There is something I am confused about in this story. It seems like the PROSECUTOR was arguing AGAINST the coroner. Could this have been in the retrial that got the guy released? Doesn't sound like normal practice for a prosecutor to question the state's experts qualifications.
I think this might be a good argument for a part-time congress. So many of them seem to think if they are not passing new laws they have nothing to show their constituents. We don't need new laws so much as better, more consistent, implementation of the ones we have.
The obvious solution to the situation you are describing is to sue the person posting the defamation, not the service that hosts it just because it's easier and they likely have deeper pockets.
And you have referenced a situation from England and Canada. 230 isn't enforceable in either of those countries AND they have much looser, especially England, libel & slander laws.
Just because this kind of thing can happen quicker and 'deeper' with the internet isn't a reason to get rid of the internet. Gossip, slander & libel have been around a long time. The internet didn't invent it.
I've seen some nutty arguments here. Like this where you have taken a particular (wrong) viewpoint and used it like it's common knowledge.
This isn't about corporations. The 1st amendment applies to everyone in that you are allowed to say what ever you want. That doesn't mean somebody else has to publish it.
Norkunas said a sergeant explained procedures for setting up a perimeter so that Johnson could not escape, but also admitted they could have done better.
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
I know it is wishful thinking but I wish someone would get a backbone and propose that adding items totally unrelated to the original bill illegal. I know it won't go anywhere, but I'd still like to see it.
I'm remembering a movie called 'Dave' where a doppleganger is a stand-in for the president. He calls in a bunch of congress reps to witness him signing a bill. But brings up a bunch of pork in the bill, in front of the press, and shames the various reps supporting it and gets it removed.
I wish WaPo would go to trial and defend the case, not get it dismissed as a SLAPP suit. They have got the $$$ to handle it and it would be worth it to see an idiot like Nunes get slapped down with an actual decision against him. And attorney fees and maybe a fine for a frivolous lawsuit? Would make a nice Christmas present!
"a woman parked her car in front of the truck in an apparent attempt to block it from moving. The woman accused the men of hitting her car on the highway and said that she had already summoned the police"
When I read that the first thing I thought of was that the woman and the cop were in a insurance scam together. The idea of a woman by herself going up against a truck driver at 2am behind a store does not ring true to me. I think this was a set up and that is why the cop didn't want any pictures.
Glad you put the /s in there.
Some of our genius' in congress would think that is a good idea and the telecoms would send them an invoice saying that it had already been done!
I live in SD County, not the assembly woman's district tho. I tried to send the article to her to see if she would comment. I didn't expect to get any response, but because I don't live in her district I can not even communicate with her through her office at all.
Just because I can't vote for/against her shouldn't I be able to communicate with her office? Her work certainly effects more than just her district.
"Broadband service is in no way a ... essential public service"
Said by someone who has reliable broadband and can afford it. What about the large #'s who have no broadband, or even a reliable internet connection, but who have to use the internet for school? Or work? Even I, an older white guy who also has reliable (mostly) and affordable broadband, can see your privilege glaring thru.
As bad as this is I think the most direct way to fight it might be that this data was purchased with tax payer funds. I would be very interested to find out how that is legal. After all, they didn't bring down Al Capone for murder but for tax evasion.
I wasn't meaning not doing anything is an option. I absolutely think the platforms SHOULD be doing there best at moderation. Even if it is impossible. Because killing off the platforms to remove the venue for all of the problems they are causing is not feasible. That horse has left the barn. To much money is being accumulated to think they're going to quit.
I was meaning that the idea that everybody could talk to everybody about anything, SOUNDS great, until you see it happening. Because 'people'.
I agree with the statement that 'moderation at scale is impossible', and the amount of data going thru Twitter, Facebook, et al; make moderation near impossible.
But I keep coming back to that old saying 'They were so excited to be able to do it, they never stopped to think whether or not they should do it". For "it" insert whatever dystopia causing wonder-tech you can think of.
That these platforms have the possibility of being a great boon to a lot of people is not in doubt. But have you met 'people' lately?
I've been reading TechDirt for a while, and this has been an issue the whole time. And it just hit me. We, the taxpayers, are giving ISPs billions to build networks, that they then don't build, but then we also allow those ISPs to act as if those are their PRIVATE networks that they are allowed to operate anyway they see fit. Insanity.
I agree that Trump wouldn't accept the fact checking, but using a recognized neutral source would be better for everybody else. I'm not saying CNN is or isn't neutral, I don't have an opinion on that. But Trump and his minions do have an opinion there so...
On the post: Death Row Inmate Freed After Bullshit Bite Mark Evidence Determined To Be Bullshit
There is something I am confused about in this story. It seems like the PROSECUTOR was arguing AGAINST the coroner. Could this have been in the retrial that got the guy released? Doesn't sound like normal practice for a prosecutor to question the state's experts qualifications.
On the post: The Unasked Question In Tech Policy: Where Do We Get The Lawyers?
I think this might be a good argument for a part-time congress. So many of them seem to think if they are not passing new laws they have nothing to show their constituents. We don't need new laws so much as better, more consistent, implementation of the ones we have.
Although I could be wrong.
On the post: ICE Is Also Using Utility Databases Run By Private Companies To Hunt Down Undocumented Immigrants
$21M a year? Government by and for the people? I don't think so. This is not how I want my tax money being spent.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re:
The obvious solution to the situation you are describing is to sue the person posting the defamation, not the service that hosts it just because it's easier and they likely have deeper pockets.
And you have referenced a situation from England and Canada. 230 isn't enforceable in either of those countries AND they have much looser, especially England, libel & slander laws.
Just because this kind of thing can happen quicker and 'deeper' with the internet isn't a reason to get rid of the internet. Gossip, slander & libel have been around a long time. The internet didn't invent it.
