Do you seriously believe that there is absolutely no other current medical/pharmaceutical treatment for Corona except for the "vaccine"?
Wow...OK.
-there's at least 2 anti-Corona pills awaiting FDA approval (one is already approved)
-monoclonal antibodies are not a fairy tale
Are there other treatments out there? Yes. However, they are more expensive and in shorter supply than the vaccines, they’re less effective at preventing deaths than the vaccines, and they do nothing about the long-term effects of infection.
These treatments are meant for those people who, for medical reasons, cannot get vaccinated or for whom the vaccine is ineffective. They’re basically a safety net for the vaccine for when necessary, not a replacement.
YOU can keep getting re-vaccinated every other time Fauci suggests. I'll be over here cheering on the scientist that are developing other effective medications that eradicate Corona without lingering, devastating side effects.
Uh, first off, no amount of curative treatment will eradicate a virus entirely. That’s just not how that works, especially when dealing with a virus that is contagious long before any symptoms show up at all. Preventative treatments (like vaccines) can and have eradicated viruses entirely, like with smallpox.
Second, the infection itself can have lingering, devastating effects. Curing it will not prevent those from happening.
Third, there is no evidence that the vaccines currently on the market have lingering, devastating side effects at all (outside of a select handful of cases, which is also the case for literally every treatment and vaccine that has ever existed), and a plethora of evidence suggesting that they don’t.
Fourth, many vaccines have to be readministered periodically, and some of them are actually mandated for employment by many businesses, in schools, and for government employees. The COVID vaccines are not substantially different in this regard.
Most of the same people that are Pro Choice are also against choice when it comes to Corona medications and treatments.
When a woman has an abortion, it doesn’t cause anyone outside of the woman herself and/or what’s in her body to suffer any health effects at all, and it’s entirely the woman’s choice. And if she refuses to do so, that only affects (for good or for ill) herself, her significant other (if any), the father (maybe), and the child(ren). Either way, the effects of getting or not getting an abortion only affect a tiny number of people, and generally, they have some say in the decision, anyways.
When someone refuses to get vaccinated against a highly contagious and/or dangerous disease like COVID, that affects a lot more than just the person who refuses to get vaccinated; it affects everyone who ever comes in contact with that person, and people who come into contact with them, and so on.
Basically, one is a decision that could only directly affect a select few, while the other could directly affect an entire community.
Also, if the unvaccinated would at least wear a mask and social distance when outside, get tested periodically, and stay quarantined if they test positive or find out that they were recently in contact with someone who tested positive, then there would be less of a problem with some people refusing to get vaccinated. That is another method of preventing the virus from spreading.
Are there any factual inaccuracies in the article? Or are you just complaining about non-Texans being able to report on Texas, which literally every news outlet does, even the questionable ones.
Um, yeah… Because that equipment was specifically designed to withstand such conditions.
Do you know where gas companies did not design their infrastructure to withstand such cold conditions? Texas.
Yes, you can absolutely make it so that natural gas wells, pumps, and pipes can still work in extreme cold and snowy conditions. The problem is that the companies running the gas-powered plants and such in Texas refused to do so and still have not done so. They’re using (poorly maintained) equipment not designed to work in such extreme conditions, and that’s the whole problem.
(You can also take measures to protect wind turbines and solar panels from extreme cold or snowy conditions, but they’re not perfect or quite as effective as winterized natural gas plants or, better yet, winterized nuclear plants. Regardless, the issue is that the reason for the blackouts last winter has to do with the natural gas plants.)
that storm in Texas was like a summer breeze.
Compared to Siberia? Absolutely. And yet, gas power plants failed to operate as they should have during that storm in Texas.
Do you know why? It’s because the utilities failed to take the same sorts of measures that were taken in Siberia to protect against such cold conditions.
BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experiment!
After going through the same experiments that every other vaccine goes through and passing with flying colors, and after billions of doses have been administered with no long-term or severe adverse effects from the vaccine being widespread? And given the alternative?
No, I have no problem with receiving the vaccine or with vaccine mandates.
Because you ninnies are afraid of a virus that 99.7% survive,
Among reported COVID-19 cases in the US, on average, about 98.2% of patients will survive, not 99.7%. Additionally, the mortality rates vary greatly depending on the exact strain of the virus, any preexisting conditions, and the age and economic status of the victims, as well as whether or not the victim was vaccinated.
