Funny enough, the argument that is regularly pushed forward to prevent public options or public-private partnerships is that "governments fail at everything" and "that's socialism/communism, so it's bad".
That's willfully ignoring the three easy answers:
There are definitely things the government does, even in US, that never questioned. Indeed, only the government can handle these at scale: military, justice, large infrastructure... Internet connectivity could easily be classified at "infrastructure", at least partially.
Isn't the private sector completely failing here? How can the government handle it worse than how it's doing now: throwing money at large companies with nothing in return?
Isn't it hypocritical to pretend that you can't trust the government for anything then beg for subsidies? Isn't the strength of private companies supposed to be that they can provide better service/products without the help of the government?
Government don't handle things better or worse. It's a matter of context. Corruption (or "speech" as the SCOTUS called it) is a big part of why a given service fails. It gets entrenched in privilege and monopoly, and stops caring about quality... or sometimes even about providing the service at all. If one starts failing, disruption should be introduced to stimulate the competition. In this case, if the monopolistic/duopolistic companies don't uphold their promises, public options can be introduced to force competition. (And yes, it works the other way around too.) That's not the only solution, but just adding more of the problem (i.e. more subsidies to companies with a track record of not doing their work) will certainly not lead to a better situation.
Actually, there is a good reason for qualified immunity.
It protects law enforcement agents and judiciary officials from litigation by people unhappy with the results of their encounter with the legal system. Mistakes are a part of human nature, so for example if you win a case on appeal, you can't sue the judge of the lower court for failing to "judge correctly" the first time.
The problem is when judges decided to twist facts and logic into pretzels to grant QI even when the agent is obviously and willfully at fault. A cop that violates procedure, escalates a situation before shooting someone or puts himself in danger to justify use of force should be denied immunity because their own action caused the problem to begin with.
But judges have started this legal precedent (which, for all I know, is not supported anywhere in the Law) that any precise set of circumstances that has not been previously adjudicated against a cop cannot break QI. This in turn reduces very quickly the chance of lifting QI because more and more cases reinforce immunity. Since judges barely ever conclude against a cop, there are fewer and fewer sets of circumstances added to the pool of "conditions to lift QI".
The point being that some people definitely acted and sued others with the state of mind that "everything must be owned". So it is crazy, but it's also reality.
As a comparison, it would be like saying "I'm a great cook because I've cooked tens of thousands of meals", not mentioning that they were all inedible and ended in the trash can.
Tons of clickbait headlines are similar to a bait-and-switch.
They represent an exaggerated and often misleading point from the article.
This is a known practice, and courts will consider the headline as part of the article, meaning that it's not defamation if you bait people with a misleading statement then correct the induced misunderstanding later in the article.
However, I agree with Lessig in that a lot of people read headlines and lede, then ignore the article itself. Even more so when the body of the article is behind a paywall. That doesn't make it defamation, but it is unethical. Now, if people - both writers and readers - cared about ethics, the world would be a different place.
... and supporters of the copyright system need to admit that maybe they've gone too far.
They do, when they are the victims. As quoted in this article, the RIAA did admit it once, which should send others the message that it has really gone too far.
But that's the problem: they know it. They just won't admit that they were wrong and that things need to be rolled back. They prefer to fight on single cases such as "Blurred Lines", but not the overall issue.
Another thing this "bill of discovery" is missing is actual quotes.
I can allege that some anonymous commenter on Techdirt defamed me on Oct 2, 2019. I can even say that he said I threatened someone. That's not enough for a lawsuit. I'd have to quote the comment or... in the words of Ken "Popehat" White... "vagueness in defamation claims is the hallmark of frivolous thuggery."
All the claims quoted here are vague. "Someone said something", and yes some of the claims allege that there are statement of facts. But as long as we can't read the actual comments, there is no way to tell if that's true of if that's only the cop's interpretation of it.
The lawsuits have caught the attention of Virginia legislators. Del. Schuyler T. Van Valkenburg (D-Henrico) is preparing a bill for the state’s next legislative session in January that would seek to put its anti-SLAPP law on par with California’s.
So, which is the state with the next worst anti-SLAPP law?
Venue shopping is going to continue until there is a proper federal anti-SLAPP law and also a solid rule to escalate a trial to federal level.
