You can always tell the person in the argument who knows they've got nothing: they're the first one to abandon logic and reason and turn to mockery as a desperate attempt to distract the audience from the paucity of his position.
I can't look it up right now because I'm at work, but I saw a very insightful video on YouTube a while back lamenting how there's a worthless, not-funny TV show that's been on the air for well over a decade now that's still going on, not on any actual merit of its own, but simply because it's called The Simpsons, which was also the name of a show that was actually pretty funny waaaaaaay back in the 90s, even though the one today is nothing like that show was.
I'd respectfully submit that they're not the only such cultural institution that's coasting by today on name recognition despite having long since lost the original "spark" that made them worthwhile in the first place.
Oh, I totally agree. The guy's unfit to be a justice, and he'll likely contribute to some completely awful rulings.
This. Does. Not. Make. It. OK. To. Smear. Him.
It's disgusting what was done to him, and everyone ought to find it objectionable, if for no other reason than that it legitimizes the other side turning around and doing the same thing to someone you like the next time around.
When you're in a situation where all relevant past experience ought to tell you that that information is out there and will most likely emerge within a few days at the most. Which is exactly what happened in this case, just as it always does.
Reporters, of all people, ought to be familiar with the maxim that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is even finished putting on its shoes!
I took down ALL the posts on my blog and stayed up all night, going back to see which ones I could find again on Flickr, making a log of the attributions and screenshotting the links. If I had any doubt at all, I replaced images with better-sourced ones and live links.
This is the one part I don't get.
By this point, you had done enough research to understand that you're dealing with a sketchy trolling and extortion operation acting in bad faith. When you found the stuff shared as Creative Commons, you're good at that point. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You don't have to demonstrate that you weren't doing anything wrong; they have to prove that you were. So why put so much effort and stress into this?
How many thousands of other people are in a position similar to mine, right now? Unable to afford an exorbitant fee, believing the threat is real, and terrified to lose their home over a single photo?
Yeah, this is confusing. By this point, that "position similar to mine" is not the position you were in, as you had enough information to no longer believe the threat is real. Two pages before this, you did some research and found out who it was you were dealing with.
Maybe it's just me, but if I had some scammer try and come after me, and I became aware that it was a scam, I'd be proverbially licking my lips as I prepared to tear their entire world apart in court.
The lawsuit says the Post recklessly published a piece on the incident on January 19th, four hours after the edited video went viral. Somehow this is defamatory because the Post "recklessly" did not act on information it didn't have (the extended video posted a day later) prior to publishing this article.
Umm... yeah? In this context, that is the very definition of reckless. There was more information that was relevant to the story, and they did not wait until they had that information, even though any competent journalist should reasonably have known that more relevant information would come out soon because that's what always happens in cases like this! But instead of waiting and making sure they got the story right first like a responsible journalist would do, they rushed to publication (and to judgment) and smeared the kid like they were some sort of cheap supermarket tabloid.
Responsible for what? They're not the ones granting legal documents to scammers.
They're the ones usurping the role of the judiciary. They should not be doing this at all. Even if, to use the example from the article, someone registered a fake @Disney account, it's not Instagram's job to decide that there's trademark infringement going on! That's for a court of law to rule on.
The only reason this happens at all is because we let extrajudicial law enforcement become a thing. And that's absolutely bonkers! Does anyone believe that if those OGUsers scammers had to go before a court and get a ruling of trademark infringement first, that this would be a big deal?
(And before anyone points out the obvious, that fraudsters have been coming up with real defamation rulings under false pretenses to get stuff taken down, yes, that really happened a few times. But it happened a few times, several orders of magnitude less than the problem of extrajudicial takedown fraud, and the courts caught on pretty quickly and started busting the people who tried it.)
Impersonating a police officer is a serious crime. Why isn't impersonating a judge and jury?
an investigation that failed to be an actual investigation
Ordinarily I might agree, but in a case like this... what more could possibly have been done to investigate?
There was no physical evidence to substantiate any of the claims that were made, and no possibility of recovering any due to the alleged crimes having occurred decades ago. All of the people named as witnesses were duly questioned, and all of them--including friends of the accuser, who one might imagine "should have" been on her side--said it never happened. Once you reach that point... what else is there?
A more likely (and far less cynical) interpretation springs from examining what he actually wrote.