Also, to put this into context, 1 in 500 Americans have died of COVID as of last July. That number has only grown since.
no worse than usual flu season.
On a yearly basis, there are around 1 billion flu cases worldwide, and between 290,000 and 650,000 of those people die. That’s a mortality rate of between 0.029% and 0.065%. Even by your overestimated survival rate, COVID-19 would have a mortality rate of 0.3%, an order of magnitude larger than that for the flu.
This also doesn’t take into account a) the fact that there is no “COVID season” or b) the long-term complications from COVID-19 compared to the flu.
"15 days" of lockdown now past 15 months!
No place has been under continuous lockdown for 15 months. The longest known period of lockdown during the pandemic was for 8-9 months, and that wasn’t in the US, Canada, or the UK.
Also, no one who understood anything about the pandemic ever claimed it would be 15 days of lockdown.
No end in sight!
And why do you think that is? Could it be due to the many who refuse to get vaccinated, and the many who refuse to wear masks?
Seriously, you say the vaccine isn’t necessary, but if more people like you would just take the stupid vaccine already, the lockdowns likely would have been over months ago. We also wouldn’t need vaccine mandates as much, if at all, outside of healthcare professionals.
Basically, it’s your own fault there’s no end in sight.
Hmm, so the NYTimes colludes with the FBI and other State operators to get fed [by the politicized Feds illegally] privileged and proprietary information
[citation needed]
and a judge bars them because of their cheating illegal behavior?
Given the complete lack of evidence supporting your claim that the NYT had any “cheating illegal behavior”…
And you say "apparnetly?" Yeah, sure, dude.
“Apparently” in this context simply means “based upon appearances”. It doesn’t mean that that claim is dubious or anything; just that this appears to be the situation.
You apparently think that PV's getting tons of blabbing devils to admit on camera everything from outright censorship to phonying up their news and their stories is some kind of despicable process,
Because it absolutely is, and they’ve been repeatedly shown that they have doctored footage and taken things out of context repeatedly. Indeed, very little of their stories hold up to scrutiny.
More importantly, this has nothing to do with the claims in the article.
You apparently love to smear journalism.
Project Veritas is journalism in the loosest of terms. More importantly, this is about protecting the NYT’s right to do journalism, not whether or not PV can do journalism.
What a hypocrite you are.
Let me know when Techdirt or the NYT resorts to any of PV’s tactics in pursuit of so-called “journalism”, or when Techdirt calls for a preliminary injunction, and then we can talk about hypocrisy.
You'll be censored and smeared next time, buddy.
No one’s censoring Project Veritas (though they are censoring the NYT), and Techdirt has been smeared by the likes of you and Ayyaduras in the past.
Apparently you are unable to see long term.
Projection
You're too angry about journalists reporting the facts.
This is about Techdirt defending the NYT’s right to report the facts. This has nothing to do with PV’s reporting of “facts”.
Apparently something is bad wrong with your ability to do journalism or at the very least to create impartial commentary.
This is an opinion blog. If you expected impartial commentary, you’ve come to the wrong place.
Also, apparently something is “bad wrong” with your ability to read.
Re: AMAZING that you elide the FBI's corrupt raid on Project Ver
AMAZING that you elide the FBI's corrupt raid on Project Veritas
They literally wrote an entire article condemning that, and that article was linked in this one. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
then were "leaked".
Which in no way changes the legal analysis with regards to the preliminary injunction at issue here, at least with respect to NYT. Prior restraint is unconstitutional regardless of whether or not some other party got or disseminated the information legitimately.
Whether or not the government was right in collecting and leaking this information, that says absolutely nothing about whether or not the NYT has the right to publish that information.
established Common Law principles.
As has been mentioned multiple times, you neither know what common law actually is nor understand what it actually says.
Not clear from the article in what way the DoJ targeted this journalist in a way they shouldn't.
That’s the whole point. We don’t know whether or not the DoJ targeted him in a way they shouldn’t because they refuse to explain how or why they targeted him or how they justify it under their guidelines.
