Unfortunately for you, there remains no evidence of that happening at all.
The NYT was ready to go within one hour of the original raid. Then they magically receive the contents of the confiscated phones. Please, don't be a stooge for the FBI.
No, we are advocating against prior restraint, just as we have always done.
Horrific. Techdirt has advocated in the past against law enforcement legal skulduggery. From judicially manufactured legal concepts such as qualified immunity, to catch-22 hiding of evidence behind supposed national intelligence secrecy. But now you're trying to CREATE a legal loophole for law enforcement.
Just collude with a publisher, and escape all accountability?!?! No way. Nyt can escape from their predicament at any time by naming the source, but we all know it was the FBI.
Brilliant thought experiment (not my idea) -- if the FBI raided the home of A.G. Sulzberger to find the leaker, and then leaked unrelated information seized to Fox News, what then? You would be having a conniption, and rightfully so. Instead, you are advocating for an exception to illegally obtained, and illegally leaked, attorney client privileged information. PV gets the injunction, the NYT has been ordered to delete the information that was given to them. And if the Nyt wants to claim that they didn't collude with the FBI, then they can attempt to do so at trial and get laughed out of court and straight into paying a massive judgement by the jury.
The 1st Amendment protects political speech, not deliberately leaked attorney-client privileged messages.
You forgot to mention that the FBI raided O'Keefe's residence, and then deliberately leaked the contents of his communications illegally to the NYT. The DOJ has now been ordered to stop extracting data from the confiscated devices (by a different judge!). Oh, and the NYT is currently the recipient of a defamation lawsuit from O'Keefe.
Ordinarily, techdirt would be highly critical of such a corrupt operation by the FBI, and illegally obtaining attorney-client privileged information. But, because a political opponent is the target, it's okay. Fortunately, it appears that this judge understands that collusion is occurring behind the scenes, especially since the NYT is refusing to disclose how they obtained it.
The politicians have identified that they want to spend a lot of money in the hopes that it will boost their poll numbers, and they can identify what they hope it will accomplish, but they can't tell us how the spent money will actually get us toward those goals. Expect the money to be flushed down the toilet on some useless bureaucrat salaries while close to zero homes or businesses receive broadband connectivity.
Whether or not social media platforms are "different" than newspapers in some ways and the "same" as newspapers in some ways is not the issue, and it's weird for the Knight Institute to key in on that.
It sounds like even the Knight Institute is starting to become concerned about the difference between platforms and publishers.
That's the thing about boarders: local places have local control and jurisdiction. For thousands of years before the internet, folks accepted the idea that there are different laws in different countries. It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that they also want control of the portion of the internet that lies within their country's boarders. Most nations had such a hands-off approach, for so long, that it seemed like the internet might become a place of uniform rules. Now, nations are looking to take back control, even if it means a SplinterNet.
In today's internet age of instant gratification, some kids who have grown up to know nothing else in their lifetimes are now incapable of coping without a constant stream of attention and social approval through their phone. I never thought I'd agree with CNNLOL, but regulating this digital nicotine would be an excellent first step.
My understanding is that they're following the New Media in order to get the ratings that they so desperately need. As the stories percolate online or on radio, it proves to be an incredibly popular and engaging topic, although with a small audience and little reach. So then a corporate news network runs a segment, public awareness explodes, and the media company attracts enough eyeballs to pay the rent.
If Governor Koby rents out the restaurant to hold a gov't press conference, then -- for that time -- it is a public forum.
That's definitely not a public forum. The government has never been required to let everyone into the event. And the government does kick out hecklers all the time. It may be an event, but there is no forum.
That would mean any time a government official rents out a hotel or a restaurant or an arena for an event, that those private property places become public forums for the rest of time?
The event never ended. Government officials, somewhere out there, are probably posting to social media, right this minute. If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now.
Okay, so you've mentioned your reasoning as to why you feel that those takedowns were legitimate. Just looking at point #1:
worship by self-confessed "proud chauvinists", bigots and racists,
Still isn't grounds for censoring any and all support of others.
of a 17 year old would-be vigilante who drove into state lines with an unlawful AR-15,
Never entered WI with it, the weapon was already in WI. Charges dropped, you're lying here.
accosted by and shot to death a mentally ill person,
Not grounds for censorship.
then ran at another person and his girlfriend with weapon high prompting another fracas and shooting
Was down on the ground and assaulted prior to the shooting, and only shot assailants. Cleared of charges. Not grounds for censorship.
then finally shot the paramedic who tried to interfere?
The paramedic lowered his arms while pointing a firearm, and charged forward. Cleared of charges. Not grounds for censorship.
All your points have been so wrong that facebook was forced to reverse its decision to censor, and discussion and support is now allowed.
