Virtually always true, but you missed my point. The problem is being able to disprove an assertion of good faith made by the defendant to prevail on a claim made under DMCA §512(f). Courts have traditionally given copyright firms and copyright holders a lot of leeway regarding sending out clearly fraudulent DMCA takedown requests when interpreting this section, so plaintiffs rarely succeed with such a claim, usually not making it past summary judgment.
It occurs to me that the fact that 127.0.0.1 is among the ones listed for takedown could be used as evidence of a lack of a good faith inquiry into whether or not the use was fair or even actually infringing.
Okay, so I assume you’re talking about the ones posting reviews later. In that case, yes, they are not legitimate reviews, so the review companies were probably right to take them down in that context.
Quite frankly, I don’t even see how this is constitutional. There’s no warrant, there’s no exigent circumstances (at least with regards to seizures of anything that isn’t itself illegal), they don’t arrest the individual(s) (so it’s not a search and/or seizure incident to arrest), they don’t have probable cause (or a reasonable belief that they do have probable cause to trigger good faith), there’s no perceived or alleged threat or danger to anyone, they don’t even have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, they aren’t planning on using it as evidence in any legal proceedings against or arrest of any person(s) (so no concern about disposal of evidence), and—in fact—there is no even alleged intention of pursuing any legal action against or arrest of any person(s) that is even remotely connected to the seized property. Even the motor vehicle exception only applies to search for and seizure of evidence in a motor vehicle, not simply something relating to an alleged crime or unlawful act.
Then there’re the forfeiture proceedings themselves. I don’t care that property is not a person and so doesn’t have legal rights. If that property was found in the possession of a person, that person presumably has a property interest in that property, so their legal rights can be presumed to be impacted by the seizure. And people most certainly do have legal rights. Furthermore, legal proceedings still require an adversarial process (a case or controversy) unless the defendant pleads “guilty” or “no contest” or (in a civil case) stipulates to a ruling,
Plus, if they think that the money is going to be used to buy drugs, then that means that, if they just make sure someone follows the car, they should be able to find the drug dealer(s) that the person is going to buy from, at which point not only can they seize the cash but also arrest the driver, passenger, and dealer(s) and seize the drugs to be sold. That sounds like that’d be a much better deal for the community. They’d also have much stronger evidence to support seizure of the cash as well as its forfeiture since they could show that the cash was seized because of its relation to illegal activity.
Re: Re: I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 1983 action.
Yeah, “good faith” would be a tremendous bar to recovery here. It’s very difficult to prove bad faith, similar to how it is difficult to prove actual malice. Since it’s about subjective knowledge and intent of the other party, you’re pretty much not going to have any direct evidence, and you’ll need a fair amount of evidence to prove bad faith.
Also, I’m not sure what the wording of the statute used to justify the forfeiture is, but it might be worded in a way such that the officer was actually in full compliance with that statute when they seized the cash. The bar to justify a seizure (especially with regards to civil forfeiture) is significantly lower than with pressing charges and especially compared to prevailing in the ensuing forfeiture proceedings, not to mention prevailing in a civil suit or criminal trial.
Plus, I should note that the forfeiture proceedings would likely need to get resolved first, before any other action—like suing the city or officer(s) involved—gets taken. It’s like how, if evidence gets seized illegally, and person gets immediately arrested and charged based on that evidence, that person generally can’t (or at least doesn’t) sue over a 4th Amendment violation until after they move to suppress the illegally-seized evidence in the criminal trial and that motion is ruled on is successful (either in the lower court or on appeal), and usually after either the charges get dropped or the trial ends—either in a conviction, acquittal, dismissal by the judge, executive pardon, or mistrial. In this case, it would appear that the “charges” in the civil forfeiture case have only been filed recently, so barring some extraordinary circumstances (like intentional (and unreasonable) or excessive delay in the proceedings by the government or the court), they probably won’t sue for violations of 42 USC §1983 (or anything else, for that matter) until after the civil forfeiture proceedings are complete. Once that’s all settled, though, it’s possible that they will sue over the seizure, though since prevailing may not be particularly likely, it’s not implausible that they would not do so.
Define “legitimate”. I would argue that if a service affects more than just the direct customers, other to-be-beneficiaries’ reviews are valid.
For example, say that Person/Company A manufactures their products (Product X) using a product (Product Y) sold by Company B. Person C then purchases Product X, but the internal Product Y fails. Even though Person C was not a direct customer of Company B, C still has a legitimate complaint about B’s product as the end-user.
More relevantly for this case, say that a Hotel A hires maids from some Provider B to provide room service, and Person C stays at Hotel A for a few days and makes use of that room service. C can still post a review of B based upon the services of the maids at A. C was not a direct customer of B but of A, but C still benefited from a service that B provides and had direct contact with employees of B, so that review would be legitimate.
Finally, and even more relevantly, a review of a company is a review of that company, not just some particular service or good that they provide, and speaking with people over the phone—be they customer or beneficiary or prospective customer—can be considered a service they provide. While the landlord was the user of the service involving fixing the home, the reviewers here were users of the Customer-Service service provided by that exact same company, and that’s what they were reviewing. As such, it would still be a legitimate review.