Personally, I think it’s likely that they did follow the rules, but they still have to explain themselves to the judge.
they are entitled to target him for his activities that a re clearly illegal (which it appears they have) and no indication that they targeted him over his activities as a journalist. Did they try to discover his sources for news reports? Did they try to obtain his secret notes that he used to produce news items? See who he was using his phone to communicate with while not illegally on the capitol grounds?
Those are the sorts of things the judge is trying to find out.
The only concern I have is this article mentions he was on the outside. Did he physically participate in the crush that overwhelmed the Capitol Police? Did he enter into the building itself? if they are going after people for climbing the outside steps or the inauguration platform, that seems overkill to me.
The issue, at least partially, is that he had already had charges against them that were deferred so long as he agreed not to do certain things on Capitol grounds, and it appears he is violating that agreement. So, basically, part of this is whatever he was charged with earlier, not just his actions on that day in particular.
If he did trespass and participate in physical force, how is that any different than the hundreds who also did so an posted their activities - with photo and video - on social media? At what point does publishing personal expression (of your possibly illegal activities) stop being journalism?
Again, these are the sorts of things the judge is trying to find out what the DoJ thinks on this issue.
As a preliminary matter, though, he is technically a journalist associated with a “journalistic” outlet. He is also sometimes saying things in a reporter-like manner, referring to the insurrectionists as “they” multiple times while calling into a live broadcast of a program that he is officially an employee of. Those are not characteristic of most of the others who posted evidence of their wrongdoing online.
But yes, one key area is whether or not the DoJ considered Shroyer as a journalist, and they are remaining mum about that so far.
I’ve read the comments, and a lot of them are just saying that he’s “not a real journalist” because “he did X”. Not all of them, certainly, but a number of them.
In other words, the other AC’s comment is fully justified.
Thank you for reporting this objectively. Everybody deserves equal protection under the law.
I concur. While this guy does deserve to be prosecuted, he also deserves due process and equal protection.
I hope to see your further legal analysis of Project Veritas vs. New York Times. The Times is framing the as a simple, unconstitutional prior restraint case but it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas.
Doesn’t matter. Setting aside whether or not Project Veritas deserves such malice (which it arguably does), that doesn’t change the fact that the preliminary injunction (as opposed to injunctive relief after the legal and factual merits of the case have been fully adjudicated) is prior restraint, which is unconstitutional in all but a very select few circumstances that don’t apply here even taking Project Veritas’s allegations as true.
Furthermore, in defamation law, being actively malicious has nothing to do with whether or not specific statements are defamatory. Despite the name, “actual malice” has nothing to do with malicious intent; it’s about either knowing the statements were false or harboring serious doubts (or strong reasons to doubt) about their accuracy.
Whether or not the Times has or has not been “actively malicious” towards Project Veritas, that doesn’t make the preliminary injunction not a case of unconstitutional prior restraint, nor does it mean that Project Veritas has an actual case for defamation with actual malice.
A “legitimate” journalist, sure. Someone in the process of doing journalism, sure. But a journalist at all, at least from a legal perspective? I’m not so sure.
You misunderstand. The question isn’t whether or not this guy committed a crime and should be prosecuted for it. The question is how the government got the evidence to prosecute him with in the first place, what guidelines they followed, and their justifications for doing so.
If they, say, received a tip about the recording from an outside source and watched the publicly available evidence to justify the investigation of this guy in particular, then there’s no problem. If, however, they did something else like place a tracker on him or something, that’d be a problem. (I don’t think the latter is what anyone even suspects happened, but it illustrates the point I’m making here.)
Are those cases "jeopardized" because actual criminal investigations were brought to a screeching halt from the scandal, or were those cases never cases to begin with because the cops in question treat their job as a "minority arrest collect-a-thon"?
A very good question.
From what I can tell, a lot of cases—especially municipal cases—rely heavily if not solely based upon the testimony of one or more officers, and they tend to fall apart without that testimony. This applies to search warrants, arrest warrants, seizures, civil and criminal forfeiture, justification of warrantless searches, justification of warrantless arrests, evaluations of uses-of-force, and prosecutions of cases, among many other things.
And generally, despite what TV and many cops will tell you, eyewitness testimony is often incredibly unreliable, whether or not you factor in the possibility of deceit. Testimony from police is no different in this respect, yet it is often given tremendous weight and deference in court. They are also just as likely to lie under oath as anyone else.
