Being consistent and principled believers in the 1st Amendment is "horrific"? How so, Koby?
Techdirt has advocated in the past against law enforcement legal skulduggery.
Yes. And we continue to do so.
But now you're trying to CREATE a legal loophole for law enforcement.
We are doing no such thing. Why are you so insistent on making shit up, Koby? We are not supporting anything involving law enforcement here and since no connection to law enforcement has been shown, let alone proven, your attempt to make shit up is well noted, but it makes you look foolish.
Just collude with a publisher, and escape all accountability?!?!
That would be unfortunate if that was what happened. Unfortunately for you, there remains no evidence of that happening at all. And if there were evidence for it we would continue to call out the problems on the law enforcement side.
None of that justifies prior restraint, however.
Nyt can escape from their predicament at any time by naming the source, but we all know it was the FBI.
So... Project Veritas can "escape from their predicament" regarding the FBI raid if they just name their source for the Ashley Biden diary? Interesting take, Koby! I didn't think you were so anti-source protection. Unlike you, I have principles, and I support both the NYT's and PV's right to protect sources for journalistic activity.
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?
And we'd still support Fox News' 1st Amendment rights to publish the material.
Because we're consistent. Unlike you.
You would be having a conniption, and rightfully so.
About the raid, yes. Just as we did about the raid of PV.
Instead, you are advocating for an exception to illegally obtained, and illegally leaked, attorney client privileged information.
No, we are advocating against prior restraint, just as we have always done.
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.
That's now how the 1st amendment, prior restraint, or the judicial process works.
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,
No, we talked about that, in explaining why we defended O'Keefe's free press rights.
then deliberately leaked the contents of his communications illegally to the NYT.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that supports this contention, and if there was, PV would need to show it in court.
Oh, and the NYT is currently the recipient of a defamation lawsuit from O'Keefe.
This is part of that case, which is actually mentioned in my article you clearly did not read.
Ordinarily, techdirt would be highly critical of such a corrupt operation by the FBI
Again, we DID write about this.
Koby you're getting sloppy.
But, because a political opponent is the target, it's okay.
No, you lying jackass. We defended PV on that part.
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.
That's not at all how this works.
For someone who insists that the 1st Amendment is so important, it's you who seems incredibly flexible on it, Koby.
I just want to point out that the FCC has literally nothing to do with encryption, so their entire misguided complaint wouldn't even matter if it were true, which it is not.
Re: Massie a buffoon, but courts got social media decisions wron
Until very recently, it was understood that individuals, whether private citizens or politicians, had a right to engage their followers without getting flooded out by trolls and hecklers. (Exceptions applied, of course, to accounts maintained or serviced with public money, or used to transact official business.)
You are misunderstanding (or misread?) the ruling here. It said politicians can still mute or ignore people. The issue is when they block those people from speaking entirely in the public forum the government officials create for official business based on the speaker's viewpoint.
Thomas Paine was not required to allot 50% of his <i>American Crisis</i> series to arguments in favor of King George. Abraham Lincoln was not required to allocate 50% of the Gettysburg Address to Copperheads arguing for Confederate Independence.
What? That's got literally nothing to do with any of this. The rulings don't say that the politicians have to "allot 50%" of anything to those who disagree with you. All it says is that if you create a public forum as a government official, you can't discriminate and block people based on their viewpoints in that forum.
That's got nothing at all to do with what a politician says. Also when was Harriet Beecher Stowe a government official?!?
The government has never been required to let everyone into the event.
It cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. That's the issue, Koby. As we stated. It can limit based on size of venue. But it cannot choose who can come based on their viewpoint or speech. Is it clicking for you yet?
The event never ended.
Lol, whut?
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.
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.
No, Koby, this has been explained directly to you at length. Social media, in general, is NOT a public forum. However, if a government official creates a forum for official business, THAT forum is a public forum. Let me explain it to you more specifically. A restaurant is not a public forum. 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 it.