To be clear, assuming that the company actually does have such a policy, it’s fine that they refused to give the couple any of the information—at least directly—as they were not the direct customer who enlisted the company. But that wasn’t what the complaint was about. The complaint was about the treatment they received, not the refusal to turn over the requested information.
“ Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. ”
That it’s his laptop? […] That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? […]
That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …
That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is. All you said was that the hoopla was about “the energy company”, not the laptop, so I had no way of knowing for sure what you meant by that.
That it’s his laptop? I find it likely given the circumstances.
That it’s his laptop isn’t exactly likely, though. Plausible? Yes. Likely? No. “Likely” would mean “better than even”. We simply don’t have enough information to make that determination. For one thing, the only people who saw the laptop in question that claimed it was were the repairman and Giuliani, neither of which are reliable sources. Hunter said it may or may not be his, which doesn’t give much weight either way. “Plausible” just means that it’s reasonable to believe it might have happened without too many assumptions. I would say that it’s certainly plausible given the circumstances, but given the lack of anything verifiable that connects the two and the untrustworthiness and bias of the only ones who said that it was, I don’t think we can go further than that.
That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? Less likely. But not by any stretch impossible.
Sure. I’m okay with that.
That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …
Except that his father immediately denied (and presented evidence supporting his denial) that the alleged meeting ever took place. Let’s be clear: if the emails didn’t allege that Hunter had successfully arranged a meeting between his father and this other guy, this wouldn’t have blown up like it did. No one is up in arms about this because Hunter allegedly had shady dealings with this other guy but the exact nature of those alleged shady dealings.
I can conceive of a scenario where Rudy and the repairman are being completely honest and upfront with their alleged evidence, and that they aren’t being tricked by a third party, but in that case, Hunter was lying in those emails. Of course, even that is unlikely, but it’s more likely than that the meeting took place.
This probably wouldn’t have survived lead story position if he said “sure it could be mine” so much earlier.
It’s been out of their news feed for some time, btw.
“Their” news feed? I thought you don’t pay any attention to those sources?
But I’m more interested in the sure my name helped admission than anything.
This was what I was talking about.
But why should he? Has anyone else ever admitted such a thing even when it was clearly the case? Would it help anything even if he did? And given that you don’t seem to have any problem with it at all, why do you care?
Additionally, it’s not entirely a given that that actually was the case. Is it likely the case? Yes. But it’s not so undeniable that a lack of an admission is necessarily indicative of dishonesty or lack of candor.
It’s not the acts it’s the bull coverage of them.
Russian bank lends Trump money, evil. Russian First Lady hands Biden’s millions, nothing to look at here.
Etc etc.
WTF? When did that ever happen?
Also, weren’t we talking about the laptop story? Because that is completely unrelated.
Also, there’s a difference between “evil” and “corrupt” or “compromised”. Russian banks lending Trump money—money which he still hasn’t repaid—gives Russia leverage over Trump, which could be used to cause Trump to act in Russia’s interests and against America’s interests.
FWIW, a gift or monetary transaction other than a loan doesn’t give quite the same leverage as an unpaid loan does, but again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the first I’ve heard of that particular allegation.
“ the Rudy emails”
You should, no?
No, I should not. There is no good reason for me to do so.
“ and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.”
And we can turn right around and play that 10 degrees or 3 degrees of with every politician in my life time. Connections to one or more government outside of the US.
There are only two degrees of separation here, though. People directly associated with Trump had direct associations with Russian operatives. And again, it’s the sheer quantity that’s concerning. No other campaign has ever had so many ties with a single foreign power. Combined with the aforementioned direct ties to Russian banks…
“ single case of nepotism”
Or, a potential direct tie to corruption.
Vs indirect related relationships.
Nope. Remember those loans? That’s a direct tie. And as I said, the allegation that the alleged meeting with Biden ever happened was quickly disproved, so that potential no longer exists. Furthermore, the Steele Dossier also implied direct ties. It just didn’t state them outright.
Not to mention that the allegations of the Steele Dossier and the story behind it are more plausible (and wound up more accurate) than the allegation regarding and story behind the laptop. Again, plausibility is a significant factor regarding newsworthiness.
“ Russians to get involved in our election”
You mean advertising and propaganda? Like always. It it wasn’t so much pro trump as anti Clinton.
Except that’s false. It was a lot more complex and insidious than that. It went much further than advertising and propaganda and included things like hacking into the DNC and RNC databases.
It’s also immaterial. We already have direct evidence—as admitted by Don Jr.—that Russia also aided the Trump campaign more directly. Whether they did so to support Trump, undermine Hillary, or sow discord is irrelevant.
Then again, big countries attempting to influence foreign elections is neither anything new or anything we haven’t done ourselves.
That’s a whataboutism. I don’t condone it when we do it either. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for others.
Also, have we done it since the end of the Cold War? Because we have changed since then, you know?
The fact is none of it directly tied Trump to Russian collusion. Or illegalities. Or anything outside of general international business.
