Re: So Alternative Facts Are Not Policitally Correct Now?
The reason why Techdirt reported this is because of the abuse of a DMCA notice in an attempt to stifle criticism. If you're aware of a liberal using the DMCA to try to stifle the speech of conservatives, submit it here as a story.
but FOSTA defines those third parties even more broadly than SESTA does, criminalizing conduct by "any person or entity and by any means that furthers or in anyway aids or abets" sex trafficking.
So if sex traffickers use a Windows Server, would Microsoft be fined? If they used Linux, would Linus Torvalds be on the hook?
He isn't reporting. He is an active participant. Having a camera doesn't magically make that disappear.
Just merely being in the presence of rioters doesn't make him an active participant, and him being there to film the riot doesn't magically make him a participant either.
Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
So -- if honest -- you'd agree with the general principle of NOT advertising incitements to anger.
I'd agree with the general principle of politeness of not advertising incitements to anger. I most certainly would not agree to the general legal principle of not advertising incitements to anger.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
No, wait, sorry. Re-reading, it would seem that you're fine with incitement being illegal, and also think that the sticker counts as disorderly conduct? That is, you think that "the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace," or if the "display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace…" ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
the 1st does not make freedom of speech conditional, it just makes it an absolute liberty and you don't agree with that, which makes it "as usual" someone against the 1st amendment.
Do you disagree with the law(s) making incitement illegal? Or do you not think that what's being discussed amounts to incitement?
Re: Is there ANY evidence against Moore besides allegations? LIKE THIS:
By the way: it's difficult to refute allegations that come from out of the blue, that's why the letter is flailing. One doesn't know what the charge is or who one is fighting.
"One doesn't know what the charge is"? So far as I can tell, the charges are sexual assault and sexual advances on underage girls. He could simply say "I've never sexually assaulted anyone, nor have I ever made sexual advances towards any underage girls".
So, if you use a photo booth, does the company operating the booth own the copyright on any photos produced by the booth?
That's the argument that the photographer is making.
No, his argument is more along the lines of "the copyright has to belong to someone. Normally it would belong to whoever presses the button, if it can't belong to them then the copyright passes to the owner of the booth".
Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".
If "platforms" are too big to moderate as civil society requires, CUT THEM DOWN TO SIZE.
It's not, in and of itself, the size of the platforms/companies, but the the sheer volume of messages that would have to be moderated. If (for example) you split Twitter up into a thousand companies, each with 1/1,000th of the resources and handling 1/1,000th of the message volume, none of those mini-Twitters would have the resources needed to handle the volume of messages as the would be (proportionally) in the same boat as the original Twitter. The only way to "moderate as civil society requires" would be some combination of throttling the amount of messages users can send and charging users per message sent, so that their army of paid moderators would be up to the task of handling the message volume.
VMProtect has "no perceptible effect," [according to Ubisoft]
Some significant portion of the compiled game code (significant enough to attempt to deter piracy) is running in a VM with a different instruction set than the underlying physical CPU, and this is supposed to have no perceptible effect?
On the post: MPAA Wins: Australia To Carve Google And Facebook Out Of Its Expanded Safe Harbor Provisions
Re: Rights are for those who create, NOT leeches or "platforms".
But platforms help creators to distribute their content, and a lack of safe harbor for platforms gives creators less options for distribution.
On the post: Snopes Debunks Fake YouTube Video; Video's Creator Responds With A Bogus DMCA Notice
Re: So Alternative Facts Are Not Policitally Correct Now?
The reason why Techdirt reported this is because of the abuse of a DMCA notice in an attempt to stifle criticism. If you're aware of a liberal using the DMCA to try to stifle the speech of conservatives, submit it here as a story.
On the post: House Internet Censorship Bill Is Just Like The Senate Bill, Except Worse
So if sex traffickers use a Windows Server, would Microsoft be fined? If they used Linux, would Linus Torvalds be on the hook?
On the post: Trial Set To Start For Journalist Facing Decades In Prison For Covering Inauguration Day Protests
Re:
Just merely being in the presence of rioters doesn't make him an active participant, and him being there to film the riot doesn't magically make him a participant either.
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
I'd agree with the general principle of politeness of not advertising incitements to anger. I most certainly would not agree to the general legal principle of not advertising incitements to anger.
