Hmm - definitely sounds like some sort of bug. Is this on desktop, or mobile? On desktop you shouldn't see any change to the page margins on the sidebar size - and on mobile, there shouldn't be a sidebar since it gets pushed to the bottom instead (nor should there be a giant right margin).
Hmm there do seem to be certain links that are funneling back into the beta when they shouldn't be. Is it happening for you everywhere? I can only seem to get it to happen when interacting with the comments on *this* post, which is strange... we are looking into it.
We noticed the user icon bug - will have that fixed soon. The size change is fairly minimal, though it's possible you're getting something weird happening with the stylesheets - are you viewing it on a mobile device or a desktop browser?
Have you clicked the "exit beta" button at the top of the page? If that doesn't work try changing it in the user preferences page: https://www.techdirt.com/preferences.php
I think we could probably make it possible to expand hidden comments without javascript and without reloading the page, though I'm pretty sure it'd only be possible to have one comment expanded at a time (and there might be some other weird behaviours like the comments collapsing when you try to reply) due to the limitations of pure-CSS for that kind of interactivity. Or we could potentially do it using the HTML5 summary/details tags, although those have no support in Microsoft browsers. In any case, we'll look into it!
A hard pass is granted after a journalist is put through a pretty heavy security screening, and basically gives them full access to all press briefings without going through an onerous security process every time.
Journalists can also get passes to individual briefings, in which case they have to wait in line to go through security every time, and then be escorted at all times by secret service members.
you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words
And as we all know, the dictionary is the final arbiter of law, and privately employed lexicographers are the fourth branch of government. You know those big shelves full of imposing books that you always see behind lawyers and judges? All dictionaries, every last one of them!
How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.
The constitution does not "guarantee a press pass".
It does, however, restrict the government from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. In the nearly 250 years since it was written, there have been many cases big and small heard by many judges from district courts up to the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what the constitution guarantees. These cases have resulted in thousands of pages of extensive, detailed reasoning about what the First Amendment (and the other amendments) actually guarantees.
If you're not going to engage with that history of jurisprudence in the slightest, and are just going to keep saying "show me where the constitution says that", then you really need to grow up.
Like, imagine something for me for a moment: let's say you were at dinner with a decorated judge from a federal appeals court who hears constitutional matters related to free speech and due process. Is this how you would talk to him about your opinions on law? Or would that be enough to cow you into a tiny bit of humility so you stop acting like your facile two-sentence takes make you the smartest person in the room?
I'd add #3 - he was elected on promises to run the most transparent administration ever, and instead aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers and fought FOIA requests at every opportunity.
the content of his questioning had absolutely nothing to do with his removal
I have to ask: do you honestly believe this? Like, have the White House's incredibly brazen and obvious lies about their reasons genuinely hoodwinked you so completely? Because I struggle to believe that's possible - nobody smart enough to form a sentence could be that credulous and naive.
So... what is your motivation for saying this? Honestly?
Re: Re: corporations having first amendment protections
But that's precisely WHY a corporation has rights - because the people who run it have rights.
I still don't understand what it means to say revoke the first amendment from corporations.
So like, congress may not create a law telling people what they can and can't publish, but it CAN create a law blocking you from incorporating and publishing what you want? The government could shut down the New York Times and CNN, it just couldn't do anything to the people who work there? How is that helpful?
Heck, if you factor in voter turnout, it's been a long, long, long time since any presidential candidate actually won a majority of the popular vote, because so many voters were so disgusted by the choices available that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either one.
On what basis do you claim to know that "voter disgust" is the sole or even primary reason for low voter turnouts?
OK Mason, but if you know that's how it works, then presenting presidents who won with a minority of the popular vote as somehow indicative of the collective national "will" was also silly and pointless.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
And THAT's a good example of a systemic problem that needs fixing. But it has nothing to do with "corporate personhood" or with corporations having first amendment protections.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
It's interesting to me that you don't seem to have any level of specificity to what you are proposing - even though I've pressed for those details and offered several examples of how your vague, blanket statements about what's needed don't make a lot of sense.
All you are offering is generalized ideas based on the false perception that there's a big clear chasm between "regular ol' people" and "evil corporations!!!!"
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: We Finally Start Testing Responsive Design!
Re:
On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
Re: "Hard" pass?
Journalists can also get passes to individual briefings, in which case they have to wait in line to go through security every time, and then be escorted at all times by secret service members.
On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words
And as we all know, the dictionary is the final arbiter of law, and privately employed lexicographers are the fourth branch of government. You know those big shelves full of imposing books that you always see behind lawyers and judges? All dictionaries, every last one of them!
On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.
The constitution does not "guarantee a press pass".
It does, however, restrict the government from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. In the nearly 250 years since it was written, there have been many cases big and small heard by many judges from district courts up to the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what the constitution guarantees. These cases have resulted in thousands of pages of extensive, detailed reasoning about what the First Amendment (and the other amendments) actually guarantees.
If you're not going to engage with that history of jurisprudence in the slightest, and are just going to keep saying "show me where the constitution says that", then you really need to grow up.
Like, imagine something for me for a moment: let's say you were at dinner with a decorated judge from a federal appeals court who hears constitutional matters related to free speech and due process. Is this how you would talk to him about your opinions on law? Or would that be enough to cow you into a tiny bit of humility so you stop acting like your facile two-sentence takes make you the smartest person in the room?
On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit. A press pass is not constitutionally protected, only the freedom to speak/write/express.
You just expressed an opinion on constitutional law. Welcome to the whole point.
On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
The issue is how Acosta acted
Er... howso? This is a constitutional law question. The issue is how the government acted.
On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues
Re: Re: Re: We have already been to that dance.
On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues
Re: What?
the content of his questioning had absolutely nothing to do with his removal
I have to ask: do you honestly believe this? Like, have the White House's incredibly brazen and obvious lies about their reasons genuinely hoodwinked you so completely? Because I struggle to believe that's possible - nobody smart enough to form a sentence could be that credulous and naive.
So... what is your motivation for saying this? Honestly?
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: corporations having first amendment protections
I still don't understand what it means to say revoke the first amendment from corporations.
So like, congress may not create a law telling people what they can and can't publish, but it CAN create a law blocking you from incorporating and publishing what you want? The government could shut down the New York Times and CNN, it just couldn't do anything to the people who work there? How is that helpful?
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Heck, if you factor in voter turnout, it's been a long, long, long time since any presidential candidate actually won a majority of the popular vote, because so many voters were so disgusted by the choices available that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either one.
On what basis do you claim to know that "voter disgust" is the sole or even primary reason for low voter turnouts?
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
OK Mason, but if you know that's how it works, then presenting presidents who won with a minority of the popular vote as somehow indicative of the collective national "will" was also silly and pointless.
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
All you are offering is generalized ideas based on the false perception that there's a big clear chasm between "regular ol' people" and "evil corporations!!!!"
Next >>