This results in a lot of cases where there is little to no evidence linking the suspect to the crime (or that a crime was committed at all) beyond the testimony of one or more cops. Combined with a lack of scrutiny or punishment for giving false testimony, and you have a number of cases where the suspect committed no crime but was arrested, charged, prosecuted, and/or convicted because of the bigotry of the officers involved.
That said, I do think there’s merit to pointing out that unsavory individuals might go free because some idiot cops didn’t follow the rules. For one thing, given the number of arrests those idiots often make, it’s statistically likely that at least some of them were actually guilty of some crime, possibly even the one they were accused of. Additionally, it means that even those who are genuinely convinced that many of these individuals are guilty might advocate for higher standards to become a cop in the first place to prevent stuff like this from happening.
I’m pretty sure that those cops could be sued for vandalizing that guy’s car. Damages done during “processing”—like tearing up seats, scratches, dents, etc.—are often excused, but I can’t think of a single remotely legitimate justification (an accident, as part of a search, necessary for impounding the vehicle, etc.) that could be used to explain away spray-painting an impounded vehicle at all, especially not with a swastika.
Also, why do people do this? Like, seriously, I get that bigots will be bigots, often openly, that people often misjudge how anonymous or private their communications are, and that people do stupid stuff all the time (especially when they think they won’t get caught or won’t get punished for it), but I am trying to figure out why anyone would decide to spray-paint a swastika on someone’s vehicle even if they think they can get away with it. What is even the point of doing that?
Like, I get the social media posts and texts (well, as well as I understand bigotry and the need for idiots and criminals to talk about their dumb and/or bigoted actions or thoughts at all), but this seems particularly dumb and pointless.
Remember Pepe the frog? Apparently, Groyper is another character in that same vein, only a fat toad rather than a (relatively) thin frog. The name may or may not come from the username of one of, if not the, earliest known posters of an illustration of him, a 4chan user named “Big Dog Groyper”. (This was in early 2015.) No one knows why that name was used, but that’s as far as I can tell for the origin.
Though, I will note that one username for someone on Twitter is, in fact, “Groyper by the P¥$$y”, so you may not be that far off.
Banning groyper support is actually far more OBJECTIVE than anything other social media platforms are willing to admit.
I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
Fb and Twitter management hate conservatives,
[citation needed]
which is their right to hold that opinion,
As well as to express it and to moderate both their own and third-party content on their own platforms based on that (alleged) opinion.
but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms covertly,
Again, [citation needed]
Also, which “conservative speech”, exactly?
using arbitrary rules.
Every platform has arbitrary rules, including Gettr. Banning “groyper”, while understandable under the circumstances, was still based on arbitrary rule.
Kudos to Gettr for being up front and forthcoming.
Actually, I don’t see how Gettr is being upfront or forthcoming, at least compared to Facebook or Twitter. Their message about banning Fuentes reads, in its entirety, as follows:
The user in question violated GETTR’s clearly defined terms of use and has been suspended from the platform.
That’s not being “upfront” or “forthcoming”, and it’s also not much different from the reasons given by many platforms for moderations decisions. It’s incredibly vague, actually.
And the banning of the word “groyper” was never announced by Gettr, nor have they actually explained or even directly acknowledged that ban as far as I can tell.
Now, I am not criticizing (or condoning) their decisions in these cases; just noting that you’re not accurately describing them and giving Gettr too much credit here.
I've been saying that social media companies should just come out and say what they want,
I don’t disagree with that, though I will note that, to some extent, they already are, and to the extent they are not doing so, it’s no worse than Gettr.
and now we're seeing it happen.
Again, I’m not seeing whatever it is you’re seeing here. Gettr is being at least as opaque as and no more upfront than any major social media platform.
Yes, the capture by the green and climate warming hoax groups certainly did prove fatal.
What “capture by the green and climate warming hoax groups”?
Convincing a state that it will never be cold again so shut down your fossil fuel plants? Fatal.
The state wasn’t convinced to shut down any plants at all by anyone. That never happened. Indeed, roughly 80% of the energy needs in Texas for that winter was expected to come from fossil fuel plants and a few nuclear plants.
