both fall under the overbroad definition of PaulT of what should purportedly be desirable
No, they don’t, unless you actually believe a satellite provider choosing not to renew the contract of a network it carries is actually the same thing as a white business owner putting up a “no Blacks allowed” sign in his window. They’re not the same thing, they’re not even remotely analogous, and you’ve done nothing to explain the similarities between a business dispute (one in which nobody’s civil rights were violated!) and an undisputable case of racial discrimination.
PaulT’s post asked about whether an entity like AT&T/DirecTV should be forced to do business with an entity like OANN. Any attempt to force that association by law would be both anathema to the “free market” concept and a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against compelled association.
If you have any other questions, I don’t give a fuck. As far as I’m concerned, you can go lurk about in a mausoleum, seeing as how you seem to enjoy acting like a bonehead.
The problem with trying to contrast your “counterexample” with the OANN situation is that nobody’s rights are being violated with the OANN situation. OANN doesn’t have the right to make force AT&T/DirecTV carry OANN, nor should it have that right. But in your hypothetical situation, Black people would have their civil rights curtailed by being refused a place in the public sphere—by being refused the same right to participate in society that white people have.
When you step into the public sphere, you make an implicit compromise with everyone else: Your rights end where another person’s rights begin. When the right of association clashes with one’s right to enter and participate in the public sphere, the first one must generally give way. Only through such a compromise can we have a functioning society.
If you could show me how OANN being dropped from DirecTV violates anyone’s civil rights, you might have a point. But you can’t. So you don’t.
I continue maintaining that this premise is too broad to apply without further reservation
Too bad nobody is actually talking about applying that premise outside of the premise itself. AT&T dropping OANN from DirecTV is not the same thing as a bar owner in Alabama saying “no n⸻s allowed” to a Black man who walks in the door, you damn well know it isn’t the same thing, and you’ll be lying if you say otherwise.
Summarizing a point of argument in a way that distorts the point into saying something it does not and attributes the false interpretation to the person who raised the original point.
A blatant attempt to make winning an argument easier for someone who is out of their depth in said argument.
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
AT&T isn’t preventing any other cable, satellite, or livestreaming provider from carrying OANN; neither is the government. AT&T has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to carry OANN past the length of the original contract. Any DirecTV subscriber who wants to watch OANN can still watch it through KlowdTV or any other service that carries the channel.
Losing an audience is not the same as losing the right to speak. And no one is entitled to an audience or a platform at someone else’s expense.
All journalism has bias. Someone must decide what facts to distill out of the mass of available data, what to publish, and how to contextualize the facts that makes it to the page. You can no more avoid bias in journalism than you can avoid your inevitable death. The trick is looking for whether the bias is at least somewhat rooted in telling the truth.
For the fact of the “liberal” networks’ biases, at least they’re trying to be truthful in their reporting. OANN doesn’t give a shit how many lies its “reporters” tell, so long as they can help radicalize people into right-wing extremist thinking. You know, the kind of thinking that led a shitload of people to violently storm the Capitol and try to (their words, not mine) hang Mike Pence.
Reminder: In 345 days, Sherlock Holmes falls completely into the public domain (in the United States) and there is nothing reasonable that the Doyle estate can do about it.
That probable otherwording aside: Link-Busters is using the power of the government—specifically, the government-backed legal power of the DMCA—to suppress speech. It need not be part of the government to use that power.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
I got a few bottles of milk and some blankies here for OANN, seeing as how they want to act like a bunch of whiny little babies.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
To put it another way: Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to free reach—especially at the expense of others.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
No, they don’t, unless you actually believe a satellite provider choosing not to renew the contract of a network it carries is actually the same thing as a white business owner putting up a “no Blacks allowed” sign in his window. They’re not the same thing, they’re not even remotely analogous, and you’ve done nothing to explain the similarities between a business dispute (one in which nobody’s civil rights were violated!) and an undisputable case of racial discrimination.