Actually, it did. You’re confusing the standards we apply in a trial with the standards applied for media coverage. Try reading the Mueller Report. While it does say that they couldn’t definitively link Trump directly to Russia illegally with sufficient evidence to convict him, it also explicitly says it most certainly does not exonerate him of illegal ties to Russia, either. And the only reason it didn’t indict Trump on other crimes was because either it was outside the purview of his investigation or because Trump might not be able to be indicted while President. It’s worth noting that there are a number of ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, his family, and his businesses among many states, so again, saying there were no illegalities connected to Trump is an oversimplification at best.
It is also not the case that most international businesses take out massive loans from a Russian bank (or any other bank in an oppressive foreign country) and fails to repay them. But even if they did, the only one of those people who ran for President of the United States was Trump, and that presents a number of ethical issues and national security issues.
I don’t know either way. I’m asking for specifics so that I can address them. As far as I can tell, pretty much all of the allegedly antisemitic remarks were just criticisms of Israel. If there were others, please share them with the class.
“ rather than bringing crack into it”
Wrong person, I’m not the one who said he got high and dropped off a laptop.
“ Why did you bring crack into it in the first place?”
Wrong person
Which you then follow up with:
I may have called him a useless crack head at some point somewhere. But I never suggested he was on crack when he dropped it off.
I did, tongue n cheek it would make it more likely if he was, but I’m not the one who brought it up.
So yeah, you did say what I thought you did. There was nothing about how you said it that suggested you weren’t serious, either.
“ have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing”
It’s use in sexual connotations is also very common. Especially in European and Asian cultures. Far less the “omg” fetish it is in the US.
True. FTR, I don’t kinkshame. Consenting adults and all that.
Somewhere a because s, orgy is just me Bing a dick about it.
Fair enough. At least, assuming I’m interpreting that correctly and you’re saying that you didn’t literally mean “orgy”.
I’m not sure why there is big hoopla about some energy company. I never intended it o come across that I thought it was anything more than normal politics if 100% true.
Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. Yes, you also made it clear that you—personally—had little to no problem with that idea, but you were still making factual claims, not assuming without deciding they were true for the sake of argument.
But I fail to see any evidence from the Clinton crap pile that Trump himself did anything illegal either.
Look, can we please leave the loaded language out of this? It’s the Steele Dossier. I don’t call the emails allegedly found on Hunter’s laptop the Rudy emails or anything like that. I’ve been fairly civil for the most part, so please stop with the loaded language so I can just address the substance?
At any rate, whether or not Trump himself did anything illegal isn’t explicitly made clear in the Steele Dossier, but there were claims that suggested Trump was likely compromised by Russian interests for a number of reasons, and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.
In the case of Hunter and the laptop, we only had allegations of a single case of nepotism and a single meeting from that. In the case of the Steele Dossier, the claims involved a lot more people and was far more widespread that it tends to lead to questions about the guy whose in charge. It also involved a concerted effort by Russians to get involved in our election. Again, the laptop thing was basically just the one guy in a private company.
And it’s worth noting that many of those claims were proven accurate. Others less so, but there’s enough true that it isn’t just a bunch of crap or anything.
No, it really isn’t any different from what he was like in the past. He was always like that. It just wasn’t as apparent because he was less likely to speak in front of a large crowd without a script. Also, that has happened to a lot of people who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. No need to bring a cognitive defect that makes him incapable of leading the country himself into it.
“ The last point is false”
Inaccurate maybe but not false. It gained traction after she responded.
So, it gained traction after she said she didn’t believe it was true? Because, again, that was never a claim that she herself actually made. That’s what I meant when I said it’s false: Neither Hillary nor her campaign ever even implied he was born in Kenya. It also didn’t spread much while Hillary was still running; it was mostly ignored until after Republicans took it up. So, again, that’s just plain false.
Where the hell did you find any mainstream republicans believing OR discussing it today.
Today being since 2016?
As I implied, it hasn’t really been discussed much. However, there have been polls on the subject, and a sizable number still believe it.
I can also say that, from personal experience, I occasionally encounter some people who just randomly mention that Kenyan Muslim, but I honestly wasn’t thinking about that when I made that statement. And the crazy thing is that they are generally rational-minded people: they don’t buy into a lot of the Q-stuff about Trump becoming President soon or some broad conspiracy against Trump or stuff like that. They just have this one blind spot with Obama’s heritage. Some of them don’t even have a problem with it; they’re just matter-of-fact about it.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
Frankly, I find the fact it’s still believed by so many too depressing to look up the actual figure, but it’s been repeated on several news sites multiple times during the Trump administration, and the pollster was reliable enough AFAICT at the time. I genuinely wish it wasn’t so common, either. I wish they had finally accepted the indisputable evidence.
To give credit where it’s due, I don’t think it’s a majority of Republicans, but it’s still alarmingly high.
“ No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason.”
A mistake in an actual printed piece.
Yes, which is why I did concede that it was initially reasonable for people to rely upon it. Of course, it wouldn’t take much research to disprove that even before Obama addressed it by releasing proof that he was born in Hawaii, but I still acknowledge the point.
“ That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong”…
Where!”? Just where? You discuss it like it was still some sort of normal talking point during the trump campaign or administration. Where?
You’re conflating things. It was well beyond reasonable well before 2015. It was already unreasonable the moment we had Obama’s birth certificate (short and long forms) and articles from the time mentioning his birth. That was… 2008. Which, funnily enough, was soon after the allegations were publicized.