No one has ever claimed “that it will never be cold again”. That is not something climate change experts or green energy proponents have ever claimed or tried to convince people of, not even the more radical elements. Climate change is about the rapid increase in yearly averages of average global temperatures. Many local areas (and yes, on a global scale, “all of Texas” is considered a local area) will still experience times of extreme cold. Indeed, some may even reach record low temperatures. This is expected to occur under climate change. You’re confusing local weather with global climate.
Wind turbines don't turn in the snowy winter with low breezes. Solar cells don't function when covered with snow.
In my experience, snowy winters can be just as windy as any other weather or season. We even have these things called “blizzards” which are defined to be times of high snow and high winds together. While I agree that low breezes will not produce much energy from wind turbines, and snow can and has certainly caused problems with turbines, snowy winters doesn’t necessarily correlate strongly with low breezes.
Only around 20% of the energy needs for Texas that winter had been projected to come from renewable sources like wind or solar. Additionally, the losses in power from renewable sources were less than half of those from fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.
Natural gas pipes and wells don’t work when frozen, either. Absent winterization measures being taken on either, natural gas plants are just as vulnerable to failure in extreme cold and snow as wind turbines, as was actually seen last year.
Texas got captured buy this dangerous evangelists and people died.
Again, what “dangerous evangelists”? If you mean climate change experts and/or green energy proponents, it is objectively false that Texas got captured by them. If you mean proponents of deregulation of energy utilities, then yes, Texas was absolutely captured by them, and people did die as a result.
On the post: Not How Any Of This Works: Pandemic's Wrongest Man Sues Twitter For Kicking Him Off The Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it will happen
Are there other treatments out there? Yes. However, they are more expensive and in shorter supply than the vaccines, they’re less effective at preventing deaths than the vaccines, and they do nothing about the long-term effects of infection.
These treatments are meant for those people who, for medical reasons, cannot get vaccinated or for whom the vaccine is ineffective. They’re basically a safety net for the vaccine for when necessary, not a replacement.
Uh, first off, no amount of curative treatment will eradicate a virus entirely. That’s just not how that works, especially when dealing with a virus that is contagious long before any symptoms show up at all. Preventative treatments (like vaccines) can and have eradicated viruses entirely, like with smallpox.
Second, the infection itself can have lingering, devastating effects. Curing it will not prevent those from happening.
Third, there is no evidence that the vaccines currently on the market have lingering, devastating side effects at all (outside of a select handful of cases, which is also the case for literally every treatment and vaccine that has ever existed), and a plethora of evidence suggesting that they don’t.
Fourth, many vaccines have to be readministered periodically, and some of them are actually mandated for employment by many businesses, in schools, and for government employees. The COVID vaccines are not substantially different in this regard.
When a woman has an abortion, it doesn’t cause anyone outside of the woman herself and/or what’s in her body to suffer any health effects at all, and it’s entirely the woman’s choice. And if she refuses to do so, that only affects (for good or for ill) herself, her significant other (if any), the father (maybe), and the child(ren). Either way, the effects of getting or not getting an abortion only affect a tiny number of people, and generally, they have some say in the decision, anyways.
When someone refuses to get vaccinated against a highly contagious and/or dangerous disease like COVID, that affects a lot more than just the person who refuses to get vaccinated; it affects everyone who ever comes in contact with that person, and people who come into contact with them, and so on.
Basically, one is a decision that could only directly affect a select few, while the other could directly affect an entire community.
Also, if the unvaccinated would at least wear a mask and social distance when outside, get tested periodically, and stay quarantined if they test positive or find out that they were recently in contact with someone who tested positive, then there would be less of a problem with some people refusing to get vaccinated. That is another method of preventing the virus from spreading.
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re: Guess What?
Are there any factual inaccuracies in the article? Or are you just complaining about non-Texans being able to report on Texas, which literally every news outlet does, even the questionable ones.
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re: Re: Re:
Um, yeah… Because that equipment was specifically designed to withstand such conditions.
Do you know where gas companies did not design their infrastructure to withstand such cold conditions? Texas.
Yes, you can absolutely make it so that natural gas wells, pumps, and pipes can still work in extreme cold and snowy conditions. The problem is that the companies running the gas-powered plants and such in Texas refused to do so and still have not done so. They’re using (poorly maintained) equipment not designed to work in such extreme conditions, and that’s the whole problem.