On the post: Arizona Prosecutors Pretend 'ACAB' Is Gang Lingo To Hit Protesters With Felony Gang Charges
Arizona
Another item on the list of why I won't retire in Arizona, even if it is much cheaper to live than SoCal.
On the post: Ridiculous: Yale Law Prof Argues That Because Some In Congress Want More Moderation, That Makes Twitter A State Actor
Re: Vicarious
I've seen some nutty arguments here. Like this where you have taken a particular (wrong) viewpoint and used it like it's common knowledge.
This isn't about corporations. The 1st amendment applies to everyone in that you are allowed to say what ever you want. That doesn't mean somebody else has to publish it.
On the post: How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic
Well that's just great
Well that's just great. Now can you come out with an AI that will make you less of a scumbag company?
On the post: Yet Another Report Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Reduce Crime Or Cripple Criminal Organizations
I don't even know what to say
Check out this story "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year (2014)"
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-peopl e-than-burglars-did-last-year/)
Maybe this is because the cops have been so successful at busting the bad guys?
/s
On the post: Eighteen Sheriff's Deputies Waited 500 Yards Away While A Burglar Terrorized A 70-Year-Old Disabled Man
Maybe he needs a dictionary
Norkunas said a sergeant explained procedures for setting up a perimeter so that Johnson could not escape, but also admitted they could have done better.
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
On the post: White House Still Pushing To Slip Section 230 Repeal Into 'Must Pass' Military Spending Bill
Wish someone would get a backbone
I know it is wishful thinking but I wish someone would get a backbone and propose that adding items totally unrelated to the original bill illegal. I know it won't go anywhere, but I'd still like to see it.
I'm remembering a movie called 'Dave' where a doppleganger is a stand-in for the president. He calls in a bunch of congress reps to witness him signing a bill. But brings up a bunch of pork in the bill, in front of the press, and shames the various reps supporting it and gets it removed.
On the post: Devin Nunes Files Another SLAPP Suit; Sues The Washington Post Again
I wish WaPo would go to trial and defend the case, not get it dismissed as a SLAPP suit. They have got the $$$ to handle it and it would be worth it to see an idiot like Nunes get slapped down with an actual decision against him. And attorney fees and maybe a fine for a frivolous lawsuit? Would make a nice Christmas present!
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re: Something seems fishy?
"a woman parked her car in front of the truck in an apparent attempt to block it from moving. The woman accused the men of hitting her car on the highway and said that she had already summoned the police"
When I read that the first thing I thought of was that the woman and the cop were in a insurance scam together. The idea of a woman by herself going up against a truck driver at 2am behind a store does not ring true to me. I think this was a set up and that is why the cop didn't want any pictures.
On the post: Cares Act Broadband Funding Came With Unrealistic Deadlines, Ruining Good Intentions
Re:
Glad you put the /s in there.
Some of our genius' in congress would think that is a good idea and the telecoms would send them an invoice saying that it had already been done!
On the post: California Assemblywoman Celebrates The RIAA Giving Her A Gold Record For Exempting Musicians From Her Terrible AB5 Law
Apparently she doesn't want to hear about it.
I live in SD County, not the assembly woman's district tho. I tried to send the article to her to see if she would comment. I didn't expect to get any response, but because I don't live in her district I can not even communicate with her through her office at all.
Just because I can't vote for/against her shouldn't I be able to communicate with her office? Her work certainly effects more than just her district.
On the post: Time to Treat Broadband Like the Essential Service It Is
Re: Re: Re: start with basics
"Broadband service is in no way a ... essential public service"
Said by someone who has reliable broadband and can afford it. What about the large #'s who have no broadband, or even a reliable internet connection, but who have to use the internet for school? Or work? Even I, an older white guy who also has reliable (mostly) and affordable broadband, can see your privilege glaring thru.
On the post: Secret Service Latest To Use Data Brokers To Dodge Warrant Requirements For Cell Site Location Data
What about the MONEY?
As bad as this is I think the most direct way to fight it might be that this data was purchased with tax payer funds. I would be very interested to find out how that is legal. After all, they didn't bring down Al Capone for murder but for tax evasion.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Re: Re: You can, but SHOULD you?
I wasn't meaning not doing anything is an option. I absolutely think the platforms SHOULD be doing there best at moderation. Even if it is impossible. Because killing off the platforms to remove the venue for all of the problems they are causing is not feasible. That horse has left the barn. To much money is being accumulated to think they're going to quit.
I was meaning that the idea that everybody could talk to everybody about anything, SOUNDS great, until you see it happening. Because 'people'.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
You can, but SHOULD you?
I agree with the statement that 'moderation at scale is impossible', and the amount of data going thru Twitter, Facebook, et al; make moderation near impossible.
But I keep coming back to that old saying 'They were so excited to be able to do it, they never stopped to think whether or not they should do it". For "it" insert whatever dystopia causing wonder-tech you can think of.
That these platforms have the possibility of being a great boon to a lot of people is not in doubt. But have you met 'people' lately?
On the post: The Coronavirus Laid Bare Our Empty Lip Service To Fixing The 'Digital Divide'
I've been reading TechDirt for a while, and this has been an issue the whole time. And it just hit me. We, the taxpayers, are giving ISPs billions to build networks, that they then don't build, but then we also allow those ISPs to act as if those are their PRIVATE networks that they are allowed to operate anyway they see fit. Insanity.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: Re: "We're going to loosen the libel laws"
I agree that Trump wouldn't accept the fact checking, but using a recognized neutral source would be better for everybody else. I'm not saying CNN is or isn't neutral, I don't have an opinion on that. But Trump and his minions do have an opinion there so...
Next >>