So, here, when I said it kept going after clear evidence it was wrong, I’m not really talking about the 2016 Trump campaign or the Trump administration. I’m talking about during the bulk of Obama’s presidency, especially around 2012, when Trump brought it up during his campaign to become Presi— Wait… Huh. I guess I kinda was talking about the Trump campaign. Just not the same one you were.
In fact, Trump’s advocacy of birtherism came up multiple time during his 2016 campaign, and a number of Republicans repeatedly actually defended those claims, so it was a talking point at first. (He also made a similar argument about Ted Cruz, who—as mentioned—was born in Canada.) He did later purport to end it later on, but it did come up then. But again, that’s not what I was referring to, so whatever.
“But until then, Voter ID laws should not be put into effect.”
Why not do them at the same time?
I don’t have a problem with that, but Republicans have not only prevented such changes but made it actually harder to get compliant IDs. In my mind, “unless and until” means “not before”; doing both at the same time is fine.
“You seriously don’t understand how rare voter fraud is”
You really don’t understand how much easier some of these left laws would make it, do you?
There are no new laws being put into place that would make it easier.
“330”, we’ll, 320 which makes your token number even smaller.
My point was to overestimate the amount of fraud significantly to show that that would still be insignificant.
Yesterday doesn’t equate to tomorrow.
Public policy shouldn’t be based on idle speculation. And barring some change to voting laws that make fraud more likely (which is not going to happen), there is zero reason to believe that voter fraud will be more likely tomorrow than it was yesterday.
“So, you oppose setting nonbinding goals before trying to reach those goals?”
I oppose setting binding mandates.
Which is not in the Green New Deal or Paris Climate Accord, so that’s irrelevant.
I oppose reduction in ability without replacement.
Again, the Green New Deal proposes replacement.
I oppose cap and trade that lets China etc make no changes at all.
You clearly didn’t read these things, huh? Nor did you pay attention to what actually happened. China voluntarily made more changes than they had agreed to (one of the few things I’ll give China credit for). They also did a better job of cutting their carbon footprint than we did.
I oppose stupidity in process, grandstanding, and ignorant plans that don’t look at reality.
Look, you clearly couldn’t be bothered to read either of the things you’re complaining about, because none of what you just said are actually problems that they have rather than what Republicans claim that they do.
Both the Green New Deal and the Paris Climate Accord are nonbinding. All they do is set goals and allow for us to choose how to meet those goals. That’s it. There isn’t even any punishment for failing to meet those goals. The PCA even let individual nations choose their own goals. And, as I said, China’s goals were more ambitious than ours. So, again, I have no idea why you have a problem here.
“Since many people have been denouncing the goals”
That’s just it though. How many people, at the National government level, Trump or today, are actually against the goals?
A lot of them. Seriously, you need to pay more attention to what people say.
I flop around because anti-Republicans here keep lumping everyone who voted for trump into the q group.
Okay, but I’m not one of them.
Clinton because I not only refuse to vote for her, but because I am so against her I’d vote for nearly anyone with a chance to win over her.
And I still don’t understand why, but fine. For the record, that’s how we feel about Trump.
I’m not complaining about Obama. I have my dislikes with some of what he did but I was a strong supporter and campaign volunteer twice.
Even what I don’t like I don’t blame him.
Agreed.
Democratic Party, because the implicit need to categorise, group, and force association.
And here you lose me. You’re now attributing to the group the characteristics of a few, which you just agreed not to do.
If all trump voters are q for not individually, 150million people, disowning them, then all dems are the squad for not individually, 150mil people disowning them.
First, I’ve already explained that I’m talking about official actions by leaders of the party with respect to elected officials in the federal government. You have also failed to make a reasonable equivalence between the likes of MTG and the likes of AOC. You’ve made broad assertions and one specific assertion that wasn’t backed up by the evidence you provided, but that’s it.
The Texas dems just happen to be the latest act of subverting democracy.
You haven’t alleged any other instances of that, so you haven’t established that this is a pattern.
“Russia unilaterally annexed part of Ukraine”
It’s far more complicated than that. But the Ukrainian government has been crushing the area’s majority Russian population for a long time. That moved to exterminating anyone who resisted.
Russia’s involvement in supporting a Russian population being slaughtered may not be the most politically correct action. But it was the moral high road. Of sorts.
The entire situation there is far more involved than anything we could debate here reasonably. But this goes back decades.
It goes far beyond political correctness, and I dispute the “moral high ground”. If that was the case, make it an independent nation.
“They were Iranian funds that we were withholding.”
Held because Iran is a supporter of terrorism. Among other issues.
Nope! It was actually because they had dethroned the America-friendly dictator in charge, so we refused to let them have access to their funds! Sure, we have excused keeping them as because Iran is a supporter of terrorism, but then, so is Saudi Arabia. We haven’t exactly been consistent on that, really.
At any rate, the point is that, contrary to your claim, they weren’t US funds. We never had a legitimate claim to them at all. We just had physical possession of them.
And we, the US, we’re specifically excluded from inspections. As far as what I’ve read.
Even if true, I don’t see a problem with that. Do you not trust our allies in Europe (among others) to do a sufficient job? Why should the US have to have direct access?
