Re: Re: Shit sandwich, or shit sandwich with cyanide
the ACLU is suing the Dept of Education for raising the due process requirements to something resembling the bare minimum federal courts require for potentially life-destroying criminal charges and trials.
Probably because a title X hearing is not, in fact, an article 3 court in any way. A student is not deprived of life or liberty by a title X court (which is the standard in which constitutional due process applies). If you have no right to attend college, there is not a reason to apply criminal due process standards. Just because criminal action can't be proven, doesn't mean there isn't ample evidence of behavior you have exhibited that the college might not want to be associated with. You are complaining they aren't meeting criminal due process, but it isn't a criminal proceeding.
Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?
Your issue might be that at least 3 dialects of American English make use of the phrase.
In the trump supporter Dialect, "America first" generally means "do things that upset people online".
In the Trump donor Dialect, it means "My bank account first".
In the Trump Dialect, it means "An eternal war to spin what makes my bank account bigger to get cheers from the people whose bank accounts I am draining."
There is a lot of nuance in the various Trump Dialects, to a near Groot degree.
Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"
And anyway, a President is ENTITLED by will of the majority to appoint whoever he wants and surely to implement his notions.
Which is why there is a lot of anger over Mitch McConnel's decision to hold up Obama appointees, fast track Trump Appointees, and his stated intent to not confirm Biden appointees.
The article noted that FCC nominees are normally appointed in partisan pairs (one R, one D) to avoid the very problem this appointment would present.
While this appointee is unqualified, Its the history of appointments and stated future environment for appointments that is the real issue being discussed.
The Court therefore finds that even the straightforward ban on the number 69 has been arbitrarily applied.
The fact that initial reviewers are reversed on appeal “approximately 65 to 75 percent of the time,” id. at 31, supports the Court’s conclusion that the DMV’s “haphazard interpretations” of Section 206.00(c)(7)(D) apparent in the record are not anomalous, Minn. Voters, 138 S. Ct. at 1888. The Court therefore concludes that the DMV has failed “to articulate [a] sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out,” and holds Section 206.00(c)(7)(D) to be unreasonable.
Just to highlight the passages of the very article that point that out. The court did not rule that the state couldn't control obscene speech, but that the standards for what constituted obscene speech were broad and arbitrary. For instance, Profanity is still barred.
Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-controlled o
As i've noted before. They are Schrodinger's douchebag. Debate law and they debate the moral impact. Debate the moral impact and they debate the law. They don't see these as separate concerns, but that the law is morality, and therefore by conceeding the law you have concceeded morality.
That said, I don't think they actually understand what the argument means. They aren't arguing a point, they are bringing up a point and inserting it into a conversation and letting you argue their own point for them. What they are doing is repeating a broad general argument we've all heard before that they probably heard being made by someone who is much smarter and in better detail for more coherency, but they didn't really understand it. They ape the summary of the argument without understanding the substance, so arguing against the substance doesn't help because they don't actually know what is being said.
And that person is? The FCC transition team was revealed a few days ago, but I see a lot of conflicting predictions as to who Biden will nominate to head the FCC.
Re: Re: Re: Thrown out by the Supreme Court in 5,4,3...
Well.....no.
The supreme court ruled that law enforcement did not hold a general duty of care to protect citizens. However if you read the ruling you can see an attempt to set a higher bar for assigning the responsibility for the actions of a criminal to police inaction or indirect action but can find there is room for situations in which police action directly creates a specific, articulate, and immediate danger.
So while they had no general duty to protect her from a sex offender or even a rapist who had decided to track down and kill a victim generally, the actions of the officers created a specific danger to specific individuals in the immediate future that reasonably would not have existed, in ways that violate every policy on the books to prevent this crap. That is why the arguments have largely rested on Qualified Immunity and not a lack of liability entirely. They created liability and now need to shield themselves from liability.
This circumstance is a perfect highlight of why police dash cams exist. if they position themselves as they pull up, that camera should have an excellent view. The officer was called to the scene of an accident, for which documentation Procedure would be to record this interaction, both to document the scene, and to document interactions with the public, particularly those who will likely be on edge from an accident, so a video if not an audio record exists. There is only 1 reason to actively turn off your own police dash cam to prevent a record of what you do next. Whatever the cop wanted to do, it was something immoral or illegal you don't want documented. Which of course is how the article positions his motives.
That's how you know you're going to get the best protecting/serving: when a cop turns off his camera before interacting with you. There are zero reasons to turn off a camera. Video redaction isn't some sorcery years away from practical use. If a cop turns off a camera, it's because they want to engage in behavior citizens (and possibly courts) might find abusive.
