YouTube as well, but more importantly, the comment box explicitly says you either use markdown or use plain text. There is no option to use markup.
[…] liberal judges try stifling the free speech of lawyers […]
The “free speech of lawyers” with regards to speech made in or to court is severely constrained by law. You can’t just say whatever you want in a court of law.
[…] fighting for election integrity […]
By fighting to overturn a just and fair election and ignoring laws and facts that went against their preconceived notions?
[…] because they are afraid of the truth coming out!
Nope. The truth is already out. People like you are just too deluded to accept it.
You won't get justice in the courts, bring your own gallows to the reckoning like in old times!
You mean like lynching? Like happened to black people all the time? Is that justice?
The lunatics reside over their own court of public opinion, […]
That would be you.
[…] and modern media means they can even mobilise it into action by talking inside its bubble without the message getting diluted while spreading.
That’s actually free speech in action, you know.
Why fly planes into skyscrapers if you can kill dozens of millions by spreading vaccine misinformation from abroad?
I agree. These anti-vaxxers have a lot to answer for. I just don’t see what that has to do with this topic.
Why bring your own army if you can mobilise the U.S. against itself?
Again, I agree, but likely for a very different reason, and I don’t see how this helps your point.
Common carrier as it relates to maritime law has nothing to do with radio and other communication.
Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law.
I know this was years ago, but it just dawned on me that this may explain why customer service was never available. Apparently, they were too busy making and posting positive content online to actually service any customers!
…This is probably part of the point you’re trying to make, and I’m not exactly an expert on sharia law, but while having a (fairly) free media is probably consistent with sharia law, how much participation with society are women allowed under sharia law?
And actually, on that subject, why is sharia law so restrictive of women? As I recall, according to Islamic history, Mohammad’s (first) wife was a wealthy businesswoman who proposed to him at some point, which was how they got married. That is, she was the one bringing in income to the family. So why are so many fundamentalist Muslims so opposed to women having this level of independence? And why do men have so much power over the marriage?
I believe the idea is that, by prohibiting something or making it prohibitively difficult to do/acquire legally and safely, you wind up leaving it to gangs and black markets that de facto unregulated, which doesn’t actually solve the problem you’re trying to solve and creates new problems.
In the Prohibition, it was alcohol. In this case, I believe that Great_Scott is referring to prostitution (which is mentioned in the article), though he may be referring to pornographic content which—while not actually illegal—is being de facto restricted in many ways that get closer to “prohibitively difficult”, at least online. But yeah, probably prostitution.
Well, usually the reason this would be done is so that people who are posting something that clearly isn’t sexual don’t have to go through the detailed list of things that are prohibited, and those who might be closer to or cross this particular line can then go to the specifically enumerated list for “prohibited sexual activities” to see if they cross the line or not.
Basically, there’d be primary list of things that violate the rules, like harassment, copyright or trademark infringement, spam, child pornography, animal cruelty, doxxing, real-world graphic violence, sexual activity, revenge porn, bigotry, violations of FCC guidelines, etc. Then for each of the listed items, there’s be a separate subsection the spells each of them out, possibly including an enumerated list or by a detailed definition.
(Spam, harassment, and bigotry would be more touchy-feely and would likely involve a clear definition (and bigotry would likely include a list of protected categories, namely race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion); copyright or trademark infringement would be fairly self-explanatory; FCC guidelines would likely include a list of things regulated by the FCC as well as where to go for more information; child porn would basically explain the minimum ages for fictional and real-world subjects when displayed nude or in a sexual activity and/or point to the relevant statutes; sexual activity would likely use an enumerated list of prohibited activities and expressly allow for nudes not performing any of the listed actions and not violating any of the other rules, though there might be one catch-all category for real-world rape, and there might be separate lists for real-world content and for cartoon depictions of fictional characters.)
But yeah, detailed lists are probably one of the best ways to handle something like this. There is one problem though: people can be very creative, especially when it comes to sexual activity. Never underestimate the perversity and creativity of people on the internet.
If his description of the people he’s talking about doesn’t describe you, then he’s not talking about you.
He’s clearly referring only those people who are anti-abortion and make this particular anti-masking/antivax argument, and he’s not saying that all anti-abortion people are like this, so you don’t have any reason to be offended unless you are one of those hypocritical a$$holes.
Yet, the terms of the compensation are set by Alphabet, not by the government or a third-party arbitrator, which still leaves publishers and creators subject to Alphabet’s terms and price.
So what? That’s the case for most transactions between businesses (or between a business and a client or user). This is a service that Alphabet is offering of its own free will. It’s not the result of a legal dispute where the government or an impartial third party is required or even expected. Very few transactions, proposals, or deals between businesses involve any sort of mediation or government intervention.
Unless you can articulate a specific problem with Google Showcase and/or the terms and/or price Alphabet is setting for Google Showcase themselves—rather than just who is setting the terms and price—this claim is meaningless. You haven’t claimed that Google Showcase is unfair or anything; just that Alphabet decides the terms and price. Since the terms and price for most goods and services are ultimately set by the one selling them, this is entirely unremarkable. The same thing happened with YouTube’s ContentID and advertiser policies: those weren’t the result of the government intervening or mediation with a third-party mediator setting the terms or price but Google entering negotiations for a compromise with certain parties and ultimately setting the terms and prices itself.