Basically, you've got an opinion, which is fine. But then you classify any difference of opinion as being such an egregious violation of some nonexistent rule that it requires content takedown. The public sees this immoral behavior by leftists, and is disgusted. Your other points are the same: this is clear political difference of opinion, and cannot warrant censorship. If you want to takedown speech and ban users, without appearing biased, then you've got to provide better reasoning than "maybe" with a complete reversal after the trial. And you can say that corporations have the right to moderate however they want, but it won't make the bias disaapear.
In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum. If 1st amendment protections can be applied to prevent government officials from blocking comments, then it's time to admit that social media is a public forum with guarantees of speech and no blocking for all citizens.
I would suggest that stories, such as this one written by Tim, are the punishment. When you criticize corporate news with data and reasoned arguments, the corporate media loses credibility. They lose trust, lose subscribers, and lose influence. Numerous local and regional newspapers have done a very poor job in recent years, and have been replaced by new media outlets on the internet. Certain larger cable outlets are suffering from low viewership, and may eventually face the same fate. The Amazon Post also had the same problem a few years back. The same could happen to the NYT as well unless they shape up.
When you can't afford for the Ferguson Effect to be true, the NYT is Fake News. It's good to see the numbers to make actual comparisons, instead of believing sensationalist newspaper story writers.
I've been pointing out specific conservative censorship on social media for months. Everything from Trump, to Project Veritas, but much much more gets listed weekly on the uncensored portion of the internet, outside of your echo chamber. Censorship such as the facebook rittenhouse support ban, Joe Rogan episode blacklisting, congressmen getting censored, as well as numerous smaller content creators.
The speech that triggered the censorship was perfectly legal, and even if someone felt insulted, it never warranted a takedown. It's up to you to defend the censorship, because I don't.
Karl has written abut the issues with Sinclair multiple times. Try to keep up.
But he didn't do a very good job of it here. James managed to pack more actual policy issue discussion in a few short paragraphs, than Karl's article that was four times as long. Not that I agree with it. For example, I don't feel that the penalty for a failed merger should be to lose your broadcasting license. But it at least brings up topics and concerns, instead of just badmouthing the opposition.
On the post: Unsecured Data Leak Shows Predicitive Policing Is Just Tech-Washed, Old School Biased Policing
Racist Computer?
Was the algorithm fed race data? How did it know?
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
The NYT was ready to go within one hour of the original raid. Then they magically receive the contents of the confiscated phones. Please, don't be a stooge for the FBI.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Horrific. Techdirt has advocated in the past against law enforcement legal skulduggery. From judicially manufactured legal concepts such as qualified immunity, to catch-22 hiding of evidence behind supposed national intelligence secrecy. But now you're trying to CREATE a legal loophole for law enforcement.
Just collude with a publisher, and escape all accountability?!?! No way. Nyt can escape from their predicament at any time by naming the source, but we all know it was the FBI.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Other Side
Brilliant thought experiment (not my idea) -- if the FBI raided the home of A.G. Sulzberger to find the leaker, and then leaked unrelated information seized to Fox News, what then? You would be having a conniption, and rightfully so. Instead, you are advocating for an exception to illegally obtained, and illegally leaked, attorney client privileged information. PV gets the injunction, the NYT has been ordered to delete the information that was given to them. And if the Nyt wants to claim that they didn't collude with the FBI, then they can attempt to do so at trial and get laughed out of court and straight into paying a massive judgement by the jury.
The 1st Amendment protects political speech, not deliberately leaked attorney-client privileged messages.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Other Side
Not if they colluded. They picked the fruit of the poisoned tree.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Other Side
You forgot to mention that the FBI raided O'Keefe's residence, and then deliberately leaked the contents of his communications illegally to the NYT. The DOJ has now been ordered to stop extracting data from the confiscated devices (by a different judge!). Oh, and the NYT is currently the recipient of a defamation lawsuit from O'Keefe.
Ordinarily, techdirt would be highly critical of such a corrupt operation by the FBI, and illegally obtaining attorney-client privileged information. But, because a political opponent is the target, it's okay. Fortunately, it appears that this judge understands that collusion is occurring behind the scenes, especially since the NYT is refusing to disclose how they obtained it.
On the post: As U.S. Prepares Big New Broadband Plan, Few Notice Our Last Major Broadband Plan Was A Major Dud
Drunken Sailors
The politicians have identified that they want to spend a lot of money in the hopes that it will boost their poll numbers, and they can identify what they hope it will accomplish, but they can't tell us how the spent money will actually get us toward those goals. Expect the money to be flushed down the toilet on some useless bureaucrat salaries while close to zero homes or businesses receive broadband connectivity.
On the post: No, The Arguments Against Florida's & Texas' Content Moderation Bills Would Not Block All Internet Regulations
Kind Of A Big Difference
It sounds like even the Knight Institute is starting to become concerned about the difference between platforms and publishers.
