Anyone here remember WATS? That was the Wide Area Telephone System, instituted to provide businesses a way to pay ahead for unlimited long distance calls. (Usually an atrocious amount.) Prior to that point in time? It was pay per call, per minute - no matter who you were.
I say, let us return to those days, with a few updates for the modern age. For starters, a new phone number that immediately jumps into the fray by making, say, 2,000 calls a month, that's a boiler room operation. Ding! $1.00 per call, please. And absofuckin'lutely NO exceptions for politicians, NPOs, campaigns, (alleged) debt collectors, or any other such nonsense.
"Oh, but that violates a free speech right!" Jesus H. Christ on a jumped-up Pogo Stick, give me a break already. There's nothing stating that phones are the only way to communicate with people. In fact, we had the Pony Express and the US Postal Service more than a century before we had phones, and the telegraph more than half a century apriori. Wouldn't you know it, the advent of the phone didn't wipe them out, either.
For those who might think (incorrectly) this is all a bit draconian, we have an example already to hand - ISPs announcing "traffic management" plans for heavy users. Works for them, eh? And as for "government interference".... Ever hear of rationing for heavy water users, in an attempt to save some water for everyone? Or how about surcharges for electricity usage over a certain (highly artificial) amount?
(At least in my area, these utilities are owned by the citizens, and run by, you guessed it, the government. In the name of the people, of course.)
“He may yet appeal,” Mair said of the decision".... "though as I understand it, that process could occur years or even decades from now....
In general, a suit that has no activity for 3 years is automatically dismissed "for lack of prosecution" on the part of the plaintiff. Just filing papers to keep it alive is not enough, there must be substantive progress.
Her attorneys can file for an earlier dismissal, but they'd have to plead something along the lines that Nunes and/or Biss have misled the could in some manner. That might come to pass, if the Lizzo/Hearst suit should reveal funding sources that can be related to Nunes, and that there might appear some manner of impropriety in the source(s) of such.
Remember, imaginary shit can't be countered with evidence that can be repeatedly tested, with unvarying results every time. Anyone attempting to do so will be labeled as a deep-state, fake-news, pinko liberal commie pole-smoker.
In fact, the only proven way to counter a bullshit conspiracy theory is with an even loonier bullshit conspiracy theory. I'm afraid I'm not up to that task, sorry.
There's a Fourth Law that lawyers learn in school, but we don't often see it in print. Time to rectify that omission:
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When you have nothing on your side, pound the table. When science is decidedly not on your side, pound the conspiracy theorists into action.
What I find a little incredulous is that every year, everyone has to file tax returns, and if they're a public corporation, they also have to file a 10K with the SEC. From regular scrutiny of the "big boys" in the telecom sector, I'd like to think that someone should've seen a line item on the order of "Income from Google" . Or at the very least, a line item that made no sense at all, and no one could (or would!) explain what it meant - that should've raised a few eyebrows at some time in the past several years.
If ever we needed to closely examine election practices, it would be in Nunes' home district. One has to suspect something is not kosher, if logic were to have any meaning at all. Because the alternative would be that there really are that many stupid voters in his district....
Koby, you can think when you wish to. As JB pointed out below, there are some rough spots, but your only crime here was to over-simplify.
Here's a more effective idea: instead of rolling everything back, the government should take the promise-breakers into court. The government accuses the company of lying, proves the point, and wins... now what happens?
Easy - the court (which is part of the government) takes over and puts the company into receivership, just the same as if it were financially insolvent. Only now, the appointed receiver is tasked with finding and getting court approval for a new leadership team. If this new team can prove itself capable, then the court awards them stewardship in perpetuity, subject to the normal rules of business (hiring and firing, etc.).
But the catch here is, they are only stewards, not owners - that job falls to the employees at the moment. There's not much that can beat an employee-owned organization for motivated performance, to be sure.
And to top it off, the failing execs? They get bupkis - no golden parachute(s), nada. They can keep what they had in the bank at the time the court action started, and that's it. Even more than the above, this should highly motivate executives to keep it honest.
Sadly, California will spend way more than $100,000 in time and effort to make T-Mobile pay the fine(s). The system needs to stop thinking in terms of loss-of-money as a punishment, and start thinking in terms of loss-of-stature for the perpetrator(s). Things like prison, or at least banishment from ever again holding a similar executive position, those would be much stronger deterrents, I should think.