That's what's happening here. A government official is using a private venue to create a public forum. It is only that part that the government official sets up that is the public forum.
We have explained this, and I'm pretty sure directly to you in the past.
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.
No, Koby, that's not how any of this works. 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? No, only a truly foolishly stupid person could possibly believe that.
There are a few VERY LIMITED, and VERY WELL DEFINED exceptions to the 1st Amendment. There is no setup for adding more, and the Supreme Court has made it quite clear it's not particularly interested in expanding those categories. It does not "weigh" 1st Amendment issues with a balancing test (see trope 5 in the link above).
Also, don't cite Chaplinsky to anyone versed in the 1st Amendment unless you want to show that you don't know what you're talking about.
Suppose I had published the factual home address of Richard Jewell during the fervor of the 1996 Olympic bombing and someone else had used that information to perpetrate a violent attack. Of course, a reasonable person may conclude that this is incitement to imminent lawless action and therefore not constitutionally protected speech.
Lol, no, that does not come even remotely close to the Brandenburg test and, no offense, you look totally ignorant if you think it is. It's not a "reasonable person" standard. It is -- like ALL of the limited exceptions to the 1st Amendment -- clearly defined. And publishing an address is not it.
How is it “pretty clearly unconstitutional” to bar the publication of personal information of other people without their consent, or at least date of brith specifically?
Because the 1st Amendment bars restrictions on speech by the government.
Is it unconstitutional to bar the publication of home addresses, or social security numbers? Is doxing protected by the first amendment?
Yes, it is, in fact, protected by the 1st Amendment.
If you’re advocating for the first amendment to protect the nonconsensual disclosure of any privileged personal information, then you’re “pretty clearly” a lunatic.
You may want to sit down, because I have news for you about the 1st Amendment that is apparently going to make you sad. But, let's back up a second, because of the sneaky linguistic drift trick you did. You added here "privileged" to "personal information." Someone's address. Or birthdate, is not "privileged" information in any sense of the word.
Can we out closeted LGBT people to their families? (Or their larger communities?)
I mean, it would be fucked up socially and morally, but it's perfectly legal.
Can we tell people where exonerated defendants in high profile cases live?
Same as above. It is absolutely legal to do so.
Can we enable the identity theft of our political adversaries?
Identity fraud is a crime. But sharing information about someone is not.
Given that you’re not a lunatic, then we seem to agree that there must be some line between what information is acceptable to publish and what is not.
No. You do not seem to understand how the 1st Amendment works.
If home addresses are off limits
They're not. I don't know how old you are, but it wasn't that long ago that everyone's home address was easily accessible via a document called "the white pages." Home addresses are factual information. It may be dickish to publicly share it, and you may face social consequences for it. But it is not illegal. You can not be punished by the state.
The rest of your comment simply reflects your apparent lack of understanding about the 1st Amendment and your very very false belief that it is somehow against the law to share someone's address or date of birth. It is not.
But now when you engage in moderation, it's editorialization.
Um. It has always been so, Koby.
The first amendment does NOT protect against defamation or contractual obligations amongst private citizens.
No one has argued otherwise. And 230 didn't and doesn't change any of that.
Now that moderation is officially recognized as editorialization on behalf of the corporation, we can start to get somewhere.
It has ALWAYS been recognized as such, and editorialization is, by definition, opinion, which has always been protected by the 1st Amendment. 230 has nothing to do with it. Opinion cannot be defamation.
Section 230 is the fig leaf behind which corporations claim that they are not editorializing
This is just flat out false, Koby. You are lying.
It's free speech that you hate
Dude. You're the one out here denying the 1st amendment, so fuck off.
You can always choose to be a publisher instead of a platform.
Koby, Koby, Koby. This is how it has always been. The law has always been that you are a publisher of the content you yourself create, and you are an interactive computer service for hosting content other people create.
The next step now is to hold corporations accountable for their editorials
You can't. Because that's what the 1st Amendment forbids. Editorials are protected speech, you silly, silly troll.
