Anytime a 1st amendment lawsuit results in a ruling on first amendment jurisprudence there are lots of cases filed that will read the case as saying whatever they want it to say. There are still cases being filed that cite the POTUS twitter blacking case as justification for barring moderation by twitter. Fear of bad faith litigants when making a good but nuanced ruling is nothing more than the [slippery slope fallacy] at work.
If the goal is for no new lawsuits that misinterpret case law for financial gain, the only way to play is not to win. Thats not to say that there isn't any concern, but pinning it down to that one quote from a case where all the other factors are also met is not a solid argument
There is no Tort for 'Forging & Distributing fake document'. In fact, many lies are protected rhetoric or parody. The tort in question is Libel. Liability for a tort follows the "But for" standard. The twitter account in question wasn't considered big or reputable when they release this information. If it didn't get much play, the harm caused by the libel would be minimal, if any.
It was the seperate publication in a big paper, the Washington times, that catapulted the claims into the public eye. Under this theory, the But for standard is fulfilled by the journalists, not the tweet. If the new york times publishes a story, the reputational damage by any libelous claims are much higher than the same claims made by the Weekly world news.
Not sure what the second line is about. It looks like the actual malice standard, but of course that is what the subpeona is about - proving that the Washington Times and its reporter should have known the information was suspect and place the burden on the Times to reveal what vetting they did do.
The journalists, the defendents, are not trying to unmask the source. Aaron rich, the plaintiff, is attempting to unmask the twitter user. He is hoping that identity will support a claim that the journalists did not vet the information before publication and/or would force them to make a more through accounting of the vetting process given the identity of the 'leaker'.
SO there is an actual question of liability here. The key is the proximate cause or the 'but for' test.
It could be argued that the reputational damage (the harm the suit seeks to cure) actually came from the random twitter post. The damage arguably came from the national publication of claims in the report as published by the Journalists in question, which fueled conspiracy theories around Seth Rich's death.
If the journalists took an unverified report from an anonymous twitter source and published it without verification that could reach the bar of reckless disregard for the truth of their claims. And one step in proving that the report was unverified and really should have been vetted would be to show that the source was unlikely to have access to internal FBI reports. Since a journalist is unlikely to give up that identity given the principle pf source confidentiality and since the twitter handle of that source is known, you seek to reveal that identity in a limited fashion.
As it stands right now, the defendants, who are journalists, could in theory claim confidentiality of sources to withhold the identity of the supposed leaker while claiming they vetted the source and the material was likely genuine, establishing an affirmative defense of truth without actually having to show their work.
This subpoena bypasses that attempt by identifying the source without compelling the journalists to give up their sources. This would force the defendants to establish how they might have confirmed the veracity of the document without impuning the very important jurisprudence that we not expose confidential sources which are important to the role of journalism to speak truth to power.
But, the branding is the only thing that is protected. A louis Vitton (I am not going to look up spelling) bag is only a louis vitton bag if it has that branding. Louis vitton doesn't own a style. The theory is that if the branding makes it clear the bag is NOT a louis Vitton bag, its not a counterfit louis vitton bag, even if the style of the branding is accurate to a genuine louis vitton bag.
Fosta likely wont be involved, because they aren't going after sex trafiicking content at all. Nor are they dealing with a third party host of such material.
And because they are going after the actual publisher, Netflix, and not going after a host of User generated content for content published by its users, section 230 doesn't apply. Section 230 only applies to content created and uploaded by users. Netflix does not host USG, and even if it did, Cuties and the promotion thereof are content where Netflix is the publisher of record.
As I noted before, this is not a question of assignment of liability. If liability exists under the laws cited, Netflix is an appropriate target of the charge, based on the quotes provided within the techdirt article.
Its effectively the premium streaming music revenue strategy, but hopefully more distributed without the silos and with everyone getting paid, and not just the top artists. I am excited to see where it goes.