Note: a Godwin point is not reached simply talking about nazis, it's originally about comparing the people you're arguing with to Hitler and/or nazis in order to discredit them instead of their argument. (fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum)
Comparison with nazis can still be legitimate without reaching Godwin point.
(See Wikipedia: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.")
Nazis being the subject of the thread will not make it easier or harder to Godwin, but it will make it easier for others to pretend the point was reached.
"Members of the public who are killed needlessly by police officers" are punished by having their past examined for any - even minor - infraction to the law, then character-assassinated in the public forum. As for protection, they get to be sheltered from further physical harm by 6 feet of ground.
Ah, were you asking for punishment to the officers? Well, they are - sometimes - punished with paid vacations. /s
Joke aside, a negligible minority of them can be fired. Let's not talk about jail time, at least not if they killed while on duty. A cop on duty does no wrong. Ever. But they can be set aside if the public outcry is too loud.
On the post: Oh Look, More Giant ISPs Taking Taxpayer Money For Unfinished Networks
Funny enough, the argument that is regularly pushed forward to prevent public options or public-private partnerships is that "governments fail at everything" and "that's socialism/communism, so it's bad".
That's willfully ignoring the three easy answers:
Government don't handle things better or worse. It's a matter of context. Corruption (or "speech" as the SCOTUS called it) is a big part of why a given service fails. It gets entrenched in privilege and monopoly, and stops caring about quality... or sometimes even about providing the service at all. If one starts failing, disruption should be introduced to stimulate the competition. In this case, if the monopolistic/duopolistic companies don't uphold their promises, public options can be introduced to force competition. (And yes, it works the other way around too.) That's not the only solution, but just adding more of the problem (i.e. more subsidies to companies with a track record of not doing their work) will certainly not lead to a better situation.
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed
Re: Re: One law for me, and another for thee
Actually, there is a good reason for qualified immunity.
It protects law enforcement agents and judiciary officials from litigation by people unhappy with the results of their encounter with the legal system. Mistakes are a part of human nature, so for example if you win a case on appeal, you can't sue the judge of the lower court for failing to "judge correctly" the first time.
The problem is when judges decided to twist facts and logic into pretzels to grant QI even when the agent is obviously and willfully at fault. A cop that violates procedure, escalates a situation before shooting someone or puts himself in danger to justify use of force should be denied immunity because their own action caused the problem to begin with.
But judges have started this legal precedent (which, for all I know, is not supported anywhere in the Law) that any precise set of circumstances that has not been previously adjudicated against a cop cannot break QI. This in turn reduces very quickly the chance of lifting QI because more and more cases reinforce immunity. Since judges barely ever conclude against a cop, there are fewer and fewer sets of circumstances added to the pool of "conditions to lift QI".
On the post: Carve It All Up: Compumark Report Shows Trademark Registrations, Claims Of Infringement Both Rising Fast
Re: Re: Re:
The point being that some people definitely acted and sued others with the state of mind that "everything must be owned". So it is crazy, but it's also reality.
On the post: Judge Says Chicago PD Must Release Nearly 50 Years Of Misconduct Files Before The End Of This Year
Re: Re: Re:
As a comparison, it would be like saying "I'm a great cook because I've cooked tens of thousands of meals", not mentioning that they were all inedible and ended in the trash can.
On the post: Judge Says Chicago PD Must Release Nearly 50 Years Of Misconduct Files Before The End Of This Year
Re: Re:
True enough, but it's not really illustrative of "the highest level of transparency" that they boast a few words before mentioning their responses.
On the post: Carve It All Up: Compumark Report Shows Trademark Registrations, Claims Of Infringement Both Rising Fast
Re:
Tell that to people who think... for example...
There are numerous other stupid examples, but I think these ones should be enough for the point to be made.
On the post: Judge Says Chicago PD Must Release Nearly 50 Years Of Misconduct Files Before The End Of This Year
Do they count "f*** you" as a valid response?
That's the only way I can explain the "tens of thousands" number.
On the post: Dear Larry Lessig: Please Don't File SLAPP Suits
Re: Re:
Tons of clickbait headlines are similar to a bait-and-switch.
They represent an exaggerated and often misleading point from the article.
This is a known practice, and courts will consider the headline as part of the article, meaning that it's not defamation if you bait people with a misleading statement then correct the induced misunderstanding later in the article.