As soon as I see the words "maritime law", I immediately flag the post and move on. These are the same idiots who think that a courtroom with an American flag that has gold fringe around the edge means that the court has no jurisdiction over them. Somehow they've tied, in their tiny minds, maritime law with gold fringe, which to them means an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Most of us know how to laugh silently, when we observe this happening, as the judge trots out the smack-down hammer.
You seem to forget something..... Dominion's not suing over security concerns, it's suing over the image portrayed by #45's Clowns-R-Us cabal. They don't need to prove that they have top-notch security, they need only prove that the "evidence" claimed by the defendants is not acceptable as a matter of both law and fact, and therefore was intended, with malice aforethought, to harm the legal business interests of Dominion. That's not a very high bar to hurdle.
However, Dominion isn't after money (except lawyers' fees), they after a total apology, in public. As widespread as possible, meaning across every venue that hosted their crap in the first place. Can you see it now, FOXNews and OANN being forced to host an appearance by each defendant, where they recant their earlier outcries? I've got the popcorn, you bring the drinks!
I note the irony of you claiming that Dominion's cases are SLAPP suits, that's rich. But tell me, why would Dominion fear discovery? Or did you not realize that they have nothing to fear after all? Oh, wait, I know... They are paying for legal advice from a team of lawyers who earned more money in the past 72 hours than you made all last year. Could that be what's getting you down, Bunky?
Cheer up! Dominion isn't coming after you, even though you yourownself just defamed them by specifically calling them corrupt, and more than once at that. No, they can ignore you, but they can't ignore those with a public presence on the scale of Giuliani and company. If they were to "just shrug it off", they'd essentially be saying that they don't care about their reputation, and that'd be the end of the ball game for them, right there.
Care to try again? Or did I just go over your head?
#
Disclaimer: I own more than a few shares of both Dominion and Diebold.
... rather than one controlled by a few dominant companies and/or bad government actors.
FTFY.
Before submitting this, I gave my added words some thought. Government actors, USA or otherwise, are not necessarily stupid about tech or the internet. They might be personally so for whatevrer reason, but they have staffers, nearly all of whom are young and quite capable of understanding, and using, both tech and the internet. The problem really boils down to the BGA (bad government actor) abusing his/her power for personal gain over the good of the country (and/or the internet itself). Which is why we have the word "grandstanding" in our lexicon. Sad, that.
... does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?
Comes to that, it would seem that his suits for defamation have no weight - the evidence that he wasn't defamed (except for his personal feelz) is that he was re-elected quite handily. I'd say "case dismissed for lack of merit".
My comment was meant as a play on his comment, where he said he doesn't do Facebook, and I tried to one-up him be denying even so much as any knowledge of Fb. Sorry if my intent was not as obvious as you might've wished.
I should have emphasized that a quite strong scrutiny would be necessary in order to correctly ascertain the will of the people. As to collecting signatures, I'm not sure who you refer to as "the people in charge", but I'll take the liberty of assuming that you mean one of the two parties. That said, the party heads in each state would have to do the grunt work in the field, as the national heads already have their hands full, trying to convince the House to do an impeachment.
And do recall that I said "50,000 in each of a simple majority of States", which means that states that are predominately one party or the other will tend to have an easier time finding people to sign the petition afffecting the opposing party. And therein lays a rub - this could easily mushroom into a never-ending cycle as one party assumes the mantle of power, then the mantle swings to the other party. Some kind of criterion would have to be instituted to prevent abuse, to be sure. Equally a sure thing would be that I'm not the best candidate to be makingd any such decisions on the why's and wherefore's and all that.
But at 26 States times 100,000 signatures, that's 2.6 million people who'd like to be heard on the matter, not a small number I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps a larger percentage of States to make the grade.... That would mean that the required number of signatures would pretty much have to include States that lean in both conservative and liberal directions. (At least as things stand now, and quite likely for the near-term future.)
ECA, I do agree with your assessment of how bad the decision of Citizens is, but it's now the law of the land, and can be overturned only by an act of Congress, or another USSC case that reverses it. Neither of which is likely at this point in time.