The Chicago taxes are a bad example as they are notoriously corrupt. I won’t say that they aren’t Democrats, but they aren’t reflective of Democrats elsewhere.
“Having a general plan to gradually replace them with more eco-friendly and renewable resources shouldn’t be an issue in that case.”
No it shouldn’t. Setting binding dates and starting shutdowns without anything in place should be.
Well, since that was never the plan, I fail to see a problem.
“And what’s the problem with the Paris Climate Agreement”
It’s total lack of ability. Cap and trade. Inconsistent state goals.
Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. None of that’s actually there.
“Technically, it’s primarily about refugees, which are not illegal”
Crossing our boarder anywhere other than a point of entry is a violation of our sovereignty. A criminal act. And not negated by the reason for doing so.
Legally, crossing the border anywhere other than a point of entry is a violation of civil law, not criminal law, and is thus not a criminal act. And it is absolutely a defense to such an allegation to be seeking refugee status. So you’re just flat out wrong here from a legal standpoint. You may not agree that that should be the law, but I’m just saying what the law is.
“You didn’t even present evidence that shows that AOC does.”
A matter of record… but that involves digging back through years of videos.
And until you provide such evidence, I have zero reason to believe that.
As for the dementia stuff,
Presenting full lists of search results is not presenting evidence. Most of that is entirely consistent with what I’ve already said.
I said a speech impediment among other things. The point is that he is acting no differently now from how he did then, and no one accused him of dementia or anything like that until around 2019.
You still haven’t demonstrated that he has dementia, which means that your very first condition is questionable at best.
You say that it’s possible that Biden isn’t conducting the government affairs alone. I’ll go so far as to say he definitely isn’t because no President ever has. It doesn’t mean there is someone directing him or anything like that.
Re: terminology, so what? The fact is that everything about Biden you claim is the result of such a condition has been there from an early age, so it’s in no way age-related, and it clearly hasn’t stopped him from governing effectively before, so why should it matter.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
Re: Re:
Virtually always true, but you missed my point. The problem is being able to disprove an assertion of good faith made by the defendant to prevail on a claim made under DMCA §512(f). Courts have traditionally given copyright firms and copyright holders a lot of leeway regarding sending out clearly fraudulent DMCA takedown requests when interpreting this section, so plaintiffs rarely succeed with such a claim, usually not making it past summary judgment.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
Re: Re: Re: 127.0.0.1
I hope they stay away from 192.0.2.0, 198.51.100.0, and 203.0.113.0! I keep all my important documents there!
On the post: Manchester United Becomes Manchester UFC In 'Football Manager 22' Over Dumb Trademark Spat
Re: Football Manager 22
You know, it seems rather appropriate that this story about Football Manager '22 involves a Catch-22
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
It occurs to me that the fact that 127.0.0.1 is among the ones listed for takedown could be used as evidence of a lack of a good faith inquiry into whether or not the use was fair or even actually infringing.
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
Re: Re: Disbar his attorneies
I mean, is it at all surprising that sovereign citizens and the like would support Trump?
On the post: Everyone Being Dumb About IP: McDonald's No Longer Offering Dope Custom PS5 Controllers In Australia
Re: Re: Is it Sony's right?
Yes, that seems to be the main issue. I’m honestly surprised that McDonald’s never approached Sony about this tbh.
On the post: Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, so I assume you’re talking about the ones posting reviews later. In that case, yes, they are not legitimate reviews, so the review companies were probably right to take them down in that context.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Quite frankly, I don’t even see how this is constitutional. There’s no warrant, there’s no exigent circumstances (at least with regards to seizures of anything that isn’t itself illegal), they don’t arrest the individual(s) (so it’s not a search and/or seizure incident to arrest), they don’t have probable cause (or a reasonable belief that they do have probable cause to trigger good faith), there’s no perceived or alleged threat or danger to anyone, they don’t even have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, they aren’t planning on using it as evidence in any legal proceedings against or arrest of any person(s) (so no concern about disposal of evidence), and—in fact—there is no even alleged intention of pursuing any legal action against or arrest of any person(s) that is even remotely connected to the seized property. Even the motor vehicle exception only applies to search for and seizure of evidence in a motor vehicle, not simply something relating to an alleged crime or unlawful act.
Then there’re the forfeiture proceedings themselves. I don’t care that property is not a person and so doesn’t have legal rights. If that property was found in the possession of a person, that person presumably has a property interest in that property, so their legal rights can be presumed to be impacted by the seizure. And people most certainly do have legal rights. Furthermore, legal proceedings still require an adversarial process (a case or controversy) unless the defendant pleads “guilty” or “no contest” or (in a civil case) stipulates to a ruling,
Plus, if they think that the money is going to be used to buy drugs, then that means that, if they just make sure someone follows the car, they should be able to find the drug dealer(s) that the person is going to buy from, at which point not only can they seize the cash but also arrest the driver, passenger, and dealer(s) and seize the drugs to be sold. That sounds like that’d be a much better deal for the community. They’d also have much stronger evidence to support seizure of the cash as well as its forfeiture since they could show that the cash was seized because of its relation to illegal activity.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Re: I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 1983 action.