(You can also take measures to protect wind turbines and solar panels from extreme cold or snowy conditions, but they’re not perfect or quite as effective as winterized natural gas plants or, better yet, winterized nuclear plants. Regardless, the issue is that the reason for the blackouts last winter has to do with the natural gas plants.)
Compared to Siberia? Absolutely. And yet, gas power plants failed to operate as they should have during that storm in Texas.
Do you know why? It’s because the utilities failed to take the same sorts of measures that were taken in Siberia to protect against such cold conditions.
On the post: Federal Court Says Destroying Someone's House To Apprehend A Fugitive Might Be A Constitutional Violation
🤨
After going through the same experiments that every other vaccine goes through and passing with flying colors, and after billions of doses have been administered with no long-term or severe adverse effects from the vaccine being widespread? And given the alternative?
No, I have no problem with receiving the vaccine or with vaccine mandates.
Among reported COVID-19 cases in the US, on average, about 98.2% of patients will survive, not 99.7%. Additionally, the mortality rates vary greatly depending on the exact strain of the virus, any preexisting conditions, and the age and economic status of the victims, as well as whether or not the victim was vaccinated.
Also, to put this into context, 1 in 500 Americans have died of COVID as of last July. That number has only grown since.
On a yearly basis, there are around 1 billion flu cases worldwide, and between 290,000 and 650,000 of those people die. That’s a mortality rate of between 0.029% and 0.065%. Even by your overestimated survival rate, COVID-19 would have a mortality rate of 0.3%, an order of magnitude larger than that for the flu.
This also doesn’t take into account a) the fact that there is no “COVID season” or b) the long-term complications from COVID-19 compared to the flu.
No place has been under continuous lockdown for 15 months. The longest known period of lockdown during the pandemic was for 8-9 months, and that wasn’t in the US, Canada, or the UK.
Also, no one who understood anything about the pandemic ever claimed it would be 15 days of lockdown.
And why do you think that is? Could it be due to the many who refuse to get vaccinated, and the many who refuse to wear masks?
Seriously, you say the vaccine isn’t necessary, but if more people like you would just take the stupid vaccine already, the lockdowns likely would have been over months ago. We also wouldn’t need vaccine mandates as much, if at all, outside of healthcare professionals.
Basically, it’s your own fault there’s no end in sight.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re:
[citation needed]
Given the complete lack of evidence supporting your claim that the NYT had any “cheating illegal behavior”…
“Apparently” in this context simply means “based upon appearances”. It doesn’t mean that that claim is dubious or anything; just that this appears to be the situation.
Because it absolutely is, and they’ve been repeatedly shown that they have doctored footage and taken things out of context repeatedly. Indeed, very little of their stories hold up to scrutiny.
More importantly, this has nothing to do with the claims in the article.
Project Veritas is journalism in the loosest of terms. More importantly, this is about protecting the NYT’s right to do journalism, not whether or not PV can do journalism.
Let me know when Techdirt or the NYT resorts to any of PV’s tactics in pursuit of so-called “journalism”, or when Techdirt calls for a preliminary injunction, and then we can talk about hypocrisy.
No one’s censoring Project Veritas (though they are censoring the NYT), and Techdirt has been smeared by the likes of you and Ayyaduras in the past.
Projection
This is about Techdirt defending the NYT’s right to report the facts. This has nothing to do with PV’s reporting of “facts”.
This is an opinion blog. If you expected impartial commentary, you’ve come to the wrong place.
Also, apparently something is “bad wrong” with your ability to read.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: AMAZING that you elide the FBI's corrupt raid on Project Ver
They literally wrote an entire article condemning that, and that article was linked in this one. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Which in no way changes the legal analysis with regards to the preliminary injunction at issue here, at least with respect to NYT. Prior restraint is unconstitutional regardless of whether or not some other party got or disseminated the information legitimately.
Whether or not the government was right in collecting and leaking this information, that says absolutely nothing about whether or not the NYT has the right to publish that information.
As has been mentioned multiple times, you neither know what common law actually is nor understand what it actually says.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
[citation needed]
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re: What??
That’s the whole point. We don’t know whether or not the DoJ targeted him in a way they shouldn’t because they refuse to explain how or why they targeted him or how they justify it under their guidelines.