No, maritime law has nothing to do with it. Maritime law, as the name suggests, solely applies to stuff that happens at sea or (at the very least) in relation to a seafaring vessel. If it happens on land and doesn’t involve a boat or ship or something, maritime law does not apply. Unless you’re going to claim that utilities like electric or water are at sea or involve seafaring vessels, you cannot plausibly argue that “common carrier” is an issue of maritime law as it relates to this particular issue.
Perhaps maritime law has its own treatment of “common carriers” or uses that term in some way, but there are many terms that appear in both maritime law and non-maritime law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
You are bad at this. That’s not what he said, and you know it.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
The question asked:
Your first “answer”:
First of all, that does not answer the question. At all. What does that have to do with Dave Rubin?
Second, in most states, the law says that the amount of force used to physically remove someone from your private property that they have no ownership of must be proportional. In most of those states, it is considered a right, not a privilege, to use proportionate force to remove a trespasser. Maybe that wasn’t the case in your state, but that is neither here nor there for several reasons.
Third, you talk about “backwards ass states like Texas” as if they don’t count, but we’re specifically talking about a Texas law here.
Fourth, you’re only talking about the amount of appropriate force to remove a trespasser, not when, why, or how you can declare someone a trespasser or whether that trespasser can be removed from the premises at all by someone.
So this claim:
is wrong (in most states) and irrelevant here. I mean, when you kick someone off your platform, you aren’t physically kicking them out, so there’s no issue of battery at all. This isn’t a discussion of how to remove someone from the property once the decision is made that they are to be removed. This is a discussion of how or when to make the decision to remove them at all by whatever means are legal, necessary, and/or appropriate. So, any laws in place regarding how to exercise the right to have someone removed from your property are completely immaterial here.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
The reflection is strong with this one…
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: One Question
It’s not a strawman if there are actually people who claim this.
Being wrong doesn’t make it a lie, no matter how ridiculous you may think the claim is.
It’s not even remotely close to practicing law without a license. Stating an opinion or fact about the law with regards to an issue to the general public—without more—is not and has never been the unlawful practice of law. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make public claims about the law or a particular law. He also doesn’t “blather[] with ‘this is my job so I know it”. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
It is common for contracts to set out a procedure for appeal and curing. It is not common to for the government to require a procedure for appeal and curing to be in any contract that doesn’t involve the government or a government function.
But that’s exactly what this bill would do! It would burden their courts with contract disputes. By contrast, §230 does remove many alleged contract disputes from courts, along with many other issues.
This is technically true, but that’s largely to prevent an issue with contract disputes. That said, Facebook and Twitter do have mechanisms for appealing a moderation decision.
No, because by writing the TOS in such a way that your content can be removed for any reason (or maybe even no reason at all) and not providing any opportunity for an appeal or curing, there is no way that the platform holders could possibly breach the contract, so there would be no remedy by suing for breach of contract, either. Such a lawsuit would be completely without merit on its face (assuming the TOS is written as broadly as you claim), and it would be dismissed very early on.
By contrast, requiring contracts to have an appeal-and-cure provision would make it far easier to be able to sue under breach of contract and get past dismissal, plus lawsuits over contracts that don’t contain the necessary clause. You have it completely backwards.
Also, on a related note, I don’t think it matters much to the courts whether it’s a state claim for breach of a law vs a state claim for breach of contract.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Shill Deffinition
I wasn’t aware that all but one of the social media sites were run by a single person per site out of their garage and were only available within a single city per site.
So, which is the only social media platform not run by a single person out of their garage only available within a single city? Is it Facebook? Twitter? Parler? Gab? Gettr? MySpace?
Well, which is it?
All of these, as far as I can tell, are run by a corporation itself run by multiple people out of actual offices, all of them are available across the country (or even in other countries), and all of them are online social media platforms. The amount of success each has may vary, but they are all still competing in the same market in the same geographic locations, so clearly none of them are monopolies by any stretch.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
If you can still say it somewhere, and the government isn’t punishing you for saying it, it’s not censorship. And no, privately owned social media sites are not the government.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
It’s used on YouTube as well, but more importantly, the comment box explicitly says you either use markdown or use plain text. There is no option to use markup.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Unless you’re being lawfully detained (i.e. are not free to go), you have the right to run if you want.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Liars, overreactions, and trolls.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: A guide for the easily confused
You should use quotes then.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Courts involved in election fraud coverup!
I have no idea why that even matters.
The “free speech of lawyers” with regards to speech made in or to court is severely constrained by law. You can’t just say whatever you want in a court of law.
By fighting to overturn a just and fair election and ignoring laws and facts that went against their preconceived notions?
Nope. The truth is already out. People like you are just too deluded to accept it.
You mean like lynching? Like happened to black people all the time? Is that justice?
That would be you.