And the company is responsible for their editorials, not the users.
A company is already responsible for its editorials, but can't be punished by the state because of the 1st Amendment. I mean this is fundamental stuff...
Section 230 reform will be the key.
Section 230 has fuck all to do with it. It's the 1st Amendment you hate (and don't understand).
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
The NYT was ready to go within one hour of the original raid.
And that justifies prior restraint how, exactly? Where is the exception to the 1st Amendment for that?
Please, don't be a stooge for the FBI.
Koby, don't be a fucking idiot.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: AMAZING that you elide the FBI's corrupt raid on Project Ver
You mean the raid that we wrote a whole post calling out as dangerous and against 1st Amendment principles?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211116/18082747956/yes-even-if-you-think-project-ver itas-are-bunch-malicious-grifters-fbi-raid-is-concerning.shtml
Blue, you should maybe stop lying all the time?
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Horrific
Being consistent and principled believers in the 1st Amendment is "horrific"? How so, Koby?
Techdirt has advocated in the past against law enforcement legal skulduggery.
Yes. And we continue to do so.
But now you're trying to CREATE a legal loophole for law enforcement.
We are doing no such thing. Why are you so insistent on making shit up, Koby? We are not supporting anything involving law enforcement here and since no connection to law enforcement has been shown, let alone proven, your attempt to make shit up is well noted, but it makes you look foolish.
Just collude with a publisher, and escape all accountability?!?!
That would be unfortunate if that was what happened. Unfortunately for you, there remains no evidence of that happening at all. And if there were evidence for it we would continue to call out the problems on the law enforcement side.
None of that justifies prior restraint, however.
Nyt can escape from their predicament at any time by naming the source, but we all know it was the FBI.
So... Project Veritas can "escape from their predicament" regarding the FBI raid if they just name their source for the Ashley Biden diary? Interesting take, Koby! I didn't think you were so anti-source protection. Unlike you, I have principles, and I support both the NYT's and PV's right to protect sources for journalistic activity.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: 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?
We'd complain about the raid, as we did with PV:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211116/18082747956/yes-even-if-you-think-project-veritas-are -bunch-malicious-grifters-fbi-raid-is-concerning.shtml
And we'd still support Fox News' 1st Amendment rights to publish the material.
Because we're consistent. Unlike you.
You would be having a conniption, and rightfully so.
About the raid, yes. Just as we did about the raid of PV.
Instead, you are advocating for an exception to illegally obtained, and illegally leaked, attorney client privileged information.
No, we are advocating against prior restraint, just as we have always done.
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.
That's now how the 1st amendment, prior restraint, or the judicial process works.
The 1st Amendment protects political speech, not deliberately leaked attorney-client privileged messages.
You're simply wrong about that.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Other Side
You forgot to mention that the FBI raided O'Keefe's residence,
No, we talked about that, in explaining why we defended O'Keefe's free press rights.
then deliberately leaked the contents of his communications illegally to the NYT.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that supports this contention, and if there was, PV would need to show it in court.
Oh, and the NYT is currently the recipient of a defamation lawsuit from O'Keefe.
This is part of that case, which is actually mentioned in my article you clearly did not read.
Ordinarily, techdirt would be highly critical of such a corrupt operation by the FBI
Again, we DID write about this.
Koby you're getting sloppy.
But, because a political opponent is the target, it's okay.
No, you lying jackass. We defended PV on that part.
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.
That's not at all how this works.
For someone who insists that the 1st Amendment is so important, it's you who seems incredibly flexible on it, Koby.
On the post: Robert Reich Loses The Plot: Gets Basically Everything Wrong About Section 230, Fairness Doctrine & The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
Um. No.
On the post: Robert Reich Loses The Plot: Gets Basically Everything Wrong About Section 230, Fairness Doctrine & The 1st Amendment
Re:
I have a paper coming out soon on how to fix the internet...