Far from increasing a public figure’s burden in a defamation action, the common law deemed libels against public figures to be, if anything, more serious and injurious than ordinary libels. See 3 Blackstone 124 (“Words also tending to scandalize a magistrate, or person in a public trust, are reputed more highly injurious than when spoken of a private man”); 4 id., at 150 (defining libels as “malicious defamations of any person, and especially a magistrate, made public by either printing, writing, signs, or pictures, in order to provoke him to wrath, or expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule” (emphasis added)). Libel of a public official was deemed an offense “‘most dangerous to the people, and deserv[ing of] punishment, because the people may be deceived and reject the best citizens to their great injury, and it may be to the loss of their liberties.’”
He mentions twice in there that especially bad harm can come from defamation of a magistrate, or in other words a judge, like himself. Keep in mind that the person writing this is Clarence Thomas, who was famously smeared by political opponents, accused of sexual harassment and misconduct, without any evidence whatsoever, during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (If this sounds eerily familiar, it's because they recently recycled the exact same playbook for Brett Kavenaugh.) It's not surprising that somebody who's been through a traumatic experience like that, but who was unable to take any legal action to put a stop to it due to the standard, might want to see that standard done away with.
The rule exists for a good reason--it's one of the few checks that exists in our laws anywhere that holds powerful people to a higher standard, rather than the all-too-common status quo of allowing wealth and power to buy immunity from responsibility and accountability--but that's likely small comfort to someone who's ended up as collateral damage from it.
'Stolen' does not automatically mean 'by a violent individual', so even the fact that it was technically a correct flag as a stolen vehicle would not justify going in guns drawn
This seems to be implying that because something is not true 100% of the time, it's not justified to treat it as a thing that is reasonably likely to happen and take appropriate precautions.
As a general principle, that's kind of horrifying!
In the USA, breast exposure is generally considered obscene. I've been in situations where I'm visiting someone and there's a baby being fed, with the baby and the breast covered by a baby blanket to avoid exposure. No one was embarrassed by that.
I've also lived outside the USA, spending a couple years in Argentina. Their understanding of breast exposure being obscene is very similar to ours, with essentially identical mores regarding modesty and indecency... except for breastfeeding. In Argentina, if a baby is crying, no one thinks there's anything weird for the mom to just pop it out in full view of whoever may be around and feed the baby, even in public. No blanket or other covering for modesty. I've seen it happen in stores, in church, on buses, etc.
I haven't lived in Europe, so I don't know what their view is on the subject. But that was a bit of a culture shock to me (and to a lot of other Americans I knew living there.)
Oh, you mean the thing that didn't happen here because everyone was doing their job right and behaving like reasonable adults even in this highly stressful situation?
What are the consequences of the sun blowing up???? What are the consequences of a terrorist getting their hands on an atom bomb???? What are the consequences of the South winning the civil war????
Re: Re: Re: Re: NOT "wrongfully" detained, merely database mista
Well, there is also the small matter of the police not checking their story and the hire contract for half a hour.
When someone isn't doing something during a specific period of time, it's usually because they're doing something else, and this is no exception. They were dealing with higher-priority issues first. (Not that Tim Cushing will ever admit that in one of his articles when there's an opportunity to insinuate something bad instead...)
I can't. Why in the world would they want to do that? Do you honestly think police are some sort of mustache-twirling cartoon villains who would intentionally pollute the signal-to-noise ratio of a useful tool like that, just in order to manufacture an excuse to oppress people for no good reason?
So what you're saying is that the ALPR system shouldn't be used at all then if everything went as expected.
Not at all. How can you possibly get that out of what I said? You win today's Reading Comprehension Fail badge.
In what system is cops pointing deadly weapons at innocent people acceptable?
The system known as the real world, in which the vast majority of the time, people driving around in stolen cars are either car thieves or people who obtained a car from car thieves, generally knowing full well that something sketchy was going on.
In the real world, errors do occasionally happen, and this is taken into account in the checks and balances of the procedure. The cops went in with guns drawn, due to the harsh realities of car theft, but didn't ever actually fire them, due to the equally harsh realities of the consequences of making a mistake. And everything worked out the way it should have in the end.
There's a phenomenon--I don't know if it has a proper name, but I like to call it "the Headline News Effect"--where all too often the only thing that gets widely reported on is problems, which gives the audience an exaggerated sense of problems existing.
News is about things that happen, not things that don’t happen. We never see a journalist saying to the camera, “I’m reporting live from a country where a war has not broken out”— or a city that has not been bombed, or a school that has not been shot up.