Its an indictment, meaning criminal charges, not a lawsuit. This is not an issue of suing netflix because they are easy to track down and have a bigger bank account. (the general meaning of easier to sue X company instead of Y individual(s) actually responsible)
Distribution would be a crime under these legal theories, a crime separate from the crime of production of the film. This is not holding the distributor liable for production, this is holding the distributor liable for distribution. This is not an issue of improperly placed liability at all.
The producer is french. It was produced outside the US. No crime of US jurisdiction occurred in production. There are no grounds for a US indictment of the production even if the legal theories held water.
The movie strikes me as another Rorschach test, Like Sandman.
If you saw the film prior to the Netflix ad campaign, you probably saw a film which used imagery disturbing to the average individual to make a point about the effects that sexualization of women in media has on children. You probably perceive that the actual volume of sexualized imagery being employed is minimal in comparison to the run time.
If you saw the ad campaign first, you probably saw an overly sexual depiction of underage girls far in excess of what was needed to make the point trying to be made. It was smut for pedophiles and nothing more.
One of the strangest assumptions in statistics is that results are distributed in a bell curve. It’s doomed many a racist trying to prove the stupidity of blacks, and today it dooms those trying to justify classist policies.
Except that Excel will drop that choice whenever possible.
I am an accountant. I use .csv files to upload large transactions into my accounting software, and requires very specific formatting to acomplish.
Notably I need to not use the 'date' format in excel which stores the date as a number instead of the actual mm/dd/yy formatting, and I needed leading zeros without any puncutation in one column.
If I used plain text and saved my CSV file, excel would helpfully save space by removing very critical leading zeros. If I loaded the file, it would strip the dates out of the file and force them into date format. It fought me. I have since switched to Libre office which gives me the option to set formatting before i load a file, and will accept leading zeros being saved to CSV format.
Its an issue with any data set saved as a CSV or other file type that doesn't carry format. Its most critical with large data sets that benefit in size from a lack of formatting. Excel auto format on load kills many of its best uses for me. Just formatting the sheet once doesn't help plain data files like CSV when excel gets its hands on it. All it takes is one intern opening the file and autosave catching the changes for you to lose lots of data.
Its a toggle, Microsoft. a free software company has better CSV auto-format code then you. Get it together.
The judge's order recognizing the letter sent by Craig states Craig also submitted evidence of his claims, but those would be recognized under seal to protect attorney client privilege. So not only has Liebowitiz violated the privilege the court explicitly retained for the client, but there is likely contradictory evidence the public has not seen. And given Liebowitz's history of lies, and that the final message is the only proof that Craig was aware of a lawsuit, rather than say a cease and desist, I'm loathe to grant this any weight.
You can prove a document with information on X exists. You can't necessarily prove the detailed contents of that document.
I think it should go. They should have to get a locksmith to crack it. But the ability to prove a document's existence is wholly separate from proving the document's detailed contents.
I think the best/scariest parts of this ruling have nothing to do with the cell phone aspect but rather highlight 2 problems in the legal system. One is specific, the way the standards on the forgone conclusion doctrine slipped. Prosecutors admit they didn't know what they were looking for and they didn't know if what they were looking for was on the phone. As the court highlights, that definitionally can't be a forgone conclusion. But lower courts have accepted that reasoning. This is legal creep in action - and it shows the same issues with qualified immunity. The FCD (Forgone Conclusion Doctrine) is a creation of fourth and fifth amendment jurisprudence. If the criminal investigators can show that documents exist and that those documents exist in a secure location and we can prove that access is controlled by a specific individual, then forcing access to the secure location is not considered testimonial and the documents are left to speak for themselves. But that logic is traditionally, as the court highlighted, self limiting in scope. Literally, the safe can only be so big. And as the court noted, the more unknown documents that probably exist, the greater the burden on the 4th and 5th amendments. Not only does this decision severely limit the doctrine for cell phones, it also highlights the way prosecutors have been lowering the standards for years.