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
Keep Calm and Eliminate On
Sometimes, there's a price to pay for Chicken Little.
On the post: Turkey's Dictator Erdogan, Who Has Sued Thousands Of Critics, Jailed More, Now Claims That 'Social Media' Is A 'Threat To Democracy'
Re: Sucks to be Turkish
That's the thing about boarders: local places have local control and jurisdiction. For thousands of years before the internet, folks accepted the idea that there are different laws in different countries. It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that they also want control of the portion of the internet that lies within their country's boarders. Most nations had such a hands-off approach, for so long, that it seemed like the internet might become a place of uniform rules. Now, nations are looking to take back control, even if it means a SplinterNet.
On the post: CNN Goes Full Moral Panic About Kids And Social Media
Digital Addiction
In today's internet age of instant gratification, some kids who have grown up to know nothing else in their lifetimes are now incapable of coping without a constant stream of attention and social approval through their phone. I never thought I'd agree with CNNLOL, but regulating this digital nicotine would be an excellent first step.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation
Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh, it was just Fake News.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation
Re:
My understanding is that they're following the New Media in order to get the ratings that they so desperately need. As the stories percolate online or on radio, it proves to be an incredibly popular and engaging topic, although with a small audience and little reach. So then a corporate news network runs a segment, public awareness explodes, and the media company attracts enough eyeballs to pay the rent.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Re: Moving Target
That's definitely not a public forum. The government has never been required to let everyone into the event. And the government does kick out hecklers all the time. It may be an event, but there is no forum.
The event never ended. Government officials, somewhere out there, are probably posting to social media, right this minute. If the a judge rules that it was a public forum, where you have to allow any citizens inside, and they can say anything they want, then it STILL is a public forum, right now.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
Okay, so you've mentioned your reasoning as to why you feel that those takedowns were legitimate. Just looking at point #1:
Still isn't grounds for censoring any and all support of others.
Never entered WI with it, the weapon was already in WI. Charges dropped, you're lying here.
Not grounds for censorship.
Was down on the ground and assaulted prior to the shooting, and only shot assailants. Cleared of charges. Not grounds for censorship.
The paramedic lowered his arms while pointing a firearm, and charged forward. Cleared of charges. Not grounds for censorship.
All your points have been so wrong that facebook was forced to reverse its decision to censor, and discussion and support is now allowed.
Basically, you've got an opinion, which is fine. But then you classify any difference of opinion as being such an egregious violation of some nonexistent rule that it requires content takedown. The public sees this immoral behavior by leftists, and is disgusted. Your other points are the same: this is clear political difference of opinion, and cannot warrant censorship. If you want to takedown speech and ban users, without appearing biased, then you've got to provide better reasoning than "maybe" with a complete reversal after the trial. And you can say that corporations have the right to moderate however they want, but it won't make the bias disaapear.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Moving Target
In the past, it has been claimed that social media is not a public forum. Now, all of a sudden, it IS a public forum. If 1st amendment protections can be applied to prevent government officials from blocking comments, then it's time to admit that social media is a public forum with guarantees of speech and no blocking for all citizens.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re:
I would suggest that stories, such as this one written by Tim, are the punishment. When you criticize corporate news with data and reasoned arguments, the corporate media loses credibility. They lose trust, lose subscribers, and lose influence. Numerous local and regional newspapers have done a very poor job in recent years, and have been replaced by new media outlets on the internet. Certain larger cable outlets are suffering from low viewership, and may eventually face the same fate. The Amazon Post also had the same problem a few years back. The same could happen to the NYT as well unless they shape up.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Murders Are Kinda On The Rise, Tho
When you can't afford for the Ferguson Effect to be true, the NYT is Fake News. It's good to see the numbers to make actual comparisons, instead of believing sensationalist newspaper story writers.
On the post: Twitter Admits It Messed Up In Suspending Accounts Under Its New Policy, But Policies Like This Will ALWAYS Lead To Overblocking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultimate Test
I've been pointing out specific conservative censorship on social media for months. Everything from Trump, to Project Veritas, but much much more gets listed weekly on the uncensored portion of the internet, outside of your echo chamber. Censorship such as the facebook rittenhouse support ban, Joe Rogan episode blacklisting, congressmen getting censored, as well as numerous smaller content creators.
The speech that triggered the censorship was perfectly legal, and even if someone felt insulted, it never warranted a takedown. It's up to you to defend the censorship, because I don't.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds Like A Censor
But he didn't do a very good job of it here. James managed to pack more actual policy issue discussion in a few short paragraphs, than Karl's article that was four times as long. Not that I agree with it. For example, I don't feel that the penalty for a failed merger should be to lose your broadcasting license. But it at least brings up topics and concerns, instead of just badmouthing the opposition.
Next >>