We don't see stories about ALPR technology working correctly, because that's the default. We live in a society where we expect technology to work correctly.
Unfortunately, this means there's no narrative out there to counterbalance the ideologically-driven nutcases who cynically suggest that maybe this might catch a criminal every once in a while, but just look at all these news stories about times when it went wrong!
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re:
You can always tell the person in the argument who knows they've got nothing: they're the first one to abandon logic and reason and turn to mockery as a desperate attempt to distract the audience from the paucity of his position.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re:
I can't look it up right now because I'm at work, but I saw a very insightful video on YouTube a while back lamenting how there's a worthless, not-funny TV show that's been on the air for well over a decade now that's still going on, not on any actual merit of its own, but simply because it's called The Simpsons, which was also the name of a show that was actually pretty funny waaaaaaay back in the 90s, even though the one today is nothing like that show was.
I'd respectfully submit that they're not the only such cultural institution that's coasting by today on name recognition despite having long since lost the original "spark" that made them worthwhile in the first place.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I know all too well. That doesn't mean I have to accept that it's right.
On the post: One Person's Unsettling Experience With A $20k Higbee Copyright Troll Demand Letter
Re: Re:
That's my point: he doesn't have to. Burden of proof is on the accuser. They have to prove it was an unlicensed photo.
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I totally agree. The guy's unfit to be a justice, and he'll likely contribute to some completely awful rulings.
This. Does. Not. Make. It. OK. To. Smear. Him.
It's disgusting what was done to him, and everyone ought to find it objectionable, if for no other reason than that it legitimizes the other side turning around and doing the same thing to someone you like the next time around.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re:
When you're in a situation where all relevant past experience ought to tell you that that information is out there and will most likely emerge within a few days at the most. Which is exactly what happened in this case, just as it always does.
Reporters, of all people, ought to be familiar with the maxim that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is even finished putting on its shoes!
On the post: One Person's Unsettling Experience With A $20k Higbee Copyright Troll Demand Letter
This is the one part I don't get.
By this point, you had done enough research to understand that you're dealing with a sketchy trolling and extortion operation acting in bad faith. When you found the stuff shared as Creative Commons, you're good at that point. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You don't have to demonstrate that you weren't doing anything wrong; they have to prove that you were. So why put so much effort and stress into this?
Yeah, this is confusing. By this point, that "position similar to mine" is not the position you were in, as you had enough information to no longer believe the threat is real. Two pages before this, you did some research and found out who it was you were dealing with.
Maybe it's just me, but if I had some scammer try and come after me, and I became aware that it was a scam, I'd be proverbially licking my lips as I prepared to tear their entire world apart in court.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Umm... yeah? In this context, that is the very definition of reckless. There was more information that was relevant to the story, and they did not wait until they had that information, even though any competent journalist should reasonably have known that more relevant information would come out soon because that's what always happens in cases like this! But instead of waiting and making sure they got the story right first like a responsible journalist would do, they rushed to publication (and to judgment) and smeared the kid like they were some sort of cheap supermarket tabloid.
If that's not reckless, what is?
On the post: The Latest In Trademark Abuse Is Registering Marks To Obtain Ownership Of Instagram Accounts
Re: Re: NOT "ownership culture" but GREED.
They're the ones usurping the role of the judiciary. They should not be doing this at all. Even if, to use the example from the article, someone registered a fake @Disney account, it's not Instagram's job to decide that there's trademark infringement going on! That's for a court of law to rule on.
The only reason this happens at all is because we let extrajudicial law enforcement become a thing. And that's absolutely bonkers! Does anyone believe that if those OGUsers scammers had to go before a court and get a ruling of trademark infringement first, that this would be a big deal?
(And before anyone points out the obvious, that fraudsters have been coming up with real defamation rulings under false pretenses to get stuff taken down, yes, that really happened a few times. But it happened a few times, several orders of magnitude less than the problem of extrajudicial takedown fraud, and the courts caught on pretty quickly and started busting the people who tried it.)
Impersonating a police officer is a serious crime. Why isn't impersonating a judge and jury?
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re: Re: Re:
Ordinarily I might agree, but in a case like this... what more could possibly have been done to investigate?
There was no physical evidence to substantiate any of the claims that were made, and no possibility of recovering any due to the alleged crimes having occurred decades ago. All of the people named as witnesses were duly questioned, and all of them--including friends of the accuser, who one might imagine "should have" been on her side--said it never happened. Once you reach that point... what else is there?
