Should never have happened but a surprisingly good response, if lacking an apology, given that it did. Politicians and business folk should follow his example and avoid turning minor incidents into personal quagmires.
I assure you that they don't have a 'fictional blog' - it is in fact quite real. As a matter of fact YOU are on that blog at this very moment - it is as if the power was always inside you and you just had to believe.
That was roughly my thought too - though I re-read it twice to make sure I wasn't overlooking something key that made his legal strategy coherent. The idea that the idea that the court should adjudicate if a statement was a 'personal attack' without regard to whether or not it is true is ... novel.
If by some gross miscarriage of justice takes place and Shiva wins this I look forward to the estate of Ted Bundy suing everyone since the history books have the NASTIEST personal attacks on him.
Obama didn't fire Comey because it would have resulted in screams about political interference in the FBI's investigations from Republicans regardless of the fact that Comey violated the tradition of not commenting on investigations that found no underlying crime and explicit departmental policies on election period investigations. The idea that Trump fired Comey for 'screwing up' is patently (see keeping it relevant to Techdirt) absurd given that he has repeatedly praised Comey's election interference.
Incidentally, slightly before he was fired the FBI office released a letter explaining that Comey had lied during his testimony regarding Abedin forwarding classified emails.
Specifically what ACTUALLY happened was that Abedin forwarded two email chains to Weiner for printing that were subsequently classified and her phone automatically backed up ten other classified email chains, a 'feature' that Abedin testified that she was unaware of and no evidence was found that her backups were ever accessed.
While there are people who do need to use formula, there is still no need to advertise it. Their doctors, lactation consultants, public health nurses, social workers, adoption agencies, and all the other people who are assisting those women should know about formula if somehow a parent manages to be so unaware of the world that they haven't heard of it before. Medically necessary products shouldn't be advertised because only people who need them should be using them and they should have the appropriate support systems to tell them about it rather than having a company try to create additional customers through advertising even though they are harming those new customers.
It has the name and picture of the Copyright Agency chairman in the middle of the article and the name of the guy running it day to day which can be matched up with a picture with a trivial google search. I know you just wanted to sound tough on the internet but good god the level of lazy stupidity here is astounding when you've got access to a vast repository of knowledge at your fingertips and could have accessed it with the same amount of effort as your comment took.
I actually genuinely feel sorry for the poor artist. He has a fairly distinct style that you can recognize if you've seen Pepe and most people won't know that he doesn't support the movement that has appropriated his character and completely altered the association that character has. The irony is that he actually does have legal standing to sue over the use of Pepe but doesn't because he recognizes that it is an impossible battle that will get him nothing but scorn.
Likely she wasn't guilty of the actual offence. Typically these statutes are worded in a way that only criminalize the penetrating party since they were written by puritanical idiots who assumed that no one would consent to it.
The citizen's of the vast majority of the developed world would strongly disagree with you on the idea that them not having unlimited access to guns somehow makes them slaves.
I suppose you also think that people get raped could (and should have) protected themselves by not going out at night? Blaming the victim for not stopping someone with hostile intent from hurting them is morally reprehensible.
There is a big difference between taking reasonable precautions to minimize risk (not watching anime with flashing sequences for example) and expecting someone to structure their entire life around avoiding the possibility that an asshole who wants to hurt them (Eichenwald didn't wear sunglasses outside to prevent buddy from walking up to him with a strobe light either - he must have been asking for it).
Interesting that by that section of the crimes act many corporate announcements and reports would be 'conspiracy to defraud' since they involve multiple people, are intended to effect the price of stocks, and are frequently dishonest about all the true details rather than just the ones that paint the company in the best light.
Statute of limitations apply to when charges can be *initiated* and does not expire while a case is being argued. The only way the statute of limitations could be relevant for this case is that the government would not be able to amend their complaint to include additional charges for which too much time has passed nor can they voluntarily dismiss the case and then recharge him with a virtually identical set of charges if they start losing.
I was initially pretty strongly on the side of the Trek project but looking at those samples I'm finding myself torn. That isn't just using the style but copying the individual compositions in great detail and adding the Star Trek stuff in. Particularly for the second sample, it looks like they just used tracing paper for the tree and the background down to copying the exact number and layout of twigs on the tree and the number and shape of the background hills, neither of which feature is distinctly memorable enough to be part of the Seussian style. The utter lack of originality in the composition of those pieces of art is going to be a bloody high barrier to convince a judge or jury that they are making creative choices when to me, someone who was inclined to their side in the first place, 'slavishly copying' seems like a fairly honest description.
Techdirt actually missed the mark even more because it stated that US defamation laws would have produced a different outcome which is far from clear. At this time reposting someone else's defamation as part of a larger article making the same point is exercising sufficient editorial control that Veck takes on legal responsibility for verifying the veracity of that content. If he had taken even the barest amount of effort to do a Google search he would have know that the original had been retracted thus he falls under the standard of 'reckless disregard for the truth' which would result in him being guilty of libel even if Patrick Warman was considered a public figure (a dubious claim given his 'fame' is largely involuntary).