Personally, I think it’s likely that they did follow the rules, but they still have to explain themselves to the judge.
Those are the sorts of things the judge is trying to find out.
The issue, at least partially, is that he had already had charges against them that were deferred so long as he agreed not to do certain things on Capitol grounds, and it appears he is violating that agreement. So, basically, part of this is whatever he was charged with earlier, not just his actions on that day in particular.
Again, these are the sorts of things the judge is trying to find out what the DoJ thinks on this issue.
As a preliminary matter, though, he is technically a journalist associated with a “journalistic” outlet. He is also sometimes saying things in a reporter-like manner, referring to the insurrectionists as “they” multiple times while calling into a live broadcast of a program that he is officially an employee of. Those are not characteristic of most of the others who posted evidence of their wrongdoing online.
But yes, one key area is whether or not the DoJ considered Shroyer as a journalist, and they are remaining mum about that so far.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re: Re:
I’ve read the comments, and a lot of them are just saying that he’s “not a real journalist” because “he did X”. Not all of them, certainly, but a number of them.
In other words, the other AC’s comment is fully justified.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re: Thank you
I concur. While this guy does deserve to be prosecuted, he also deserves due process and equal protection.
Doesn’t matter. Setting aside whether or not Project Veritas deserves such malice (which it arguably does), that doesn’t change the fact that the preliminary injunction (as opposed to injunctive relief after the legal and factual merits of the case have been fully adjudicated) is prior restraint, which is unconstitutional in all but a very select few circumstances that don’t apply here even taking Project Veritas’s allegations as true.
Furthermore, in defamation law, being actively malicious has nothing to do with whether or not specific statements are defamatory. Despite the name, “actual malice” has nothing to do with malicious intent; it’s about either knowing the statements were false or harboring serious doubts (or strong reasons to doubt) about their accuracy.
Whether or not the Times has or has not been “actively malicious” towards Project Veritas, that doesn’t make the preliminary injunction not a case of unconstitutional prior restraint, nor does it mean that Project Veritas has an actual case for defamation with actual malice.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re:
A “legitimate” journalist, sure. Someone in the process of doing journalism, sure. But a journalist at all, at least from a legal perspective? I’m not so sure.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re:
You misunderstand. The question isn’t whether or not this guy committed a crime and should be prosecuted for it. The question is how the government got the evidence to prosecute him with in the first place, what guidelines they followed, and their justifications for doing so.
If they, say, received a tip about the recording from an outside source and watched the publicly available evidence to justify the investigation of this guy in particular, then there’s no problem. If, however, they did something else like place a tracker on him or something, that’d be a problem. (I don’t think the latter is what anyone even suspects happened, but it illustrates the point I’m making here.)
On the post: Judge Wants To Know If DOJ Ignored Its Own Journalist-Targeting Guidelines When Investigating An Infowars Host Who Raided The Capitol
Re: Re:
Plus, even granting that the government could make that distinction, it should still have to say so in court when the judge asks about it.
On the post: California Police Officers' Bigoted Text Messages Have Just Undone Dozens Of Felony Cases
Re: Let's be clear, though
I believe that the discussion is mainly about US cops.
On the post: California Police Officers' Bigoted Text Messages Have Just Undone Dozens Of Felony Cases
Re: Let's be clear, though
A very good question.
From what I can tell, a lot of cases—especially municipal cases—rely heavily if not solely based upon the testimony of one or more officers, and they tend to fall apart without that testimony. This applies to search warrants, arrest warrants, seizures, civil and criminal forfeiture, justification of warrantless searches, justification of warrantless arrests, evaluations of uses-of-force, and prosecutions of cases, among many other things.
And generally, despite what TV and many cops will tell you, eyewitness testimony is often incredibly unreliable, whether or not you factor in the possibility of deceit. Testimony from police is no different in this respect, yet it is often given tremendous weight and deference in court. They are also just as likely to lie under oath as anyone else.
This results in a lot of cases where there is little to no evidence linking the suspect to the crime (or that a crime was committed at all) beyond the testimony of one or more cops. Combined with a lack of scrutiny or punishment for giving false testimony, and you have a number of cases where the suspect committed no crime but was arrested, charged, prosecuted, and/or convicted because of the bigotry of the officers involved.
