...it's still plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies directly responsible for violent acts committed by others.
No, not even nearly that direct. It's plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies directly responsible for people theoretically enticing people who might possibly have the right ideology to be encouraged to commit violent acts, into being recruited to commit violent acts.
It's so remote it comes down to, "You're letting people of a religion I don't like discuss politics."
First, Michalski apparently consented to the search by using his face to unlock the phone. If this was as voluntary as it appears, it pretty much eliminates a Constitutional challenge.
Was it truly consent? Or just submission to authority?
When held at gunpoint by a mugger and one voluntarily gives over one's money, that does not imply consent.
Ah, yes, the usual b******* straw man argument about the Democrats and guns.
What the no fly lists do is crap on citizen rights.
Take these men: Their right to liberty? Crapped on. Pursuit of happiness? Crapped on. Due process? Crapped on. Redress? Crapped on. Representation? Crapped on. Ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Crapped on.
Right to life could have been crapped on, too, in that UAE prison but they survived. (I can just hear the FBI agents complaining, "Why can't we crap on that, too? It would be so much easier to get rid of this infernal court case if these men were dead.")
Even the right to bear arms...well, these men might still have that here in the US...but they couldn't get here, could they? Crapped on.
So what were the Democrats up in arms about?
Because the Republicans passed a law that barred the government from using no fly to interfere with Second Amendment rights. In essence, what that law says is, "Thou shalt respect the citizens' Second Amendment rights even if they are on the no fly list...BUT OTHERWISE WE ARE FINE WITH YOUR USE OF NO FLY TO CRAP ON EVERY OTHER CITIZEN RIGHT. Life? Liberty? All those other rights? Crap on those at will. But not our SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT COW!"
And that is what the Democrats were up in arms about.
It is not a matter of suppressing or censoring conservative agendas. The problem is that these sites persist in "promoting" liberal and Progressive agendas.
Suppose the top three hyperlinks in every Google search result were the conservative leaders: you would still find the conservatives up in arms because the remaining links present liberal/progressive positions.
Their concern is not fair presentation at all, but rather the utter silencing of "unwanted" viewpoints.
But they will tell you it is not really censorship. No, not at all.
Ha, ha, very funny this trademark joke. How about we tell a good one in return? No Russian product may enjoy the protection of a trademark in the UK. Isn't that a great joke?
You mean, like, down with the rest of the junk links?
See the thing is, most of these people have a completely inflated sense of their own importance. They spew out a page full of crap, and then when their overly swollen ego isn't stroked with a first-link orgasm, they're just certain it must be because they're being censored.
It tries to hide these behind antitrust claims, saying that it's about ensuring competition and preventing the exercise of market power that "harms consumers, including through the exercise of bias."
When this Administration says anything like this, it invariably means handing power to the large corporations at the expense of everyone else. As if the very concept of this executive order weren't concerning enough.
Which of the following is not drug paraphernalia? Plastic fork with no tines, headless plastic doll, sun-bleached t-shirt, empty cracker wrapper, discharged flashlight battery, used tampon shell, trashy romance novel missing pages 81 to 92, wadded sheets of old newspaper, 89 cents in miscellaneous loose change, broken collar button, TV remote with no batteries, Bon Jovi CD, or an empty Wendy's fast food bag.
Answer. The joke is on you. Evidently, to a cop, anything whatever can be suspicion of drug activity, if you have the "right look." (Which, in turn, probably comes down to being the "wrong" color.)
California Farm Bureau—which should nominally have the interests of farmers in mind—...
See, there was your first mistake. When you elect a politician, even for an organization like this, they quickly become primarily interested in representing themselves.
On the post: Federal Court Dumps Another Lawsuit Against Twitter For Contributing To Worldwide Terrorism
No, not even nearly that direct. It's plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies directly responsible for people theoretically enticing people who might possibly have the right ideology to be encouraged to commit violent acts, into being recruited to commit violent acts.
It's so remote it comes down to, "You're letting people of a religion I don't like discuss politics."
On the post: Feds Finally Get Around To Using Someone's Face To Unlock Their Cellphone
Submission versus consent
Was it truly consent? Or just submission to authority?
When held at gunpoint by a mugger and one voluntarily gives over one's money, that does not imply consent.