The hypothetical you pose is well covered by Techdirt's position. You might be referring to more specific motives asserted by commentators, but you also don't make that clear, so I can't guess at your intent and have to assume you are responding directly to the article as a top level comment. So im not sure why you are harping on the Officer's intent, as not documenting the stop is the intent both you and techdirt assert.
A dash cam traditionally records forward, to show what the driver was seeing. These products are focused on providing evidence that the driver of the car reacted properly to something happening while driving and gained popularity initially as a means of defeating assumptions that grifters relied on to commit insurance scams. Cops however place themselves behind a scene, in part so the dash cam can capture events.
A truck dash cam is and was unlikely to have caught any interactions between the cop and driver because the driver and cop were unlikly to ever be in front of the truck's dash. Moreover, widely available models will generally not be active while the car is off because of limited disk space and to not drain the vehicle battery preventing the capture of even an audio exchange with the cop. (The company is concerned about accidents the trucker might be blamed for, not protecting him from bad cops).
The defendant is the cop. The cop who actively prevented a record of the events from taking place. Do you believe the court should defer to the cop and provide qualified immunity from this civil suit rather than let the suit continue?
He turns left. He then goes 270 degrees, and as a result has turned further right and convinced everyone he was juking left. Then he complains about not getting enought credit for his left turn.
the marched shouting "Jews will not replace us" and other nazi slogans, like "Blood and Soil". "You will not replace us" is what the nazi's tried to spin the chants as.
By the time we are talking about complaining about section 230, we are way past the types of action you discuss and into into 1st amendment territory. Techdirt has engaged on the idea that these people could let the market decide, but that they don't want to. They want the reach of facebook or twitter, not Parlor or 4 chan. This isn't about that step. This is about the first amendment step.
He is specifically refrencing the Trump trains over the weekend which suddenly found republican support for blocking traffic, preventing commerce, and requiring the Biden campaign bus to call for a police escort when they were surrounded by armed trump supporters. Of course I imagine their willingness to run people over is why they chose to protest in cars, rather than on foot.
The difference being that those who want Android, but not the google services, can indeed fork android without restriction. The end user is perfectly free to install a forked android OS without violating contracts. But if the end user or the device manufacturer want Google services, they have to agree to use the non-forked android.
The device is yours to do with as you please. Access to the google services is restricted to supported branches of the OS.
Its the Natural monopoly argument - where financial barriers to entry into the search market (coding an algorithm, creating and maintaining an indexed database, bandwidth costs, marketing to attract users all cost lots of money) are compounded by an inability to grow the pie (everyone who needs internet search is already using a search engine) and slow returns on investment preclude traditional fundraising methods (you are unlikely to make money fast enough for investors to fund your project), the likelihood of a direct competitor even making it to market, let alone surviving to capture a market share big enough to make a profit is slim.
Its the reason utility regulation exists, to manage markets where forcing competition will not improve the market, and so we allow the monopoly and instead manage the harms of said monopoly.
I'm not sure why a reader of this site would be unfamilliar with financial barriers to entry as its a huge problem in the cable industry.
According to the FBI, Antifa is not an organization. It is an ideology that is followed by local and regional groups, but has no central organization. You don't get how that works, I understand. Hierarchies are the foundation of right-political thought and the idea that you can believe in something without a supreme leader to dictate group thought is beyond you, but antifa is not one organized group. (CMOA - The FBI has also stated that its decentralized nature doesn't not mean Antifa 'nodes' can't be threats or that violence or violent rhetoric isn't employed by some adherents, only that talking about antifa as a single group with unified messaging and direction is innacurate) I'm curious though, who would the donors be that fund both this think tank and antifa? What is your evidence of the claim? Is it that centralized right-leaning organizations designated as terror threats by DHS are funded by the same people who fund organizations that claim the DHS is lying to the american public? Is this you projecting right wing dirty secrets onto the left again?
The quote doesn't say that antifa is not a threat. It says that the data shows that when it comes to actual action in the US, most domestic terror activities (as defined in the paper) that occurred in recent years have been perpetuated by right-polictical movements, as opposed to left political movements, Religious movements, or ethno-nationalist movements. It explicitly acknowledges the presence of left-political violence and the threat left-political, right-political, and religious violence pose in the coming year. It only states that the most likely threat is right-political based on current trends, as also reflected in DHS communications.
Nor was the quote meant to disprove an assertion that antifa is a threat. Stone was David was posing agreement with Stone - nothing that the DHS is publicly more concerned with violence coming from the strongly organized national right-political groups as opposed to the loosely organized mostly local left-political groups. Rocky also supported this claim with data analysis indicating that currently Right-political violence is the major motivation behind most current violent events.