But it more broadly highlights the willingness of judges to rubber stamp fishing expeditions. The prosecutor admitted he was fishing, and it took the state supreme court to rule that the forgone conclusion was bunk on its face. The appeals court noted the issues with scope, it took the state supreme court to note that it shouldn't have even gotten that far. Most defendants would not have the resources to appeal that far.
Re: Re: Re: Call on health system versus smoking...
Fun note: if you end the war on drugs, it doesn’t mean you stop caring about the effects of drugs on society. we just don’t need a military to do it. Drug addiction is a symptom of bad circumstances. focus on rehab, improve life curcumstances, and drug users tend to kick the habit in much higher numbers then when the focus is on criminal penalties.
correct me if i’m wrong but if the claims against twitter are thus:
He pointed to a procedural issue involving the company’s failure to respond to numerous offenses Nunes alleges the company committed, ranging from shadow banning conservatives to acts of illegal defamation.
Then why is Devin Nunes’ Ciw adjoined to this lawsuit? I would think that the Cow would face a different fact pattern to defamation performed by twitter, and the cow can’t be responsible for shadow banning anyone. Under what legal theory does the court believe Twitter would be liable for shadow banning? Wouldn’t that fall under the Sec 230 allowances for moderating as they see fit?
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re: Re: Re: From the order...
Anytime a 1st amendment lawsuit results in a ruling on first amendment jurisprudence there are lots of cases filed that will read the case as saying whatever they want it to say. There are still cases being filed that cite the POTUS twitter blacking case as justification for barring moderation by twitter. Fear of bad faith litigants when making a good but nuanced ruling is nothing more than the [slippery slope fallacy] at work.
If the goal is for no new lawsuits that misinterpret case law for financial gain, the only way to play is not to win. Thats not to say that there isn't any concern, but pinning it down to that one quote from a case where all the other factors are also met is not a solid argument
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re: Not suing all the responsible parties
There is no Tort for 'Forging & Distributing fake document'. In fact, many lies are protected rhetoric or parody. The tort in question is Libel. Liability for a tort follows the "But for" standard. The twitter account in question wasn't considered big or reputable when they release this information. If it didn't get much play, the harm caused by the libel would be minimal, if any.
It was the seperate publication in a big paper, the Washington times, that catapulted the claims into the public eye. Under this theory, the But for standard is fulfilled by the journalists, not the tweet. If the new york times publishes a story, the reputational damage by any libelous claims are much higher than the same claims made by the Weekly world news.
Not sure what the second line is about. It looks like the actual malice standard, but of course that is what the subpeona is about - proving that the Washington Times and its reporter should have known the information was suspect and place the burden on the Times to reveal what vetting they did do.
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re:
The journalists, the defendents, are not trying to unmask the source. Aaron rich, the plaintiff, is attempting to unmask the twitter user. He is hoping that identity will support a claim that the journalists did not vet the information before publication and/or would force them to make a more through accounting of the vetting process given the identity of the 'leaker'.
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re: From the order...
the key word is "ALSO". in that this is not the only factor in the decision making.
The ten page ruling has many more factors going into the analysis. As one of many factors, it is one to consider.
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re:
SO there is an actual question of liability here. The key is the proximate cause or the 'but for' test.
It could be argued that the reputational damage (the harm the suit seeks to cure) actually came from the random twitter post. The damage arguably came from the national publication of claims in the report as published by the Journalists in question, which fueled conspiracy theories around Seth Rich's death.
If the journalists took an unverified report from an anonymous twitter source and published it without verification that could reach the bar of reckless disregard for the truth of their claims. And one step in proving that the report was unverified and really should have been vetted would be to show that the source was unlikely to have access to internal FBI reports. Since a journalist is unlikely to give up that identity given the principle pf source confidentiality and since the twitter handle of that source is known, you seek to reveal that identity in a limited fashion.
On the post: Court Says Twitter Must Unmask User Whose Bogus Document Jumpstarted Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
Re:
As it stands right now, the defendants, who are journalists, could in theory claim confidentiality of sources to withhold the identity of the supposed leaker while claiming they vetted the source and the material was likely genuine, establishing an affirmative defense of truth without actually having to show their work.