But the thrust of your question was, who's responsible for this calamity? And I pointed out that the 14th Amendment was the fundamental villian at fault. Quite a few of the Supreme Court decisions since then that expand the "meaning" of 14A have not been universally met with satisifaction amongst either lawyers or the public at large.
<rant time>
One has to admire the Constitution, the very document where the Founders said "... of the People, by the People, and for the People. They then immediately let us elect people to only two of the three branches of government. I understand that a Justice should not have to fight to get re-elected every so often, but back then, most older white males tended to retire when they felt the urge to spend their golden years looking out over the lake/pond/valley/what-have-you, and not try to be hyper-ego, "look at me, I'm still capable" senile old white men.
My one regret is they didn't insert a clause that would've allowed us to recall a senile idiot, or an obviously political choice that has no business sitting on that particular court. One way to institute that would be a petition of, say, 50,000 signatures each from at least a simple majority of the States. That would force Congress to impeach the so-and-so (unless he resigned "for the good of the country"). If the Senate said "No, he's good", then another petition of 100,000 signatures each from a simple majority of the States would be an automatic "Strike Three, Yer Outta Here!", and the President and Senate would have to go back to the drawing board. (Barrett might or might not survive such a challenge, but can you imagine Kavanaugh doing so, given the number of women voters in this country?)
For that one, you're gonna have to go all the way back to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. The Supreme Court has been ever-more closely defining it's intent since 1870.
The Congressmen and State Legislators of back then, or the Supreme Court starting in 1870 and continuing right up to *Citizens United" of a few years ago.... pick your choice as to who you wish to invite to your "rubber hose room" session.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Or even more important, how to you prevent proving George Santyana was correct, if you don't have a way to learn history?!
On the post: 'Historic' FCC Robocall Fine For Burkman, Wohl Could Prove Hollow
Anyone here remember WATS? That was the Wide Area Telephone System, instituted to provide businesses a way to pay ahead for unlimited long distance calls. (Usually an atrocious amount.) Prior to that point in time? It was pay per call, per minute - no matter who you were.
I say, let us return to those days, with a few updates for the modern age. For starters, a new phone number that immediately jumps into the fray by making, say, 2,000 calls a month, that's a boiler room operation. Ding! $1.00 per call, please. And absofuckin'lutely NO exceptions for politicians, NPOs, campaigns, (alleged) debt collectors, or any other such nonsense.
"Oh, but that violates a free speech right!" Jesus H. Christ on a jumped-up Pogo Stick, give me a break already. There's nothing stating that phones are the only way to communicate with people. In fact, we had the Pony Express and the US Postal Service more than a century before we had phones, and the telegraph more than half a century apriori. Wouldn't you know it, the advent of the phone didn't wipe them out, either.
For those who might think (incorrectly) this is all a bit draconian, we have an example already to hand - ISPs announcing "traffic management" plans for heavy users. Works for them, eh? And as for "government interference".... Ever hear of rationing for heavy water users, in an attempt to save some water for everyone? Or how about surcharges for electricity usage over a certain (highly artificial) amount?
(At least in my area, these utilities are owned by the citizens, and run by, you guessed it, the government. In the name of the people, of course.)
On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Again, But He's Still Suing The Satirical Cow Who Mocked Him
In general, a suit that has no activity for 3 years is automatically dismissed "for lack of prosecution" on the part of the plaintiff. Just filing papers to keep it alive is not enough, there must be substantive progress.
Her attorneys can file for an earlier dismissal, but they'd have to plead something along the lines that Nunes and/or Biss have misled the could in some manner. That might come to pass, if the Lizzo/Hearst suit should reveal funding sources that can be related to Nunes, and that there might appear some manner of impropriety in the source(s) of such.
On the post: Court Slaps Down Ajit Pai's Lazy FCC Ruling On 5G Safety, Likely Fueling Conspiracy Theorists
Re:
Remember, imaginary shit can't be countered with evidence that can be repeatedly tested, with unvarying results every time. Anyone attempting to do so will be labeled as a deep-state, fake-news, pinko liberal commie pole-smoker.
In fact, the only proven way to counter a bullshit conspiracy theory is with an even loonier bullshit conspiracy theory. I'm afraid I'm not up to that task, sorry.