On the post: Court Tells MyPillow CEO That Allegedly Dating An Actress And Buying Her Alcohol Isn't Defamatory
Re: Re: Re: You might want to read up on the Catholic view towar
"feeling defamed" is not the same as being defamed.
On the post: Birds Aren't Real, And Kids Are Not So Susceptible To Conspiracy Theories (Their Parents On The Other Hand...)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. You should, perhaps, chill out. Your assumptions are bad. Very bad. And not even close to reality.
On the post: Fraternal Order Of Police Opposes Biden FCC Nom Because She....Supports Encryption
Also...
I just want to point out that the FCC has literally nothing to do with encryption, so their entire misguided complaint wouldn't even matter if it were true, which it is not.
On the post: CNN Goes Full Moral Panic About Kids And Social Media
Re: Digital Addiction
You say that as if you have some proof. But there remains none.
And comparing speech to nicotine is quite a take -- especially from you, someone who has regularly insisted ANY moderation is "censorship."
But now you're all for such "censorship"? Do you not see what a hypocrite you are?
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Massie a buffoon, but courts got social media decisions wron
Until very recently, it was understood that individuals, whether private citizens or politicians, had a right to engage their followers without getting flooded out by trolls and hecklers. (Exceptions applied, of course, to accounts maintained or serviced with public money, or used to transact official business.)
You are misunderstanding (or misread?) the ruling here. It said politicians can still mute or ignore people. The issue is when they block those people from speaking entirely in the public forum the government officials create for official business based on the speaker's viewpoint.
Thomas Paine was not required to allot 50% of his <i>American Crisis</i> series to arguments in favor of King George. Abraham Lincoln was not required to allocate 50% of the Gettysburg Address to Copperheads arguing for Confederate Independence.
What? That's got literally nothing to do with any of this. The rulings don't say that the politicians have to "allot 50%" of anything to those who disagree with you. All it says is that if you create a public forum as a government official, you can't discriminate and block people based on their viewpoints in that forum.
That's got nothing at all to do with what a politician says. Also when was Harriet Beecher Stowe a government official?!?
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Re: Re: Moving Target
That's definitely not a public forum.
It absolutely 100% totally is. You're just wrong.
The government has never been required to let everyone into the event.
It cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. That's the issue, Koby. As we stated. It can limit based on size of venue. But it cannot choose who can come based on their viewpoint or speech. Is it clicking for you yet?
The event never ended.
Lol, whut?
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.
Are you having a stroke right now?
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: 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.
No, Koby, this has been explained directly to you at length. Social media, in general, is NOT a public forum. However, if a government official creates a forum for official business, THAT forum is a public forum. Let me explain it to you more specifically. A restaurant is not a public forum. 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 it.
That's what's happening here. A government official is using a private venue to create a public forum. It is only that part that the government official sets up that is the public forum.
We have explained this, and I'm pretty sure directly to you in the past.
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.
No, Koby, that's not how any of this works. 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? No, only a truly foolishly stupid person could possibly believe that.
Are you that person?
On the post: Protecting Judges Is Important, But They Don't Get To Throw Out The 1st Amendment For Themselves
Re: Re: Re:
It is clearly not currently against the law, given that this law is currently being written to bar doing so only for judges.
So... you went from "you must be a lunatic to think this is legal" to "of course it's legal now..." in just two comments. Impressive.
However, the first amendment is not blanket protection on any arbitrary speech.
This is true. And meaningless. See Trope 3: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage -of-free-speech-controversies/
There are a few VERY LIMITED, and VERY WELL DEFINED exceptions to the 1st Amendment. There is no setup for adding more, and the Supreme Court has made it quite clear it's not particularly interested in expanding those categories. It does not "weigh" 1st Amendment issues with a balancing test (see trope 5 in the link above).
Also, don't cite Chaplinsky to anyone versed in the 1st Amendment unless you want to show that you don't know what you're talking about.
Suppose I had published the factual home address of Richard Jewell during the fervor of the 1996 Olympic bombing and someone else had used that information to perpetrate a violent attack. Of course, a reasonable person may conclude that this is incitement to imminent lawless action and therefore not constitutionally protected speech.