No one is saying what you think they are saying, suggesting you probably don't know what you are arguing.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Re: Shit sandwich, or shit sandwich with cyanide
Probably because a title X hearing is not, in fact, an article 3 court in any way. A student is not deprived of life or liberty by a title X court (which is the standard in which constitutional due process applies). If you have no right to attend college, there is not a reason to apply criminal due process standards. Just because criminal action can't be proven, doesn't mean there isn't ample evidence of behavior you have exhibited that the college might not want to be associated with. You are complaining they aren't meeting criminal due process, but it isn't a criminal proceeding.
On the post: GOP Confirms Unqualified Simington to FCC With Eye On Crippling Biden FCC
Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?
Your issue might be that at least 3 dialects of American English make use of the phrase.
In the trump supporter Dialect, "America first" generally means "do things that upset people online".
In the Trump donor Dialect, it means "My bank account first".
In the Trump Dialect, it means "An eternal war to spin what makes my bank account bigger to get cheers from the people whose bank accounts I am draining."
There is a lot of nuance in the various Trump Dialects, to a near Groot degree.
On the post: GOP Confirms Unqualified Simington to FCC With Eye On Crippling Biden FCC
Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"
Which is why there is a lot of anger over Mitch McConnel's decision to hold up Obama appointees, fast track Trump Appointees, and his stated intent to not confirm Biden appointees.
The article noted that FCC nominees are normally appointed in partisan pairs (one R, one D) to avoid the very problem this appointment would present.
While this appointee is unqualified, Its the history of appointments and stated future environment for appointments that is the real issue being discussed.
On the post: Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ban On 'Offensive' License Plates
Re: Re: Re: not free speech issue
But how that speech is curbed remains a question.
Just to highlight the passages of the very article that point that out. The court did not rule that the state couldn't control obscene speech, but that the standards for what constituted obscene speech were broad and arbitrary. For instance, Profanity is still barred.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-controlled o
As i've noted before. They are Schrodinger's douchebag. Debate law and they debate the moral impact. Debate the moral impact and they debate the law. They don't see these as separate concerns, but that the law is morality, and therefore by conceeding the law you have concceeded morality.
That said, I don't think they actually understand what the argument means. They aren't arguing a point, they are bringing up a point and inserting it into a conversation and letting you argue their own point for them. What they are doing is repeating a broad general argument we've all heard before that they probably heard being made by someone who is much smarter and in better detail for more coherency, but they didn't really understand it. They ape the summary of the argument without understanding the substance, so arguing against the substance doesn't help because they don't actually know what is being said.
On the post: More Evidence FCC Claims That Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Broadband Investment Were Bullshit
Re:
And that person is? The FCC transition team was revealed a few days ago, but I see a lot of conflicting predictions as to who Biden will nominate to head the FCC.
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
Re: Re: Re: Thrown out by the Supreme Court in 5,4,3...
Well.....no.
The supreme court ruled that law enforcement did not hold a general duty of care to protect citizens. However if you read the ruling you can see an attempt to set a higher bar for assigning the responsibility for the actions of a criminal to police inaction or indirect action but can find there is room for situations in which police action directly creates a specific, articulate, and immediate danger.
So while they had no general duty to protect her from a sex offender or even a rapist who had decided to track down and kill a victim generally, the actions of the officers created a specific danger to specific individuals in the immediate future that reasonably would not have existed, in ways that violate every policy on the books to prevent this crap. That is why the arguments have largely rested on Qualified Immunity and not a lack of liability entirely. They created liability and now need to shield themselves from liability.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re: Re:
God hell why can't i break out of those when I preview them?
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re:
This circumstance is a perfect highlight of why police dash cams exist. if they position themselves as they pull up, that camera should have an excellent view. The officer was called to the scene of an accident, for which documentation Procedure would be to record this interaction, both to document the scene, and to document interactions with the public, particularly those who will likely be on edge from an accident, so a video if not an audio record exists. There is only 1 reason to actively turn off your own police dash cam to prevent a record of what you do next. Whatever the cop wanted to do, it was something immoral or illegal you don't want documented. Which of course is how the article positions his motives.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re:
Ah. Yes that makes more sense given your other posts. There was a reason for my incredulity.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re: Why no truck camera?
A dash cam traditionally records forward, to show what the driver was seeing. These products are focused on providing evidence that the driver of the car reacted properly to something happening while driving and gained popularity initially as a means of defeating assumptions that grifters relied on to commit insurance scams. Cops however place themselves behind a scene, in part so the dash cam can capture events.
A truck dash cam is and was unlikely to have caught any interactions between the cop and driver because the driver and cop were unlikly to ever be in front of the truck's dash. Moreover, widely available models will generally not be active while the car is off because of limited disk space and to not drain the vehicle battery preventing the capture of even an audio exchange with the cop. (The company is concerned about accidents the trucker might be blamed for, not protecting him from bad cops).