That’s actually free speech in action, you know.
I agree. These anti-vaxxers have a lot to answer for. I just don’t see what that has to do with this topic.
Again, I agree, but likely for a very different reason, and I don’t see how this helps your point.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law.
On the post: Years Later, FTC Wins Case Against Roca Labs For Its Bogus Non-Disparagement Clause
I know this was years ago, but it just dawned on me that this may explain why customer service was never available. Apparently, they were too busy making and posting positive content online to actually service any customers!
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re:
…This is probably part of the point you’re trying to make, and I’m not exactly an expert on sharia law, but while having a (fairly) free media is probably consistent with sharia law, how much participation with society are women allowed under sharia law?
And actually, on that subject, why is sharia law so restrictive of women? As I recall, according to Islamic history, Mohammad’s (first) wife was a wealthy businesswoman who proposed to him at some point, which was how they got married. That is, she was the one bringing in income to the family. So why are so many fundamentalist Muslims so opposed to women having this level of independence? And why do men have so much power over the marriage?
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re: Re: Didn't we a;ready learn about this?
I believe the idea is that, by prohibiting something or making it prohibitively difficult to do/acquire legally and safely, you wind up leaving it to gangs and black markets that de facto unregulated, which doesn’t actually solve the problem you’re trying to solve and creates new problems.
In the Prohibition, it was alcohol. In this case, I believe that Great_Scott is referring to prostitution (which is mentioned in the article), though he may be referring to pornographic content which—while not actually illegal—is being de facto restricted in many ways that get closer to “prohibitively difficult”, at least online. But yeah, probably prostitution.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re:
Exactly!
Well, usually the reason this would be done is so that people who are posting something that clearly isn’t sexual don’t have to go through the detailed list of things that are prohibited, and those who might be closer to or cross this particular line can then go to the specifically enumerated list for “prohibited sexual activities” to see if they cross the line or not.
Basically, there’d be primary list of things that violate the rules, like harassment, copyright or trademark infringement, spam, child pornography, animal cruelty, doxxing, real-world graphic violence, sexual activity, revenge porn, bigotry, violations of FCC guidelines, etc. Then for each of the listed items, there’s be a separate subsection the spells each of them out, possibly including an enumerated list or by a detailed definition.
(Spam, harassment, and bigotry would be more touchy-feely and would likely involve a clear definition (and bigotry would likely include a list of protected categories, namely race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion); copyright or trademark infringement would be fairly self-explanatory; FCC guidelines would likely include a list of things regulated by the FCC as well as where to go for more information; child porn would basically explain the minimum ages for fictional and real-world subjects when displayed nude or in a sexual activity and/or point to the relevant statutes; sexual activity would likely use an enumerated list of prohibited activities and expressly allow for nudes not performing any of the listed actions and not violating any of the other rules, though there might be one catch-all category for real-world rape, and there might be separate lists for real-world content and for cartoon depictions of fictional characters.)
But yeah, detailed lists are probably one of the best ways to handle something like this. There is one problem though: people can be very creative, especially when it comes to sexual activity. Never underestimate the perversity and creativity of people on the internet.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re: Re: So much for the 'sanctity of life'...
If his description of the people he’s talking about doesn’t describe you, then he’s not talking about you.
He’s clearly referring only those people who are anti-abortion and make this particular anti-masking/antivax argument, and he’s not saying that all anti-abortion people are like this, so you don’t have any reason to be offended unless you are one of those hypocritical a$$holes.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re:
You’re welcome!
On the post: Political Consultant Misrepresents Nearly Everything In Arguing That The Gov't Should Make Google/Facebook Pay News Orgs
So what? That’s the case for most transactions between businesses (or between a business and a client or user). This is a service that Alphabet is offering of its own free will. It’s not the result of a legal dispute where the government or an impartial third party is required or even expected. Very few transactions, proposals, or deals between businesses involve any sort of mediation or government intervention.
Unless you can articulate a specific problem with Google Showcase and/or the terms and/or price Alphabet is setting for Google Showcase themselves—rather than just who is setting the terms and price—this claim is meaningless. You haven’t claimed that Google Showcase is unfair or anything; just that Alphabet decides the terms and price. Since the terms and price for most goods and services are ultimately set by the one selling them, this is entirely unremarkable. The same thing happened with YouTube’s ContentID and advertiser policies: those weren’t the result of the government intervening or mediation with a third-party mediator setting the terms or price but Google entering negotiations for a compromise with certain parties and ultimately setting the terms and prices itself.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
No, maritime law has nothing to do with it. Maritime law, as the name suggests, solely applies to stuff that happens at sea or (at the very least) in relation to a seafaring vessel. If it happens on land and doesn’t involve a boat or ship or something, maritime law does not apply. Unless you’re going to claim that utilities like electric or water are at sea or involve seafaring vessels, you cannot plausibly argue that “common carrier” is an issue of maritime law as it relates to this particular issue.
Perhaps maritime law has its own treatment of “common carriers” or uses that term in some way, but there are many terms that appear in both maritime law and non-maritime law.
Next >>