This subpoena bypasses that attempt by identifying the source without compelling the journalists to give up their sources. This would force the defendants to establish how they might have confirmed the veracity of the document without impuning the very important jurisprudence that we not expose confidential sources which are important to the role of journalism to speak truth to power.
On the post: If Something Is Advertised As A Knockoff Product... Is It No Longer Counterfeiting?
Re:
But, the branding is the only thing that is protected. A louis Vitton (I am not going to look up spelling) bag is only a louis vitton bag if it has that branding. Louis vitton doesn't own a style. The theory is that if the branding makes it clear the bag is NOT a louis Vitton bag, its not a counterfit louis vitton bag, even if the style of the branding is accurate to a genuine louis vitton bag.
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
Re: Interesting.
Fosta likely wont be involved, because they aren't going after sex trafiicking content at all. Nor are they dealing with a third party host of such material.
And because they are going after the actual publisher, Netflix, and not going after a host of User generated content for content published by its users, section 230 doesn't apply. Section 230 only applies to content created and uploaded by users. Netflix does not host USG, and even if it did, Cuties and the promotion thereof are content where Netflix is the publisher of record.
As I noted before, this is not a question of assignment of liability. If liability exists under the laws cited, Netflix is an appropriate target of the charge, based on the quotes provided within the techdirt article.
On the post: Our New Monetization Experiment: Coil & The Web Monetization Protocol
Re:
Its effectively the premium streaming music revenue strategy, but hopefully more distributed without the silos and with everyone getting paid, and not just the top artists. I am excited to see where it goes.
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
Re: Suing Netflix certainly is convenient
Its an indictment, meaning criminal charges, not a lawsuit. This is not an issue of suing netflix because they are easy to track down and have a bigger bank account. (the general meaning of easier to sue X company instead of Y individual(s) actually responsible)
Distribution would be a crime under these legal theories, a crime separate from the crime of production of the film. This is not holding the distributor liable for production, this is holding the distributor liable for distribution. This is not an issue of improperly placed liability at all.
The producer is french. It was produced outside the US. No crime of US jurisdiction occurred in production. There are no grounds for a US indictment of the production even if the legal theories held water.
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
The movie strikes me as another Rorschach test, Like Sandman.
If you saw the film prior to the Netflix ad campaign, you probably saw a film which used imagery disturbing to the average individual to make a point about the effects that sexualization of women in media has on children. You probably perceive that the actual volume of sexualized imagery being employed is minimal in comparison to the run time.
If you saw the ad campaign first, you probably saw an overly sexual depiction of underage girls far in excess of what was needed to make the point trying to be made. It was smut for pedophiles and nothing more.
On the post: Mississippi Says AT&T Took $283 Million For A Network It Never Fully Deployed
Re: Reason for AT&T's grift…
It goes back decades. The grift is just AT&T's business model. Hell, Subsidy grift by corporations is pretty much an american past-time.
On the post: England's Exam Fiasco Shows How Not To Apply Algorithms To Complex Problems With Massive Social Impact
Re: The bell curve claims another victim
always click preview....
It’s one of the strangest assumptions in academic statistics
On the post: England's Exam Fiasco Shows How Not To Apply Algorithms To Complex Problems With Massive Social Impact
The bell curve claims another victim
One of the strangest assumptions in statistics is that results are distributed in a bell curve. It’s doomed many a racist trying to prove the stupidity of blacks, and today it dooms those trying to justify classist policies.
On the post: Scientists Forced To Change Names Of Human Genes Because Of Microsoft's Failure To Patch Excel
Re: Format
Except that Excel will drop that choice whenever possible.
I am an accountant. I use .csv files to upload large transactions into my accounting software, and requires very specific formatting to acomplish.
Notably I need to not use the 'date' format in excel which stores the date as a number instead of the actual mm/dd/yy formatting, and I needed leading zeros without any puncutation in one column.