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re:
The defendant is the cop. The cop who actively prevented a record of the events from taking place. Do you believe the court should defer to the cop and provide qualified immunity from this civil suit rather than let the suit continue?
On the post: Another Arrest Shows It's Pretty Much Everyone But Antifa Engaging In Anti-Government Violence
Re:
He turns left. He then goes 270 degrees, and as a result has turned further right and convinced everyone he was juking left. Then he complains about not getting enought credit for his left turn.
On the post: Another Arrest Shows It's Pretty Much Everyone But Antifa Engaging In Anti-Government Violence
Re:
the marched shouting "Jews will not replace us" and other nazi slogans, like "Blood and Soil". "You will not replace us" is what the nazi's tried to spin the chants as.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: Not the complete picture
By the time we are talking about complaining about section 230, we are way past the types of action you discuss and into into 1st amendment territory. Techdirt has engaged on the idea that these people could let the market decide, but that they don't want to. They want the reach of facebook or twitter, not Parlor or 4 chan. This isn't about that step. This is about the first amendment step.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re:
He is specifically refrencing the Trump trains over the weekend which suddenly found republican support for blocking traffic, preventing commerce, and requiring the Biden campaign bus to call for a police escort when they were surrounded by armed trump supporters. Of course I imagine their willingness to run people over is why they chose to protest in cars, rather than on foot.
On the post: Supporters Of Using Antitrust Against Big Tech Should Be Very Disappointed In How Weak The DOJ's Case Is
Re:
Apple doesn't compete with google in search. They compete in device sales, but those are different markets.
For reasons Mike notes I find the argument rediculous, but not because Google and Apple are competitors.
On the post: Supporters Of Using Antitrust Against Big Tech Should Be Very Disappointed In How Weak The DOJ's Case Is
Re:
The difference being that those who want Android, but not the google services, can indeed fork android without restriction. The end user is perfectly free to install a forked android OS without violating contracts. But if the end user or the device manufacturer want Google services, they have to agree to use the non-forked android.
The device is yours to do with as you please. Access to the google services is restricted to supported branches of the OS.
On the post: Trademark Genericide And One Big Way The DOJ Admits That Its Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Is Utter Garbage
Re:
Its the Natural monopoly argument - where financial barriers to entry into the search market (coding an algorithm, creating and maintaining an indexed database, bandwidth costs, marketing to attract users all cost lots of money) are compounded by an inability to grow the pie (everyone who needs internet search is already using a search engine) and slow returns on investment preclude traditional fundraising methods (you are unlikely to make money fast enough for investors to fund your project), the likelihood of a direct competitor even making it to market, let alone surviving to capture a market share big enough to make a profit is slim.
Its the reason utility regulation exists, to manage markets where forcing competition will not improve the market, and so we allow the monopoly and instead manage the harms of said monopoly.
I'm not sure why a reader of this site would be unfamilliar with financial barriers to entry as its a huge problem in the cable industry.
On the post: Federal Officers Are Still Struggling To Find Evidence Of A Massive Antifa Conspiracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the FBI, Antifa is not an organization. It is an ideology that is followed by local and regional groups, but has no central organization. You don't get how that works, I understand. Hierarchies are the foundation of right-political thought and the idea that you can believe in something without a supreme leader to dictate group thought is beyond you, but antifa is not one organized group. (CMOA - The FBI has also stated that its decentralized nature doesn't not mean Antifa 'nodes' can't be threats or that violence or violent rhetoric isn't employed by some adherents, only that talking about antifa as a single group with unified messaging and direction is innacurate) I'm curious though, who would the donors be that fund both this think tank and antifa? What is your evidence of the claim? Is it that centralized right-leaning organizations designated as terror threats by DHS are funded by the same people who fund organizations that claim the DHS is lying to the american public? Is this you projecting right wing dirty secrets onto the left again?
The quote doesn't say that antifa is not a threat. It says that the data shows that when it comes to actual action in the US, most domestic terror activities (as defined in the paper) that occurred in recent years have been perpetuated by right-polictical movements, as opposed to left political movements, Religious movements, or ethno-nationalist movements. It explicitly acknowledges the presence of left-political violence and the threat left-political, right-political, and religious violence pose in the coming year. It only states that the most likely threat is right-political based on current trends, as also reflected in DHS communications.
Nor was the quote meant to disprove an assertion that antifa is a threat. Stone was David was posing agreement with Stone - nothing that the DHS is publicly more concerned with violence coming from the strongly organized national right-political groups as opposed to the loosely organized mostly local left-political groups. Rocky also supported this claim with data analysis indicating that currently Right-political violence is the major motivation behind most current violent events.
No one is saying what you think they are saying, suggesting you probably don't know what you are arguing.
Next >>