That said, I do think there’s merit to pointing out that unsavory individuals might go free because some idiot cops didn’t follow the rules. For one thing, given the number of arrests those idiots often make, it’s statistically likely that at least some of them were actually guilty of some crime, possibly even the one they were accused of. Additionally, it means that even those who are genuinely convinced that many of these individuals are guilty might advocate for higher standards to become a cop in the first place to prevent stuff like this from happening.
On the post: California Police Officers' Bigoted Text Messages Have Just Undone Dozens Of Felony Cases
Why spray-paint?
I’m pretty sure that those cops could be sued for vandalizing that guy’s car. Damages done during “processing”—like tearing up seats, scratches, dents, etc.—are often excused, but I can’t think of a single remotely legitimate justification (an accident, as part of a search, necessary for impounding the vehicle, etc.) that could be used to explain away spray-painting an impounded vehicle at all, especially not with a swastika.
Also, why do people do this? Like, seriously, I get that bigots will be bigots, often openly, that people often misjudge how anonymous or private their communications are, and that people do stupid stuff all the time (especially when they think they won’t get caught or won’t get punished for it), but I am trying to figure out why anyone would decide to spray-paint a swastika on someone’s vehicle even if they think they can get away with it. What is even the point of doing that?
Like, I get the social media posts and texts (well, as well as I understand bigotry and the need for idiots and criminals to talk about their dumb and/or bigoted actions or thoughts at all), but this seems particularly dumb and pointless.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re: Re:
Remember Pepe the frog? Apparently, Groyper is another character in that same vein, only a fat toad rather than a (relatively) thin frog. The name may or may not come from the username of one of, if not the, earliest known posters of an illustration of him, a 4chan user named “Big Dog Groyper”. (This was in early 2015.) No one knows why that name was used, but that’s as far as I can tell for the origin.
Though, I will note that one username for someone on Twitter is, in fact, “Groyper by the P¥$$y”, so you may not be that far off.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re: Refreshing Honesty
I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
[citation needed]
As well as to express it and to moderate both their own and third-party content on their own platforms based on that (alleged) opinion.
Again, [citation needed]
Also, which “conservative speech”, exactly?
Every platform has arbitrary rules, including Gettr. Banning “groyper”, while understandable under the circumstances, was still based on arbitrary rule.
Actually, I don’t see how Gettr is being upfront or forthcoming, at least compared to Facebook or Twitter. Their message about banning Fuentes reads, in its entirety, as follows:
That’s not being “upfront” or “forthcoming”, and it’s also not much different from the reasons given by many platforms for moderations decisions. It’s incredibly vague, actually.
And the banning of the word “groyper” was never announced by Gettr, nor have they actually explained or even directly acknowledged that ban as far as I can tell.
Now, I am not criticizing (or condoning) their decisions in these cases; just noting that you’re not accurately describing them and giving Gettr too much credit here.
I don’t disagree with that, though I will note that, to some extent, they already are, and to the extent they are not doing so, it’s no worse than Gettr.
Again, I’m not seeing whatever it is you’re seeing here. Gettr is being at least as opaque as and no more upfront than any major social media platform.
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re: Green
What “capture by the green and climate warming hoax groups”?
The state wasn’t convinced to shut down any plants at all by anyone. That never happened. Indeed, roughly 80% of the energy needs in Texas for that winter was expected to come from fossil fuel plants and a few nuclear plants.
In my experience, snowy winters can be just as windy as any other weather or season. We even have these things called “blizzards” which are defined to be times of high snow and high winds together. While I agree that low breezes will not produce much energy from wind turbines, and snow can and has certainly caused problems with turbines, snowy winters doesn’t necessarily correlate strongly with low breezes.
Only around 20% of the energy needs for Texas that winter had been projected to come from renewable sources like wind or solar. Additionally, the losses in power from renewable sources were less than half of those from fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.
Again, what “dangerous evangelists”? If you mean climate change experts and/or green energy proponents, it is objectively false that Texas got captured by them. If you mean proponents of deregulation of energy utilities, then yes, Texas was absolutely captured by them, and people did die as a result.
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re:
No amount of supplies would protect them from the cold, which was why people were using such measures in the first place.
Next >>