Lol, no, that does not come even remotely close to the Brandenburg test and, no offense, you look totally ignorant if you think it is. It's not a "reasonable person" standard. It is -- like ALL of the limited exceptions to the 1st Amendment -- clearly defined. And publishing an address is not it.
Please stop. You look silly.
On the post: Protecting Judges Is Important, But They Don't Get To Throw Out The 1st Amendment For Themselves
Re:
I’m a bit confused as to the argument here.
I see that.
How is it “pretty clearly unconstitutional” to bar the publication of personal information of other people without their consent, or at least date of brith specifically?
Because the 1st Amendment bars restrictions on speech by the government.
Is it unconstitutional to bar the publication of home addresses, or social security numbers? Is doxing protected by the first amendment?
Yes, it is, in fact, protected by the 1st Amendment.
If you’re advocating for the first amendment to protect the nonconsensual disclosure of any privileged personal information, then you’re “pretty clearly” a lunatic.
You may want to sit down, because I have news for you about the 1st Amendment that is apparently going to make you sad. But, let's back up a second, because of the sneaky linguistic drift trick you did. You added here "privileged" to "personal information." Someone's address. Or birthdate, is not "privileged" information in any sense of the word.
Can we out closeted LGBT people to their families? (Or their larger communities?)
I mean, it would be fucked up socially and morally, but it's perfectly legal.
Can we tell people where exonerated defendants in high profile cases live?
Same as above. It is absolutely legal to do so.
Can we enable the identity theft of our political adversaries?
Identity fraud is a crime. But sharing information about someone is not.
Given that you’re not a lunatic, then we seem to agree that there must be some line between what information is acceptable to publish and what is not.
No. You do not seem to understand how the 1st Amendment works.
If home addresses are off limits
They're not. I don't know how old you are, but it wasn't that long ago that everyone's home address was easily accessible via a document called "the white pages." Home addresses are factual information. It may be dickish to publicly share it, and you may face social consequences for it. But it is not illegal. You can not be punished by the state.
The rest of your comment simply reflects your apparent lack of understanding about the 1st Amendment and your very very false belief that it is somehow against the law to share someone's address or date of birth. It is not.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Officially They're A Publisher
But now when you engage in moderation, it's editorialization.
Um. It has always been so, Koby.
The first amendment does NOT protect against defamation or contractual obligations amongst private citizens.
No one has argued otherwise. And 230 didn't and doesn't change any of that.
Now that moderation is officially recognized as editorialization on behalf of the corporation, we can start to get somewhere.
It has ALWAYS been recognized as such, and editorialization is, by definition, opinion, which has always been protected by the 1st Amendment. 230 has nothing to do with it. Opinion cannot be defamation.
Section 230 is the fig leaf behind which corporations claim that they are not editorializing
This is just flat out false, Koby. You are lying.
It's free speech that you hate
Dude. You're the one out here denying the 1st amendment, so fuck off.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re:
Why not both? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Officially They're A Publisher
You can always choose to be a publisher instead of a platform.
Koby, Koby, Koby. This is how it has always been. The law has always been that you are a publisher of the content you yourself create, and you are an interactive computer service for hosting content other people create.
The next step now is to hold corporations accountable for their editorials
You can't. Because that's what the 1st Amendment forbids. Editorials are protected speech, you silly, silly troll.
And the company is responsible for their editorials, not the users.
A company is already responsible for its editorials, but can't be punished by the state because of the 1st Amendment. I mean this is fundamental stuff...
Section 230 reform will be the key.
Section 230 has fuck all to do with it. It's the 1st Amendment you hate (and don't understand).
On the post: Why Are Drug Prices So High? Because Asshole McKinsey Consultants Figure Out Ways To Re-Patent The Same Drugs Over And Over
Re: Depressing
Lol, what? What is anti-semitic in this post which doesn't even mention religion and was written by a Jewish person?
Next >>