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re:
A more likely (and far less cynical) interpretation springs from examining what he actually wrote.
He mentions twice in there that especially bad harm can come from defamation of a magistrate, or in other words a judge, like himself. Keep in mind that the person writing this is Clarence Thomas, who was famously smeared by political opponents, accused of sexual harassment and misconduct, without any evidence whatsoever, during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (If this sounds eerily familiar, it's because they recently recycled the exact same playbook for Brett Kavenaugh.) It's not surprising that somebody who's been through a traumatic experience like that, but who was unable to take any legal action to put a stop to it due to the standard, might want to see that standard done away with.
The rule exists for a good reason--it's one of the few checks that exists in our laws anywhere that holds powerful people to a higher standard, rather than the all-too-common status quo of allowing wealth and power to buy immunity from responsibility and accountability--but that's likely small comfort to someone who's ended up as collateral damage from it.
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*facepalm*
You're right. Sorry. I missed that because it was way off in a different branch of the conversation.
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re:
This seems to be implying that because something is not true 100% of the time, it's not justified to treat it as a thing that is reasonably likely to happen and take appropriate precautions.
As a general principle, that's kind of horrifying!
On the post: A Conversation With EU Parliament Member Marietje Schaake About Digital Platforms And Regulation, Part II
Re:
Breastfeeding is a bit of an odd duck.
In the USA, breast exposure is generally considered obscene. I've been in situations where I'm visiting someone and there's a baby being fed, with the baby and the breast covered by a baby blanket to avoid exposure. No one was embarrassed by that.
I've also lived outside the USA, spending a couple years in Argentina. Their understanding of breast exposure being obscene is very similar to ours, with essentially identical mores regarding modesty and indecency... except for breastfeeding. In Argentina, if a baby is crying, no one thinks there's anything weird for the mom to just pop it out in full view of whoever may be around and feed the baby, even in public. No blanket or other covering for modesty. I've seen it happen in stores, in church, on buses, etc.
I haven't lived in Europe, so I don't know what their view is on the subject. But that was a bit of a culture shock to me (and to a lot of other Americans I knew living there.)
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you mean the thing that didn't happen here because everyone was doing their job right and behaving like reasonable adults even in this highly stressful situation?
What are the consequences of the sun blowing up???? What are the consequences of a terrorist getting their hands on an atom bomb???? What are the consequences of the South winning the civil war????
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re: Re: Re: NOT "wrongfully" detained, merely database mista
When someone isn't doing something during a specific period of time, it's usually because they're doing something else, and this is no exception. They were dealing with higher-priority issues first. (Not that Tim Cushing will ever admit that in one of his articles when there's an opportunity to insinuate something bad instead...)
That is the police doing their job correctly.
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFG provided that link. You (assuming the random avatars are consistent) replied to TFG, arguing against his point.
Are you using sock puppets to argue both sides of this and stir up contention or something?
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re:
I can't. Why in the world would they want to do that? Do you honestly think police are some sort of mustache-twirling cartoon villains who would intentionally pollute the signal-to-noise ratio of a useful tool like that, just in order to manufacture an excuse to oppress people for no good reason?
If so, please get professional help.
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re:
Not at all. How can you possibly get that out of what I said? You win today's Reading Comprehension Fail badge.
The system known as the real world, in which the vast majority of the time, people driving around in stolen cars are either car thieves or people who obtained a car from car thieves, generally knowing full well that something sketchy was going on.
In the real world, errors do occasionally happen, and this is taken into account in the checks and balances of the procedure. The cops went in with guns drawn, due to the harsh realities of car theft, but didn't ever actually fire them, due to the equally harsh realities of the consequences of making a mistake. And everything worked out the way it should have in the end.
There's a phenomenon--I don't know if it has a proper name, but I like to call it "the Headline News Effect"--where all too often the only thing that gets widely reported on is problems, which gives the audience an exaggerated sense of problems existing.
We don't see stories about ALPR technology working correctly, because that's the default. We live in a society where we expect technology to work correctly. Unfortunately, this means there's no narrative out there to counterbalance the ideologically-driven nutcases who cynically suggest that maybe this might catch a criminal every once in a while, but just look at all these news stories about times when it went wrong!
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re: Re: Re:
No it didn't. It attempted to secede, but it (and all the other states that tried to pull the same stunt) famously did not succeed at this attempt.
Next >>