PaulT’s post asked about whether an entity like AT&T/DirecTV should be forced to do business with an entity like OANN. Any attempt to force that association by law would be both anathema to the “free market” concept and a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against compelled association.
If you have any other questions, I don’t give a fuck. As far as I’m concerned, you can go lurk about in a mausoleum, seeing as how you seem to enjoy acting like a bonehead.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
The problem with trying to contrast your “counterexample” with the OANN situation is that nobody’s rights are being violated with the OANN situation. OANN doesn’t have the right to make force AT&T/DirecTV carry OANN, nor should it have that right. But in your hypothetical situation, Black people would have their civil rights curtailed by being refused a place in the public sphere—by being refused the same right to participate in society that white people have.
When you step into the public sphere, you make an implicit compromise with everyone else: Your rights end where another person’s rights begin. When the right of association clashes with one’s right to enter and participate in the public sphere, the first one must generally give way. Only through such a compromise can we have a functioning society.
If you could show me how OANN being dropped from DirecTV violates anyone’s civil rights, you might have a point. But you can’t. So you don’t.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Too bad nobody is actually talking about applying that premise outside of the premise itself. AT&T dropping OANN from DirecTV is not the same thing as a bar owner in Alabama saying “no n⸻s allowed” to a Black man who walks in the door, you damn well know it isn’t the same thing, and you’ll be lying if you say otherwise.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
otherwording (or in-other-wordsing) — noun
Summarizing a point of argument in a way that distorts the point into saying something it does not and attributes the false interpretation to the person who raised the original point.
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
See also: strawman; your post
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
🚨 UPDATE 🚨
The Fantasy Book Critic blog has been restored.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
It’s almost as if they’re conservatives who don’t want to own that label (and the associated baggage).
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Yeah, but that’s the funny thing about fires: Leave them uncontrolled long enough and they’ll burn everybody. (Same goes for viral pandemics, too.)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
AT&T isn’t preventing any other cable, satellite, or livestreaming provider from carrying OANN; neither is the government. AT&T has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to carry OANN past the length of the original contract. Any DirecTV subscriber who wants to watch OANN can still watch it through KlowdTV or any other service that carries the channel.
Losing an audience is not the same as losing the right to speak. And no one is entitled to an audience or a platform at someone else’s expense.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
All journalism has bias. Someone must decide what facts to distill out of the mass of available data, what to publish, and how to contextualize the facts that makes it to the page. You can no more avoid bias in journalism than you can avoid your inevitable death. The trick is looking for whether the bias is at least somewhat rooted in telling the truth.
For the fact of the “liberal” networks’ biases, at least they’re trying to be truthful in their reporting. OANN doesn’t give a shit how many lies its “reporters” tell, so long as they can help radicalize people into right-wing extremist thinking. You know, the kind of thinking that led a shitload of people to violently storm the Capitol and try to (their words, not mine) hang Mike Pence.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Aw, come on, why you gotta bring Gadget into this…
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Reminder: In 345 days, Sherlock Holmes falls completely into the public domain (in the United States) and there is nothing reasonable that the Doyle estate can do about it.
On the post: Sedition Prosecution Of Oath Keepers Members Shows The FBI Can Still Work Around Encryption
Forces, crosses, etc.
On the post: Harrison Greenbaum Latest Trick: Having Paul Levy Respond To Criss Angel's Thuggish Legal Threat
ProTaunt: LOL good luck with enforcing that
On the post: Harrison Greenbaum Latest Trick: Having Paul Levy Respond To Criss Angel's Thuggish Legal Threat
This reads more like the legalese version of “fuck around and find out”.
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
That probable otherwording aside: Link-Busters is using the power of the government—specifically, the government-backed legal power of the DMCA—to suppress speech. It need not be part of the government to use that power.
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
To be fair, that is a thought one can have. It isn’t a particularly complex thought, granted…
On the post: States' 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint Against Google Looks A Lot More Damning
Prostitutes sell sex. Whores sell their principles.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Shut up, Meg.
Next >>