Yeah, “good faith” would be a tremendous bar to recovery here. It’s very difficult to prove bad faith, similar to how it is difficult to prove actual malice. Since it’s about subjective knowledge and intent of the other party, you’re pretty much not going to have any direct evidence, and you’ll need a fair amount of evidence to prove bad faith.
Also, I’m not sure what the wording of the statute used to justify the forfeiture is, but it might be worded in a way such that the officer was actually in full compliance with that statute when they seized the cash. The bar to justify a seizure (especially with regards to civil forfeiture) is significantly lower than with pressing charges and especially compared to prevailing in the ensuing forfeiture proceedings, not to mention prevailing in a civil suit or criminal trial.
Plus, I should note that the forfeiture proceedings would likely need to get resolved first, before any other action—like suing the city or officer(s) involved—gets taken. It’s like how, if evidence gets seized illegally, and person gets immediately arrested and charged based on that evidence, that person generally can’t (or at least doesn’t) sue over a 4th Amendment violation until after they move to suppress the illegally-seized evidence in the criminal trial and that motion is ruled on is successful (either in the lower court or on appeal), and usually after either the charges get dropped or the trial ends—either in a conviction, acquittal, dismissal by the judge, executive pardon, or mistrial. In this case, it would appear that the “charges” in the civil forfeiture case have only been filed recently, so barring some extraordinary circumstances (like intentional (and unreasonable) or excessive delay in the proceedings by the government or the court), they probably won’t sue for violations of 42 USC §1983 (or anything else, for that matter) until after the civil forfeiture proceedings are complete. Once that’s all settled, though, it’s possible that they will sue over the seizure, though since prevailing may not be particularly likely, it’s not implausible that they would not do so.
On the post: Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define “legitimate”. I would argue that if a service affects more than just the direct customers, other to-be-beneficiaries’ reviews are valid.
For example, say that Person/Company A manufactures their products (Product X) using a product (Product Y) sold by Company B. Person C then purchases Product X, but the internal Product Y fails. Even though Person C was not a direct customer of Company B, C still has a legitimate complaint about B’s product as the end-user.
More relevantly for this case, say that a Hotel A hires maids from some Provider B to provide room service, and Person C stays at Hotel A for a few days and makes use of that room service. C can still post a review of B based upon the services of the maids at A. C was not a direct customer of B but of A, but C still benefited from a service that B provides and had direct contact with employees of B, so that review would be legitimate.
Finally, and even more relevantly, a review of a company is a review of that company, not just some particular service or good that they provide, and speaking with people over the phone—be they customer or beneficiary or prospective customer—can be considered a service they provide. While the landlord was the user of the service involving fixing the home, the reviewers here were users of the Customer-Service service provided by that exact same company, and that’s what they were reviewing. As such, it would still be a legitimate review.
To be clear, assuming that the company actually does have such a policy, it’s fine that they refused to give the couple any of the information—at least directly—as they were not the direct customer who enlisted the company. But that wasn’t what the complaint was about. The complaint was about the treatment they received, not the refusal to turn over the requested information.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government censorship
Also money.
On the post: Police Union Gives 'Officer Of The Year' Award To A Cop Who Spent Last Year Suspended
Re: I guess not in this world.
Is that a Simpsons reference?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is. All you said was that the hoopla was about “the energy company”, not the laptop, so I had no way of knowing for sure what you meant by that.
That it’s his laptop isn’t exactly likely, though. Plausible? Yes. Likely? No. “Likely” would mean “better than even”. We simply don’t have enough information to make that determination. For one thing, the only people who saw the laptop in question that claimed it was were the repairman and Giuliani, neither of which are reliable sources. Hunter said it may or may not be his, which doesn’t give much weight either way. “Plausible” just means that it’s reasonable to believe it might have happened without too many assumptions. I would say that it’s certainly plausible given the circumstances, but given the lack of anything verifiable that connects the two and the untrustworthiness and bias of the only ones who said that it was, I don’t think we can go further than that.
Sure. I’m okay with that.
Except that his father immediately denied (and presented evidence supporting his denial) that the alleged meeting ever took place. Let’s be clear: if the emails didn’t allege that Hunter had successfully arranged a meeting between his father and this other guy, this wouldn’t have blown up like it did. No one is up in arms about this because Hunter allegedly had shady dealings with this other guy but the exact nature of those alleged shady dealings.
I can conceive of a scenario where Rudy and the repairman are being completely honest and upfront with their alleged evidence, and that they aren’t being tricked by a third party, but in that case, Hunter was lying in those emails. Of course, even that is unlikely, but it’s more likely than that the meeting took place.
“Their” news feed? I thought you don’t pay any attention to those sources?
This was what I was talking about.
But why should he? Has anyone else ever admitted such a thing even when it was clearly the case? Would it help anything even if he did? And given that you don’t seem to have any problem with it at all, why do you care?
Additionally, it’s not entirely a given that that actually was the case. Is it likely the case? Yes. But it’s not so undeniable that a lack of an admission is necessarily indicative of dishonesty or lack of candor.
WTF? When did that ever happen?
Also, weren’t we talking about the laptop story? Because that is completely unrelated.