On the post: Court Slaps Down Ajit Pai's Lazy FCC Ruling On 5G Safety, Likely Fueling Conspiracy Theorists
There's a Fourth Law that lawyers learn in school, but we don't often see it in print. Time to rectify that omission:
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When you have nothing on your side, pound the table.
When science is decidedly not on your side, pound the conspiracy theorists into action.
On the post: Google Has Been Paying Wireless Carriers Billions To Not Develop Competing App Stores
eyhe
What I find a little incredulous is that every year, everyone has to file tax returns, and if they're a public corporation, they also have to file a 10K with the SEC. From regular scrutiny of the "big boys" in the telecom sector, I'd like to think that someone should've seen a line item on the order of "Income from Google" . Or at the very least, a line item that made no sense at all, and no one could (or would!) explain what it meant - that should've raised a few eyebrows at some time in the past several years.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
If ever we needed to closely examine election practices, it would be in Nunes' home district. One has to suspect something is not kosher, if logic were to have any meaning at all. Because the alternative would be that there really are that many stupid voters in his district....
On the post: California Regulators Say T-Mobile Lied To Gain Sprint Merger Approval
Re: Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again
Koby, you can think when you wish to. As JB pointed out below, there are some rough spots, but your only crime here was to over-simplify.
Here's a more effective idea: instead of rolling everything back, the government should take the promise-breakers into court. The government accuses the company of lying, proves the point, and wins... now what happens?
Easy - the court (which is part of the government) takes over and puts the company into receivership, just the same as if it were financially insolvent. Only now, the appointed receiver is tasked with finding and getting court approval for a new leadership team. If this new team can prove itself capable, then the court awards them stewardship in perpetuity, subject to the normal rules of business (hiring and firing, etc.).
But the catch here is, they are only stewards, not owners - that job falls to the employees at the moment. There's not much that can beat an employee-owned organization for motivated performance, to be sure.
And to top it off, the failing execs? They get bupkis - no golden parachute(s), nada. They can keep what they had in the bank at the time the court action started, and that's it. Even more than the above, this should highly motivate executives to keep it honest.
Sadly, California will spend way more than $100,000 in time and effort to make T-Mobile pay the fine(s). The system needs to stop thinking in terms of loss-of-money as a punishment, and start thinking in terms of loss-of-stature for the perpetrator(s). Things like prison, or at least banishment from ever again holding a similar executive position, those would be much stronger deterrents, I should think.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
As soon as I see the words "maritime law", I immediately flag the post and move on. These are the same idiots who think that a courtroom with an American flag that has gold fringe around the edge means that the court has no jurisdiction over them. Somehow they've tied, in their tiny minds, maritime law with gold fringe, which to them means an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Most of us know how to laugh silently, when we observe this happening, as the judge trots out the smack-down hammer.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re:
You seem to forget something..... Dominion's not suing over security concerns, it's suing over the image portrayed by #45's Clowns-R-Us cabal. They don't need to prove that they have top-notch security, they need only prove that the "evidence" claimed by the defendants is not acceptable as a matter of both law and fact, and therefore was intended, with malice aforethought, to harm the legal business interests of Dominion. That's not a very high bar to hurdle.
However, Dominion isn't after money (except lawyers' fees), they after a total apology, in public. As widespread as possible, meaning across every venue that hosted their crap in the first place. Can you see it now, FOXNews and OANN being forced to host an appearance by each defendant, where they recant their earlier outcries? I've got the popcorn, you bring the drinks!
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Keep it coming
resty,
I note the irony of you claiming that Dominion's cases are SLAPP suits, that's rich. But tell me, why would Dominion fear discovery? Or did you not realize that they have nothing to fear after all? Oh, wait, I know... They are paying for legal advice from a team of lawyers who earned more money in the past 72 hours than you made all last year. Could that be what's getting you down, Bunky?
Cheer up! Dominion isn't coming after you, even though you yourownself just defamed them by specifically calling them corrupt, and more than once at that. No, they can ignore you, but they can't ignore those with a public presence on the scale of Giuliani and company. If they were to "just shrug it off", they'd essentially be saying that they don't care about their reputation, and that'd be the end of the ball game for them, right there.
Care to try again? Or did I just go over your head?
#
Disclaimer: I own more than a few shares of both Dominion and Diebold.
On the post: Good News: Twitter Announces An Excellent Lead For The Bluesky Decentralized Social Media Protocol Project
FTFY.