On the post: Brazil's Government Wants Twitter To Turn Over Data On Users Who Mocked Victim Of Assassination Attempt
Time management
On the post: The DOJ's New Net Neutrality Lawsuit Is A Giant Middle Finger To State Rights, Consumers, Competition & The Democratic Process
Re: GOP running for office vs GOP in office
On the post: Court Won't Let FBI Dodge Lawsuit By Removing American Citizen From No-Fly List Shortly Shortly After Being Sued
Re: No Fly List = No Due Process
What the no fly lists do is crap on citizen rights.
Take these men: Their right to liberty? Crapped on. Pursuit of happiness? Crapped on. Due process? Crapped on. Redress? Crapped on. Representation? Crapped on. Ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Crapped on.
Right to life could have been crapped on, too, in that UAE prison but they survived. (I can just hear the FBI agents complaining, "Why can't we crap on that, too? It would be so much easier to get rid of this infernal court case if these men were dead.")
Even the right to bear arms...well, these men might still have that here in the US...but they couldn't get here, could they? Crapped on.
So what were the Democrats up in arms about?
Because the Republicans passed a law that barred the government from using no fly to interfere with Second Amendment rights. In essence, what that law says is, "Thou shalt respect the citizens' Second Amendment rights even if they are on the no fly list...BUT OTHERWISE WE ARE FINE WITH YOUR USE OF NO FLY TO CRAP ON EVERY OTHER CITIZEN RIGHT. Life? Liberty? All those other rights? Crap on those at will. But not our SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT COW!"
And that is what the Democrats were up in arms about.
On the post: Years Later, FTC Wins Case Against Roca Labs For Its Bogus Non-Disparagement Clause
Summing up
Let's see...
Yessiree, that will teach all those bad ol' companies to not use non-disparagement clauses.
On the post: Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed
Not even a pretense of a fair test
In real cases, with real pressure to get a conviction, it probably would have been 100%. Can't let the "bad guys" get away.
On the post: Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'
Re: What am I missing here?
Suppose the top three hyperlinks in every Google search result were the conservative leaders: you would still find the conservatives up in arms because the remaining links present liberal/progressive positions.
Their concern is not fair presentation at all, but rather the utter silencing of "unwanted" viewpoints.
But they will tell you it is not really censorship. No, not at all.
On the post: White House Admits Exec Order To Regulate Social Media Is 'Real,' But No Idea Who Wrote It, And Won't Use It
On the post: Russian Company Wants To Gift A Trademark For 'Chemical Production' On Two Accused Russian Assassins
On the post: Court Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Fabricated list
On the post: Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing
Re: Re: Re: Running as intended...
How do you know those illegal aliens weren't voting for Trump?
On the post: Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing
Billions served
On the post: Google's Chinese Search Engine Will Censor Results, Provide Gov't-Approved Pollution Data
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See the thing is, most of these people have a completely inflated sense of their own importance. They spew out a page full of crap, and then when their overly swollen ego isn't stroked with a first-link orgasm, they're just certain it must be because they're being censored.
On the post: Google's Chinese Search Engine Will Censor Results, Provide Gov't-Approved Pollution Data
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'
Bull**** Alert
When this Administration says anything like this, it invariably means handing power to the large corporations at the expense of everyone else. As if the very concept of this executive order weren't concerning enough.
On the post: Guy In Charge Of EU Copyright Directive Claims He Didn't Know What He Voted On, Needs To Fix Things
Just one
Voss, (sigh) you had one job.
On the post: Cop: Screwdrivers And Wrenches Are Drug Dealer Things; Appeals Court: WTF
Take the test and win a prize
Answer. The joke is on you. Evidently, to a cop, anything whatever can be suspicion of drug activity, if you have the "right look." (Which, in turn, probably comes down to being the "wrong" color.)
On the post: That Bizarre Trademark Suit Between Music Promoters Over An 'Ultra' Trademark Nobody Owned Is Still Going On
Ultra Ultra Everywhere
Or maybe the perfectly named Ultra Ultra. Obviously, it should win double.
Should we drop them a card and then buy popcorn?
On the post: Farmer Lobbying Group Accused Of Selling Out Farmers On Right To Repair Laws
Self-interested politicians
See, there was your first mistake. When you elect a politician, even for an organization like this, they quickly become primarily interested in representing themselves.
Next >>