Also, there’s a difference between “evil” and “corrupt” or “compromised”. Russian banks lending Trump money—money which he still hasn’t repaid—gives Russia leverage over Trump, which could be used to cause Trump to act in Russia’s interests and against America’s interests.
FWIW, a gift or monetary transaction other than a loan doesn’t give quite the same leverage as an unpaid loan does, but again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the first I’ve heard of that particular allegation.
No, I should not. There is no good reason for me to do so.
There are only two degrees of separation here, though. People directly associated with Trump had direct associations with Russian operatives. And again, it’s the sheer quantity that’s concerning. No other campaign has ever had so many ties with a single foreign power. Combined with the aforementioned direct ties to Russian banks…
Nope. Remember those loans? That’s a direct tie. And as I said, the allegation that the alleged meeting with Biden ever happened was quickly disproved, so that potential no longer exists. Furthermore, the Steele Dossier also implied direct ties. It just didn’t state them outright.
Not to mention that the allegations of the Steele Dossier and the story behind it are more plausible (and wound up more accurate) than the allegation regarding and story behind the laptop. Again, plausibility is a significant factor regarding newsworthiness.
Except that’s false. It was a lot more complex and insidious than that. It went much further than advertising and propaganda and included things like hacking into the DNC and RNC databases.
It’s also immaterial. We already have direct evidence—as admitted by Don Jr.—that Russia also aided the Trump campaign more directly. Whether they did so to support Trump, undermine Hillary, or sow discord is irrelevant.
That’s a whataboutism. I don’t condone it when we do it either. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for others.
Also, have we done it since the end of the Cold War? Because we have changed since then, you know?
Actually, it did. You’re confusing the standards we apply in a trial with the standards applied for media coverage. Try reading the Mueller Report. While it does say that they couldn’t definitively link Trump directly to Russia illegally with sufficient evidence to convict him, it also explicitly says it most certainly does not exonerate him of illegal ties to Russia, either. And the only reason it didn’t indict Trump on other crimes was because either it was outside the purview of his investigation or because Trump might not be able to be indicted while President. It’s worth noting that there are a number of ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, his family, and his businesses among many states, so again, saying there were no illegalities connected to Trump is an oversimplification at best.
It is also not the case that most international businesses take out massive loans from a Russian bank (or any other bank in an oppressive foreign country) and fails to repay them. But even if they did, the only one of those people who ran for President of the United States was Trump, and that presents a number of ethical issues and national security issues.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not even sure if we have video evidence from that far back.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On this issue, yeah.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know either way. I’m asking for specifics so that I can address them. As far as I can tell, pretty much all of the allegedly antisemitic remarks were just criticisms of Israel. If there were others, please share them with the class.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which you then follow up with:
So yeah, you did say what I thought you did. There was nothing about how you said it that suggested you weren’t serious, either.
True. FTR, I don’t kinkshame. Consenting adults and all that.
Fair enough. At least, assuming I’m interpreting that correctly and you’re saying that you didn’t literally mean “orgy”.
Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. Yes, you also made it clear that you—personally—had little to no problem with that idea, but you were still making factual claims, not assuming without deciding they were true for the sake of argument.
Look, can we please leave the loaded language out of this? It’s the Steele Dossier. I don’t call the emails allegedly found on Hunter’s laptop the Rudy emails or anything like that. I’ve been fairly civil for the most part, so please stop with the loaded language so I can just address the substance?
At any rate, whether or not Trump himself did anything illegal isn’t explicitly made clear in the Steele Dossier, but there were claims that suggested Trump was likely compromised by Russian interests for a number of reasons, and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.
In the case of Hunter and the laptop, we only had allegations of a single case of nepotism and a single meeting from that. In the case of the Steele Dossier, the claims involved a lot more people and was far more widespread that it tends to lead to questions about the guy whose in charge. It also involved a concerted effort by Russians to get involved in our election. Again, the laptop thing was basically just the one guy in a private company.
And it’s worth noting that many of those claims were proven accurate. Others less so, but there’s enough true that it isn’t just a bunch of crap or anything.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it really isn’t any different from what he was like in the past. He was always like that. It just wasn’t as apparent because he was less likely to speak in front of a large crowd without a script. Also, that has happened to a lot of people who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. No need to bring a cognitive defect that makes him incapable of leading the country himself into it.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, it gained traction after she said she didn’t believe it was true? Because, again, that was never a claim that she herself actually made. That’s what I meant when I said it’s false: Neither Hillary nor her campaign ever even implied he was born in Kenya. It also didn’t spread much while Hillary was still running; it was mostly ignored until after Republicans took it up. So, again, that’s just plain false.
As I implied, it hasn’t really been discussed much. However, there have been polls on the subject, and a sizable number still believe it.
I can also say that, from personal experience, I occasionally encounter some people who just randomly mention that Kenyan Muslim, but I honestly wasn’t thinking about that when I made that statement. And the crazy thing is that they are generally rational-minded people: they don’t buy into a lot of the Q-stuff about Trump becoming President soon or some broad conspiracy against Trump or stuff like that. They just have this one blind spot with Obama’s heritage. Some of them don’t even have a problem with it; they’re just matter-of-fact about it.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
Frankly, I find the fact it’s still believed by so many too depressing to look up the actual figure, but it’s been repeated on several news sites multiple times during the Trump administration, and the pollster was reliable enough AFAICT at the time. I genuinely wish it wasn’t so common, either. I wish they had finally accepted the indisputable evidence.