Before submitting this, I gave my added words some thought. Government actors, USA or otherwise, are not necessarily stupid about tech or the internet. They might be personally so for whatevrer reason, but they have staffers, nearly all of whom are young and quite capable of understanding, and using, both tech and the internet. The problem really boils down to the BGA (bad government actor) abusing his/her power for personal gain over the good of the country (and/or the internet itself). Which is why we have the word "grandstanding" in our lexicon. Sad, that.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Speaking of our favorite whipping boy....
Comes to that, it would seem that his suits for defamation have no weight - the evidence that he wasn't defamed (except for his personal feelz) is that he was re-elected quite handily. I'd say "case dismissed for lack of merit".
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re:
Say what, you haven't brought suit against them yet?! They need to pay for their thoughtlessness, big time.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: Re: Re: Facebook what?
My comment was meant as a play on his comment, where he said he doesn't do Facebook, and I tried to one-up him be denying even so much as any knowledge of Fb. Sorry if my intent was not as obvious as you might've wished.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: One Size Doesn't Fit All
You forgot a word..... Just sayin'.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: Facebook what?
You say you don't do Facebook, eh? Then I guess you're not the one to ask just what the fuck is this Facebook thing I keep reading about....
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: still want to know
I should have emphasized that a quite strong scrutiny would be necessary in order to correctly ascertain the will of the people. As to collecting signatures, I'm not sure who you refer to as "the people in charge", but I'll take the liberty of assuming that you mean one of the two parties. That said, the party heads in each state would have to do the grunt work in the field, as the national heads already have their hands full, trying to convince the House to do an impeachment.
And do recall that I said "50,000 in each of a simple majority of States", which means that states that are predominately one party or the other will tend to have an easier time finding people to sign the petition afffecting the opposing party. And therein lays a rub - this could easily mushroom into a never-ending cycle as one party assumes the mantle of power, then the mantle swings to the other party. Some kind of criterion would have to be instituted to prevent abuse, to be sure. Equally a sure thing would be that I'm not the best candidate to be makingd any such decisions on the why's and wherefore's and all that.
But at 26 States times 100,000 signatures, that's 2.6 million people who'd like to be heard on the matter, not a small number I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps a larger percentage of States to make the grade.... That would mean that the required number of signatures would pretty much have to include States that lean in both conservative and liberal directions. (At least as things stand now, and quite likely for the near-term future.)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: still want to know
ECA, I do agree with your assessment of how bad the decision of Citizens is, but it's now the law of the land, and can be overturned only by an act of Congress, or another USSC case that reverses it. Neither of which is likely at this point in time.
But the thrust of your question was, who's responsible for this calamity? And I pointed out that the 14th Amendment was the fundamental villian at fault. Quite a few of the Supreme Court decisions since then that expand the "meaning" of 14A have not been universally met with satisifaction amongst either lawyers or the public at large.
<rant time>
One has to admire the Constitution, the very document where the Founders said "... of the People, by the People, and for the People. They then immediately let us elect people to only two of the three branches of government. I understand that a Justice should not have to fight to get re-elected every so often, but back then, most older white males tended to retire when they felt the urge to spend their golden years looking out over the lake/pond/valley/what-have-you, and not try to be hyper-ego, "look at me, I'm still capable" senile old white men.
My one regret is they didn't insert a clause that would've allowed us to recall a senile idiot, or an obviously political choice that has no business sitting on that particular court. One way to institute that would be a petition of, say, 50,000 signatures each from at least a simple majority of the States. That would force Congress to impeach the so-and-so (unless he resigned "for the good of the country"). If the Senate said "No, he's good", then another petition of 100,000 signatures each from a simple majority of the States would be an automatic "Strike Three, Yer Outta Here!", and the President and Senate would have to go back to the drawing board. (Barrett might or might not survive such a challenge, but can you imagine Kavanaugh doing so, given the number of women voters in this country?)
Seems doable to me.
</rant>
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: still want to know
For that one, you're gonna have to go all the way back to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. The Supreme Court has been ever-more closely defining it's intent since 1870.
The Congressmen and State Legislators of back then, or the Supreme Court starting in 1870 and continuing right up to *Citizens United" of a few years ago.... pick your choice as to who you wish to invite to your "rubber hose room" session.
Next >>