Even though I know the answer, I have to wonder aloud: How the hell do courts not see the obvious violations of civil rights involved with the cops arresting and jailing someone for crimes they didn’t commit based on one or two bits of (effectively) fabricated evidence?
We’ve had commenters here who’ve wondered why the law lacks “a DMCA but for everyday speech” as some form of content moderation or whatnot. To those commenters: This article proves exactly why we don’t have (or need) such a thing.
democrats are learning to fight as dirty as the republicans
Good. People who don’t respect the rules won’t be swayed into respecting those rules by people who follow the rules and go tsk-tsk at the rulebreakers. Metaphorically throwing a few elbows in their faces, on the other hand…
there's a dissent -- written by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe -- that argues the social worker should be granted immunity because she had no way of knowing fabricating a confession would violate someone's rights
I am not a judge. I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training, no specialized knowledge of the law, and no experience inside a courtroom in any capacity.
But even I know that making up a confession to put someone in jail for a crime they didn’t commit violates that someone’s civil rights.
Racists think that someone who's most well known for his anti-racist actions and words would agree with their position?
Racists love to imply that MLK was against acknowledging racism by repeating that famous quote about judging people by their character. They use that conclusion to back up their idea that anyone who acknowledges racism—be it personal or systemic—is trying to “be divisive” or “keep racism alive”. Conservative politicians/pundits also love quoting that bit to make themselves seem anti-racist. But anyone familiar with the work of MLK beyond that one line in that one speech knows better than to believe the bigots and the grifters.
Lots of white people love to quote the “judge people by the content of their character” part of “I Have a Dream”, but hate it when anyone quotes the “I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate” part of “Letter from Birmingham Jail”.
Sort-of on-topic: If we seek justice in regards to the Internet, we should first look toward protecting adult content and its many creators from being victims of anti-porn legislation and puritanical social control (e.g., payment processor lockouts). Any attack on pornography is an attack on free speech, and any attempt to crack down on free speech on the Internet will almost always start with one of the easiest targets.
If you had to go subscription, you'd wipe out tons of useful services that today rely on Section 230: I can't see how Reddit, Craigslist, Nextdoor, Glassdoor, Pinterest, Yelp, Travelocity, Eventbrite, Stack Overflow, Ravelry, DuoLingo, Fandom, WikiHow, Glitch and tons of other websites would survive.
Then there are artdump sites like DeviantArt, FurAffinity, and the less-popular brethren of both those sites—many, if not all, of those sites would crumble if they were forced to turn into subscription-only sites. That’s to say nothing of imageboards/chansites (e.g., 4chan), all of which would immediately die if they turned on a paywall.
Paywalling services like Netflix and Spotify makes sense. Paywalling every other site on the Internet? Not so much.
On the post: The Making Of A Moral Panic, Courtesy Of The NY Times
Preaching, for starters.
On the post: The Making Of A Moral Panic, Courtesy Of The NY Times
Politicians love to “treat” symptoms without thinking about treating (or discovering) their root cause.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Bored Cop Who Decided To Turn A Natural Death Into A Murder
Even though I know the answer, I have to wonder aloud: How the hell do courts not see the obvious violations of civil rights involved with the cops arresting and jailing someone for crimes they didn’t commit based on one or two bits of (effectively) fabricated evidence?
On the post: It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier)
Standard Ebooks has it as well.
On the post: It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier)
See also: Holmes, Sherlock
(At least he goes fully into the public domain next year, barring the unlikely passage of yet another copyright term extension.)
On the post: Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay
I’m surprised you were this charitable, Mike. I would’ve called it for what it was from the get-go: a load of bullshit.
On the post: Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title
We’ve had commenters here who’ve wondered why the law lacks “a DMCA but for everyday speech” as some form of content moderation or whatnot. To those commenters: This article proves exactly why we don’t have (or need) such a thing.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Good. People who don’t respect the rules won’t be swayed into respecting those rules by people who follow the rules and go tsk-tsk at the rulebreakers. Metaphorically throwing a few elbows in their faces, on the other hand…
On the post: Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse
I am not a judge. I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training, no specialized knowledge of the law, and no experience inside a courtroom in any capacity.
But even I know that making up a confession to put someone in jail for a crime they didn’t commit violates that someone’s civil rights.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Racists love to imply that MLK was against acknowledging racism by repeating that famous quote about judging people by their character. They use that conclusion to back up their idea that anyone who acknowledges racism—be it personal or systemic—is trying to “be divisive” or “keep racism alive”. Conservative politicians/pundits also love quoting that bit to make themselves seem anti-racist. But anyone familiar with the work of MLK beyond that one line in that one speech knows better than to believe the bigots and the grifters.
On the post: Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment
Shorter version of the court’s message to those Proud Boys members: “Y’all can go stand back in jail and stand by for your trials.”
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Lots of white people love to quote the “judge people by the content of their character” part of “I Have a Dream”, but hate it when anyone quotes the “I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate” part of “Letter from Birmingham Jail”.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
This holds true across party lines:
Few things in our government—at any level—emit the same aura of all-around dumbassery that comes from a “we must be seen doing something” law.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Any day where you can tell a Nazi to fuck off is a good day.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers
Darwin? No. Herman Cain? Yes.
On the post: New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path
Sort-of on-topic: If we seek justice in regards to the Internet, we should first look toward protecting adult content and its many creators from being victims of anti-porn legislation and puritanical social control (e.g., payment processor lockouts). Any attack on pornography is an attack on free speech, and any attempt to crack down on free speech on the Internet will almost always start with one of the easiest targets.
On the post: Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor
For what reason doesn’t Facebook/Meta deserve the same benefit, other than “it’s big”?
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
Then there are artdump sites like DeviantArt, FurAffinity, and the less-popular brethren of both those sites—many, if not all, of those sites would crumble if they were forced to turn into subscription-only sites. That’s to say nothing of imageboards/chansites (e.g., 4chan), all of which would immediately die if they turned on a paywall.
Paywalling services like Netflix and Spotify makes sense. Paywalling every other site on the Internet? Not so much.
On the post: Indian Gov't Orders YouTube To Block 20 Channels For 'Blasphemy' And 'Impinging On National Security'
blasphemy — noun — mockery of an all-powerful supernatural deity who is apparently powerless to do anything that would actually stop said mockery
see also: victimless crime
On the post: Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor
I’d say he can’t see the forest for the trees, but I’m not sure he can even see the trees.
Next >>