To give credit where it’s due, I don’t think it’s a majority of Republicans, but it’s still alarmingly high.
Yes, which is why I did concede that it was initially reasonable for people to rely upon it. Of course, it wouldn’t take much research to disprove that even before Obama addressed it by releasing proof that he was born in Hawaii, but I still acknowledge the point.
You’re conflating things. It was well beyond reasonable well before 2015. It was already unreasonable the moment we had Obama’s birth certificate (short and long forms) and articles from the time mentioning his birth. That was… 2008. Which, funnily enough, was soon after the allegations were publicized.
So, here, when I said it kept going after clear evidence it was wrong, I’m not really talking about the 2016 Trump campaign or the Trump administration. I’m talking about during the bulk of Obama’s presidency, especially around 2012, when Trump brought it up during his campaign to become Presi— Wait… Huh. I guess I kinda was talking about the Trump campaign. Just not the same one you were.
In fact, Trump’s advocacy of birtherism came up multiple time during his 2016 campaign, and a number of Republicans repeatedly actually defended those claims, so it was a talking point at first. (He also made a similar argument about Ted Cruz, who—as mentioned—was born in Canada.) He did later purport to end it later on, but it did come up then. But again, that’s not what I was referring to, so whatever.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t have a problem with that, but Republicans have not only prevented such changes but made it actually harder to get compliant IDs. In my mind, “unless and until” means “not before”; doing both at the same time is fine.
There are no new laws being put into place that would make it easier.
My point was to overestimate the amount of fraud significantly to show that that would still be insignificant.
Public policy shouldn’t be based on idle speculation. And barring some change to voting laws that make fraud more likely (which is not going to happen), there is zero reason to believe that voter fraud will be more likely tomorrow than it was yesterday.
Which is not in the Green New Deal or Paris Climate Accord, so that’s irrelevant.
Again, the Green New Deal proposes replacement.
You clearly didn’t read these things, huh? Nor did you pay attention to what actually happened. China voluntarily made more changes than they had agreed to (one of the few things I’ll give China credit for). They also did a better job of cutting their carbon footprint than we did.
Look, you clearly couldn’t be bothered to read either of the things you’re complaining about, because none of what you just said are actually problems that they have rather than what Republicans claim that they do.
Both the Green New Deal and the Paris Climate Accord are nonbinding. All they do is set goals and allow for us to choose how to meet those goals. That’s it. There isn’t even any punishment for failing to meet those goals. The PCA even let individual nations choose their own goals. And, as I said, China’s goals were more ambitious than ours. So, again, I have no idea why you have a problem here.
A lot of them. Seriously, you need to pay more attention to what people say.
Okay, but I’m not one of them.
And I still don’t understand why, but fine. For the record, that’s how we feel about Trump.
Agreed.
And here you lose me. You’re now attributing to the group the characteristics of a few, which you just agreed not to do.
First, I’ve already explained that I’m talking about official actions by leaders of the party with respect to elected officials in the federal government. You have also failed to make a reasonable equivalence between the likes of MTG and the likes of AOC. You’ve made broad assertions and one specific assertion that wasn’t backed up by the evidence you provided, but that’s it.
You haven’t alleged any other instances of that, so you haven’t established that this is a pattern.
It goes far beyond political correctness, and I dispute the “moral high ground”. If that was the case, make it an independent nation.
Nope! It was actually because they had dethroned the America-friendly dictator in charge, so we refused to let them have access to their funds! Sure, we have excused keeping them as because Iran is a supporter of terrorism, but then, so is Saudi Arabia. We haven’t exactly been consistent on that, really.
At any rate, the point is that, contrary to your claim, they weren’t US funds. We never had a legitimate claim to them at all. We just had physical possession of them.
Even if true, I don’t see a problem with that. Do you not trust our allies in Europe (among others) to do a sufficient job? Why should the US have to have direct access?
The Chicago taxes are a bad example as they are notoriously corrupt. I won’t say that they aren’t Democrats, but they aren’t reflective of Democrats elsewhere.
Well, since that was never the plan, I fail to see a problem.
Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. None of that’s actually there.
Legally, crossing the border anywhere other than a point of entry is a violation of civil law, not criminal law, and is thus not a criminal act. And it is absolutely a defense to such an allegation to be seeking refugee status. So you’re just flat out wrong here from a legal standpoint. You may not agree that that should be the law, but I’m just saying what the law is.
And until you provide such evidence, I have zero reason to believe that.
As for the dementia stuff,
Presenting full lists of search results is not presenting evidence. Most of that is entirely consistent with what I’ve already said.
I said a speech impediment among other things. The point is that he is acting no differently now from how he did then, and no one accused him of dementia or anything like that until around 2019.
You still haven’t demonstrated that he has dementia, which means that your very first condition is questionable at best.
You say that it’s possible that Biden isn’t conducting the government affairs alone. I’ll go so far as to say he definitely isn’t because no President ever has. It doesn’t mean there is someone directing him or anything like that.
Next >>