Huber and her lawyer may have misapprehended the gist of the [...] decision,
Indeed, they may have intentionally misconstrued the decision's intent in forming their complaint, but in their actual reading of the decision, they most definitely miscomprehended the basis of the decision, and the follow-on legal precedent set thereby.
And my response to Ken today would be the same today as it would've been 58 years ago:
What are they gonna do, send me to Viet Nam?
Obviously I'm not a good candidate for the position of Subpoena Compliance Officer. But I do tend to get a case of the ass when any government personage tries to tell me I can't do something that I most certainly can do. And I'm only three-quarters of a century young. Perhaps I'll mellow out with age, who knows.
Probably 30 years ago, maybe longer, I gave up on predicting what a smart lawyer could come up with vis-a-vis a civil cause of action (a tort, if you will). Please don't press me further, my sense of reality is already fragile as it is.
why can't people have their own personal space that they control ON social media?
I have two words for you: ad revenue. You can be damned sure that if I'm (allegedly) in charge of my personal space, then no ads would appear thereupon. Which would most likely violate some obscure Term Of Service, and the platform would boot me off.
I pretty much have to agree with your sentiments, but I'd change one thing, or one word, most of the time. Instead of stupid, I'd call them a pack of willfully-but-covertly racists. Remember, more than a few of our national business icons/tycoons/etc. were racist, many of them outright with their beliefs. Yet they are held in high esteem for their contributions to society. Stupid they were not.
Still, this ass-wipe has a market of over 73 million suckers (smart or stupid, sucker-ism knows no boundaries), so I'm making book that he'll be brought up short for either fraud (misrepresentation) or because Q will accuse him of being an under-cover "radical lib" who is secretly collecting info on "us true American patriots". Any takers?
Yes, you won't be faced with a criminal charge of illegal speech. But believing there really was a fire won't get you out of facing the consequences for what happens after said speech.
Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.
Old proverb: For every speech, there is an equal and opposite consequence. Sometimes it's only criticism, sometimes it's much less palatable. And no, salt will not be provided, you must bring your own.
First, what if the whole community agrees that "X" is immoral, obscene and offensive in the extreme, and should be made illegal?
Second, where is it written that all communities must have the same standards? Come to that...
Third, when the Supremes use the word "community", do they really mean the whole country, where they hold final say? Or are they using the common term, thus speaking to myriad small enclaves of society, and hoping that no one objects too loudly? (The Amish and Mennonites might have a few words on the topic, for example.)
In that light, I went out and researched what the Constitution had to say about obscenity, morals, offensiveness in public, and other such tidbits. It turns out that.. well fuck it, I'll just give you the link, and you can have as much fun as I did:
Nice ".... dept" line, harkening all the way back to the 1965 Rolling Stones' hit "The Last Time". (Which itself was "borrowed" from the 1954 Staples Singers hit of the same name. And they say it was an old gospel tune from antiquity.)
They already HAVE been wiped from the face of the planet, they're just too bleepin' stupid to realize it. Want proof? Just imagine a day without the internet. Now imagine a day without newspapers of any kind. Which one gave you the heebie-jeebies?
Another example: "Nobody demanded a monthly refrigerator fee from refrigerator owners that would go to the Icemen's Union." (Rick Falkvinge, ca 2012) A very close parallel, I'm sure you'll all agree.
That was the whole point of the report - below top-tier businesses will die on the vine for lack of ability to install and maintain capable filtering. By recommending that nearly all content is valid until the MafiAA gets a court order saying otherwise, the World Wide Wait remains a viable communications medium.
Re: Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from o
Yes, but the post above mine specifically said "weird guys", as in plural. V was only one person, dead or alive. And Evey never wore a mask, nor went down the tracks heading under the Parliament building, so that knocks out the plural bit as well.
I was willing to be corrected in that perhaps some other movie might have been the point of reference for the plurality. It could still happen.....
On the post: Naturopath Sues Twitter After It Bans Her Account For Spreading Medical Misinformation
Indeed, they may have intentionally misconstrued the decision's intent in forming their complaint, but in their actual reading of the decision, they most definitely miscomprehended the basis of the decision, and the follow-on legal precedent set thereby.
On the post: Court Docs Appear To Show FBI Informants Contributed Two-Thirds Of The Conspirators To The Michigan Governor Kidnapping Plot
Re:
More like "for some good head!"
On the post: Court Docs Appear To Show FBI Informants Contributed Two-Thirds Of The Conspirators To The Michigan Governor Kidnapping Plot
The only plausible reason behind this...
I predict that this clusterfuck will become a textbook case study on the topic of Governmental Job Justification Within A Department's Budget.
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, got my arithmetic wrong.... make that 53 years ago, not 58. I was Over the Choppy Seas in 1968-69.
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
Re: Re:
And my response to Ken today would be the same today as it would've been 58 years ago:
What are they gonna do, send me to Viet Nam?