However, I agree with Lessig in that a lot of people read headlines and lede, then ignore the article itself. Even more so when the body of the article is behind a paywall. That doesn't make it defamation, but it is unethical. Now, if people - both writers and readers - cared about ethics, the world would be a different place.
On the post: How Years Of Copyright Maximalism Is Now Killing Pop Music
They do, when they are the victims. As quoted in this article, the RIAA did admit it once, which should send others the message that it has really gone too far.
But that's the problem: they know it. They just won't admit that they were wrong and that things need to be rolled back. They prefer to fight on single cases such as "Blurred Lines", but not the overall issue.
On the post: Connecticut Cop Sues Local Blogger To Get Him To Turn Over Personal Info On Commenters Who Said Thing The Cop Didn't Like
Re: Re:
Precision: there are a few partial quotes.
On the post: Connecticut Cop Sues Local Blogger To Get Him To Turn Over Personal Info On Commenters Who Said Thing The Cop Didn't Like
Re:
Another thing this "bill of discovery" is missing is actual quotes.
I can allege that some anonymous commenter on Techdirt defamed me on Oct 2, 2019. I can even say that he said I threatened someone. That's not enough for a lawsuit. I'd have to quote the comment or... in the words of Ken "Popehat" White... "vagueness in defamation claims is the hallmark of frivolous thuggery."
All the claims quoted here are vague. "Someone said something", and yes some of the claims allege that there are statement of facts. But as long as we can't read the actual comments, there is no way to tell if that's true of if that's only the cop's interpretation of it.
On the post: Because Body Cameras Haven't Made Cops Better, Two Law Enforcement Agencies Are Going To Start Random Inspections Of Footage
Way to go. Let's inspect any video except the ones that need inspecting the most. Totally reasonable.
I imagine the scene at the police union.
"Fondling live bodies, ok.
Making dead bodies, ok.
Fondling dead bodies... Sorry, even we can't defend that."
On the post: Turns Out Oracle Copied Amazon's S3 APIs; When Confronted, Pretends That's Different (Spoiler Alert: It's Not)
Another case of "it's ok when I do it"?
On the post: Devin Nunes Libel Tourism Continues To Highlight The Problems Of Virginia's Weak Anti-SLAPP Laws
So, which is the state with the next worst anti-SLAPP law?
Venue shopping is going to continue until there is a proper federal anti-SLAPP law and also a solid rule to escalate a trial to federal level.
On the post: Chinese Skiers Training In Norway Ask Local Library To Remove 'Controversial' Books
Re:
You know, tax dodging is indeed bad, as is messing with people lives.
On a totally unrelated subject, what do you think of Trump, Bezos and a few others of the american "rich and famous"?
On the post: Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'
Re: Re: Re:
Ah right. Some countries do include them as "hate crimes", but the US still exclude insults. It has to reach the level of threats to be a crime.
On the post: Austrian Hotel Drops Libel Lawsuit Against Guest Who Complained About Pictures Of Nazis In The Lobby
Re: Re: Nazi insignia?
Note: a Godwin point is not reached simply talking about nazis, it's originally about comparing the people you're arguing with to Hitler and/or nazis in order to discredit them instead of their argument. (fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum)
Comparison with nazis can still be legitimate without reaching Godwin point.
(See Wikipedia: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.")
Nazis being the subject of the thread will not make it easier or harder to Godwin, but it will make it easier for others to pretend the point was reached.
On the post: Austrian Hotel Drops Libel Lawsuit Against Guest Who Complained About Pictures Of Nazis In The Lobby
Re: Re: Re:
Not so sure about members of the army, but officers certainly were.
On the post: Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'
Re: Re: Re:
"Members of the public who are killed needlessly by police officers" are punished by having their past examined for any - even minor - infraction to the law, then character-assassinated in the public forum. As for protection, they get to be sheltered from further physical harm by 6 feet of ground.
Ah, were you asking for punishment to the officers? Well, they are - sometimes - punished with paid vacations. /s
Joke aside, a negligible minority of them can be fired. Let's not talk about jail time, at least not if they killed while on duty. A cop on duty does no wrong. Ever. But they can be set aside if the public outcry is too loud.
On the post: Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'
Re:
Sadly, "insults" are already part of "hate crimes".
So it's not the next step, it's the current one.
Next >>