If I used plain text and saved my CSV file, excel would helpfully save space by removing very critical leading zeros. If I loaded the file, it would strip the dates out of the file and force them into date format. It fought me. I have since switched to Libre office which gives me the option to set formatting before i load a file, and will accept leading zeros being saved to CSV format.
Its an issue with any data set saved as a CSV or other file type that doesn't carry format. Its most critical with large data sets that benefit in size from a lack of formatting. Excel auto format on load kills many of its best uses for me. Just formatting the sheet once doesn't help plain data files like CSV when excel gets its hands on it. All it takes is one intern opening the file and autosave catching the changes for you to lose lots of data.
Its a toggle, Microsoft. a free software company has better CSV auto-format code then you. Get it together.
On the post: Richard Liebowitz Goes Against Client's Interests: Presents Evidence That His Client Did Know About Lawsuits; But Not About Settlements
The judge's order recognizing the letter sent by Craig states Craig also submitted evidence of his claims, but those would be recognized under seal to protect attorney client privilege. So not only has Liebowitiz violated the privilege the court explicitly retained for the client, but there is likely contradictory evidence the public has not seen. And given Liebowitz's history of lies, and that the final message is the only proof that Craig was aware of a lawsuit, rather than say a cease and desist, I'm loathe to grant this any weight.
On the post: Indiana Supreme Court Says Compelled Decryption Of Smartphones Violates The Fifth Amendment
Re: Foregone conclusion
You can prove a document with information on X exists. You can't necessarily prove the detailed contents of that document.
I think it should go. They should have to get a locksmith to crack it. But the ability to prove a document's existence is wholly separate from proving the document's detailed contents.
On the post: Indiana Supreme Court Says Compelled Decryption Of Smartphones Violates The Fifth Amendment
I think the best/scariest parts of this ruling have nothing to do with the cell phone aspect but rather highlight 2 problems in the legal system. One is specific, the way the standards on the forgone conclusion doctrine slipped. Prosecutors admit they didn't know what they were looking for and they didn't know if what they were looking for was on the phone. As the court highlights, that definitionally can't be a forgone conclusion. But lower courts have accepted that reasoning. This is legal creep in action - and it shows the same issues with qualified immunity. The FCD (Forgone Conclusion Doctrine) is a creation of fourth and fifth amendment jurisprudence. If the criminal investigators can show that documents exist and that those documents exist in a secure location and we can prove that access is controlled by a specific individual, then forcing access to the secure location is not considered testimonial and the documents are left to speak for themselves. But that logic is traditionally, as the court highlighted, self limiting in scope. Literally, the safe can only be so big. And as the court noted, the more unknown documents that probably exist, the greater the burden on the 4th and 5th amendments. Not only does this decision severely limit the doctrine for cell phones, it also highlights the way prosecutors have been lowering the standards for years.
But it more broadly highlights the willingness of judges to rubber stamp fishing expeditions. The prosecutor admitted he was fishing, and it took the state supreme court to rule that the forgone conclusion was bunk on its face. The appeals court noted the issues with scope, it took the state supreme court to note that it shouldn't have even gotten that far. Most defendants would not have the resources to appeal that far.
On the post: Australia Triumphs Definitively In Long-Running Battle With Big Tobacco Over Plain Packs For Cigarettes
Re: Re: Re: Call on health system versus smoking...
Fun note: if you end the war on drugs, it doesn’t mean you stop caring about the effects of drugs on society. we just don’t need a military to do it. Drug addiction is a symptom of bad circumstances. focus on rehab, improve life curcumstances, and drug users tend to kick the habit in much higher numbers then when the focus is on criminal penalties.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
correct me if i’m wrong but if the claims against twitter are thus:
Then why is Devin Nunes’ Ciw adjoined to this lawsuit? I would think that the Cow would face a different fact pattern to defamation performed by twitter, and the cow can’t be responsible for shadow banning anyone. Under what legal theory does the court believe Twitter would be liable for shadow banning? Wouldn’t that fall under the Sec 230 allowances for moderating as they see fit?
Next >>