Obviously I'm not a good candidate for the position of Subpoena Compliance Officer. But I do tend to get a case of the ass when any government personage tries to tell me I can't do something that I most certainly can do. And I'm only three-quarters of a century young. Perhaps I'll mellow out with age, who knows.
On the post: Learning About Content Moderation From Ghosts In Virtual Reality
Why does "Snow Crash" keep coming to mind?
On the post: As White House Says It's 'Reviewing 230', Biden Admits His Comments About Facebook Were Misinformation
Re:
Ah, leave the poor kid alone already. He's more likely to bring a squirt gun to your knife-fight than anything remotely worthy of engagement.
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Please provide at least two valid examples of corrupt media. Pointing your finger at some given news outlet as a general example will not suffice.
IOW, "pics, or it didn't happen".
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably 30 years ago, maybe longer, I gave up on predicting what a smart lawyer could come up with vis-a-vis a civil cause of action (a tort, if you will). Please don't press me further, my sense of reality is already fragile as it is.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
Re: Re: Re:
I have two words for you: ad revenue. You can be damned sure that if I'm (allegedly) in charge of my personal space, then no ads would appear thereupon. Which would most likely violate some obscure Term Of Service, and the platform would boot me off.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Good for them…
I pretty much have to agree with your sentiments, but I'd change one thing, or one word, most of the time. Instead of stupid, I'd call them a pack of willfully-but-covertly racists. Remember, more than a few of our national business icons/tycoons/etc. were racist, many of them outright with their beliefs. Yet they are held in high esteem for their contributions to society. Stupid they were not.
Still, this ass-wipe has a market of over 73 million suckers (smart or stupid, sucker-ism knows no boundaries), so I'm making book that he'll be brought up short for either fraud (misrepresentation) or because Q will accuse him of being an under-cover "radical lib" who is secretly collecting info on "us true American patriots". Any takers?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
Yes, you won't be faced with a criminal charge of illegal speech. But believing there really was a fire won't get you out of facing the consequences for what happens after said speech.
Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.
Old proverb: For every speech, there is an equal and opposite consequence. Sometimes it's only criticism, sometimes it's much less palatable. And no, salt will not be provided, you must bring your own.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
We do have some problems here
First, what if the whole community agrees that "X" is immoral, obscene and offensive in the extreme, and should be made illegal?
Second, where is it written that all communities must have the same standards? Come to that...
Third, when the Supremes use the word "community", do they really mean the whole country, where they hold final say? Or are they using the common term, thus speaking to myriad small enclaves of society, and hoping that no one objects too loudly? (The Amish and Mennonites might have a few words on the topic, for example.)
In that light, I went out and researched what the Constitution had to say about obscenity, morals, offensiveness in public, and other such tidbits. It turns out that.. well fuck it, I'll just give you the link, and you can have as much fun as I did:
https://time.com/4700835/sex-and-the-constitution/
Don't let that link's title put you off, it's really all about "muh feelz", from 245 years ago up until today.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Market Failure
Watch out there, AC, you might get censored for giving potted plants a bad rap.
On the post: Appeals Court Affirms State Trooper Who Responded To An F-Bomb With An Arrest Owes $15k In Legal Fees
Nice ".... dept" line, harkening all the way back to the 1965 Rolling Stones' hit "The Last Time". (Which itself was "borrowed" from the 1954 Staples Singers hit of the same name. And they say it was an old gospel tune from antiquity.)
On the post: French Competition Authority Fines Google Nearly $600 Million For Failing To Negotiate A Nonsensical Deal With Publishers 'In Good Faith'
Re: Google news
They already HAVE been wiped from the face of the planet, they're just too bleepin' stupid to realize it. Want proof? Just imagine a day without the internet. Now imagine a day without newspapers of any kind. Which one gave you the heebie-jeebies?
Another example: "Nobody demanded a monthly refrigerator fee from refrigerator owners that would go to the Icemen's Union." (Rick Falkvinge, ca 2012) A very close parallel, I'm sure you'll all agree.
Need I go on?
On the post: GAO Tells US Government Its Speed Definition For Broadband Sucks
Re: Re: If Karma was served...
... and had to enter "MODE com1:9600,N,8,1" every time he wants to log in.... using Lynx and Pine!
On the post: Top EU Court's Adviser Regrettably Fails To Recommend Throwing Out Upload Filters, But Does Say They Should Block Only "Identical" Or "Equivalent" Copies
Re:
That was the whole point of the report - below top-tier businesses will die on the vine for lack of ability to install and maintain capable filtering. By recommending that nearly all content is valid until the MafiAA gets a court order saying otherwise, the World Wide Wait remains a viable communications medium.
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from o
Yes, but the post above mine specifically said "weird guys", as in plural. V was only one person, dead or alive. And Evey never wore a mask, nor went down the tracks heading under the Parliament building, so that knocks out the plural bit as well.
I was willing to be corrected in that perhaps some other movie might have been the point of reference for the plurality. It could still happen.....
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: Re:
That's golden! I shoulda thought of that one.
But like the Lowered said: "Work with me here - buy a ticket!"
Next >>