Or more accurately the CDA immunizes hosts from liability for the any potential libel on the part of its users and prevents non-originating users from being held liable for things like nested comments. The user who originally wrote the libelous comment are still fully liable for any libel. It adds the tiny hurdle of filing suit against a Doe and performing discovery against the host to acquire the information retained about the libelous user but frankly if that is enough deterrent against filing suit then it was a vastly unworthy lawsuit to begin with. Sites are still accountable legally for any material that they exert editorial control over, just not that of their visitors.
Without CDA 230 much of the functionality of the internet would become unfeasible as everything would need to be manually reviewed before linking or they could be liable for whoever they are linking to's actions. Google couldn't give you search results with a snippet of text to give context to the link, no comment sections, no youtube, not even web chats would be safe without hosts being protected from the unsupervised actions of users.
Oy! I'm not sure if your (stupid) argument proves the point that people are getting dumber or if you are just a special case.
Expecting people to have the same skills to operate a mass market device that has been designed for unskilled users as a tiny population of hobbyists who require those skills in order to do anything useful with it is just plain imbecilic. It is akin to complaining that the fact that people who drive cars are stupid because they no longer know how to properly curry and brush a horse
On the post: FCC Guards 'Manhandle' Reporter Just For Asking Questions At Net Neutrality Vote
On the post: First Hearing In The Lawsuit Against Us, Along With Even More Filings
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hearing In The Lawsuit Against Us, Along With Even More Filings
Re:
If by some gross miscarriage of justice takes place and Shiva wins this I look forward to the estate of Ted Bundy suing everyone since the history books have the NASTIEST personal attacks on him.
On the post: Trump Fires FBI Director Comey
Re: Big Whup. Not.
On the post: Trump Fires FBI Director Comey
Re:
Specifically what ACTUALLY happened was that Abedin forwarded two email chains to Weiner for printing that were subsequently classified and her phone automatically backed up ten other classified email chains, a 'feature' that Abedin testified that she was unaware of and no evidence was found that her backups were ever accessed.
On the post: Want To Promote Breastfeeding? That's A Trade Barrier, Says US Trade Rep
Re:
See also: Why the U.S. drug system is fucked up.
On the post: Australia's Copyright Agency Keeps $11 Million Meant For Authors, Uses It To Fight Introduction Of Fair Use
Re:
It has the name and picture of the Copyright Agency chairman in the middle of the article and the name of the guy running it day to day which can be matched up with a picture with a trivial google search. I know you just wanted to sound tough on the internet but good god the level of lazy stupidity here is astounding when you've got access to a vast repository of knowledge at your fingertips and could have accessed it with the same amount of effort as your comment took.
On the post: Why Is Congress In Such A Rush To Strip The Library Of Congress Of Oversight Powers On The Copyright Office?
Re: Re: Re: contributions = priority
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Re: Control
On the post: Court Strikes Probation Restrictions Banning Teen From Using Encryption, Accessing Internet For Personal Reasons
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Deadly weapon?
There is a big difference between taking reasonable precautions to minimize risk (not watching anime with flashing sequences for example) and expecting someone to structure their entire life around avoiding the possibility that an asshole who wants to hurt them (Eichenwald didn't wear sunglasses outside to prevent buddy from walking up to him with a strobe light either - he must have been asking for it).
On the post: New Zealand Court Says Kim Dotcom Still Eligible For Extradition... But Not Over Copyright
Re: The "fraud" part
On the post: New Zealand Court Says Kim Dotcom Still Eligible For Extradition... But Not Over Copyright
Re:
On the post: One Fish Two Fish, We Will Sue Fish: Seuss Lawyers Hop On Pop Art
On the post: Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Us Over A Clearly Hyperbolic Techdirt Comment
Re:
Unless the government tells you that you aren't allowed in which case just roll over.
On the post: Milwaukee PD Hid Stingray Usage From Judges, Defendants And Now Congress Members Want Answers From The FBI
Re:
Oh you sweet naive boy, our GPS just dinged and told us that we have now arrived at our destination.
On the post: Canadian Court Orders Blogger Who Reposted Another Writer's Defamatory Statements To Pay $10,000 To Defamed Party
Re:
On the post: Canadian Court Orders Blogger Who Reposted Another Writer's Defamatory Statements To Pay $10,000 To Defamed Party
Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA § 230
Without CDA 230 much of the functionality of the internet would become unfeasible as everything would need to be manually reviewed before linking or they could be liable for whoever they are linking to's actions. Google couldn't give you search results with a snippet of text to give context to the link, no comment sections, no youtube, not even web chats would be safe without hosts being protected from the unsupervised actions of users.
On the post: DailyDirt: These Things Are Not Really Making You Any Smarter, But Try Them Anyway?
Re:
Expecting people to have the same skills to operate a mass market device that has been designed for unskilled users as a tiny population of hobbyists who require those skills in order to do anything useful with it is just plain imbecilic. It is akin to complaining that the fact that people who drive cars are stupid because they no longer know how to properly curry and brush a horse
Next >>