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
No, wait, sorry. Re-reading, it would seem that you're fine with incitement being illegal, and also think that the sticker counts as disorderly conduct? That is, you think that "the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace," or if the "display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace…" ?
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
Do you disagree with the law(s) making incitement illegal? Or do you not think that what's being discussed amounts to incitement?
On the post: Roy Moore's Threat Letter To Sue The Press Is An Artform In Bad Lawyering
Re: Is there ANY evidence against Moore besides allegations? LIKE THIS:
"One doesn't know what the charge is"? So far as I can tell, the charges are sexual assault and sexual advances on underage girls. He could simply say "I've never sexually assaulted anyone, nor have I ever made sexual advances towards any underage girls".
On the post: Covert Cryptocurrency Miners Quickly Become A Major Problem
Re: Re: Re: But you don't mind Google mining info bits to track you?
"Why aren't you talking about what I want you to talk about" isn't worth responding to.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Lets Us See Its Glassdoor Ruling, And It's Terrible
Re: Again, this is GRAND JURY, a key component of American democracy,
It's not the grand jury members who issue grand jury subpoenas.
On the post: A Great Use For Artificial Intelligence: Scamming Scammers By Wasting Their Time
Re:
Check out It's Lenny
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Photo booths
No, his argument is more along the lines of "the copyright has to belong to someone. Normally it would belong to whoever presses the button, if it can't belong to them then the copyright passes to the owner of the booth".
Not saying that argument is correct.
On the post: Wikipedia Warns That SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
Re: Re: opens up smaller sites [ to a ] myriad of new lawsuits
Am I missing something about SESTA? How could it possibly be used again any OS vendors at all?
On the post: MPAA Sticks Its Nose Into Australia's Copyright Business: Warns Against Fair Use And Geo-Blocking Relief
Re: Re: Re: Your "mystery for the ages" solved!
In theory, maybe. In practice...
On the post: Congress Pats Itself On The Back Via Social Media For Its Opportunity To Slam Social Media
Re: Wait a sec! I'm in BOTH your alleged "groups".
It's not, in and of itself, the size of the platforms/companies, but the the sheer volume of messages that would have to be moderated. If (for example) you split Twitter up into a thousand companies, each with 1/1,000th of the resources and handling 1/1,000th of the message volume, none of those mini-Twitters would have the resources needed to handle the volume of messages as the would be (proportionally) in the same boat as the original Twitter. The only way to "moderate as civil society requires" would be some combination of throttling the amount of messages users can send and charging users per message sent, so that their army of paid moderators would be up to the task of handling the message volume.
On the post: With Denuvo Broken, Ubisoft Doubles Up On DRM for Assasin's Creed Origin, Tanking Everyone's Computers
Re:
Some significant portion of the compiled game code (significant enough to attempt to deter piracy) is running in a VM with a different instruction set than the underlying physical CPU, and this is supposed to have no perceptible effect?
On the post: Dennis Prager Sues YouTube For Filtering His Videos In A Way He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt keeps overlooking that Youtube is NOT a "Good Samaritan" nor acting in "good faith".
Also, I'm curious as to which parts of common law restrict what large corporations can do, without those restrictions being regulation.
On the post: Dennis Prager Sues YouTube For Filtering His Videos In A Way He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt keeps overlooking that Youtube is NOT a "Good Samaritan" nor acting in "good faith".
When you say "that the speech is within common law", do you mean "it doesn't violate any anti-obscenity laws"? Isn't defamatory? What?
Please just be more specific when you're talking about common law.
On the post: The DOJ's Bizarre Subpoena Over An Emoji Highlights Its Ridiculous Vendetta Against A Security Researcher
Re: See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing
I haven't been able to find anything on that just from the link you've given. Could you provide more details?
On the post: The DOJ's Bizarre Subpoena Over An Emoji Highlights Its Ridiculous Vendetta Against A Security Researcher
Re:
Watch out, here come some emoticons!
ಠ_ಠ
(ノ ゜Д゜)ノ ︵ ┻━┻
ヽ༼ ຈل͜ຈ༼ ▀̿̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿༽Ɵ͆ل͜Ɵ͆ ༽ﾉ
Next >>