You seem to have the same limited and simplistic thinking as ICE. Concepts such as cost-benefit analysis and allocation of limited resources appear to be foreign to you and them. Not to mention government agents doing exactly what politicians promised they would not do. This is an authoritarian agency flexing it's muscles against the easy targets, just like the FBI duping simpletons into becoming 'terrorists' because finding real terrorists is just too hard.
"The general rule is, if you begin the process of assaulting someone, then you generally have forfeited your right to not being assaulted either."
That may be the rule in your head, or even in your lifestyle, but not so much in law. Even Trump knew that, that's why he said he'd pay the legal fees.
Note the instruction was also to a large crowd. So in your eyes an appropriate response to the heinous act of throwing a tomato (aren't you a little snowflake...) is multiple people delivering a severe beating, under circumstances that could easily get completely out of control. You are a pretty shit person, you know that?
Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
""You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites."
Genuinely curious as to what you think an 'elite' actually is. Coz according to the dictionary you have a very high and flattering opinion of us all. So thanks, I think...
You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution is not a list of things you're allowed to do, it's a list of things the government is not allowed to do, or prevent you from doing. And for obvious reasons, there is nothing in the Constitution about airline travel.
"The 'right to travel' is a bedrock of Anglo-American law going back to the Magna Carta."
The right to travel sure, under your own power. But you have no inherent right to get on a plane owned by a private company and allowed to leave the ground only with a government agency's permission.
"Seat-belt laws are nothing more than cash grab material. Sure it is stupid for people to not wear one, but that is their choice. If people want to risk their lives, that is their choice, government really has no right to proxy parent you."
Just curious, who do you think pays for the millions of dollars worth of medical care required to treat the serious injuries of all those who survive unbelted crashes?
And have you considered the net loss to society caused by serious injuries and deaths? If the government acting as a proxy parent upsets your conservative sensibilities so much, why don't you instead look at it as the government protecting it's financial investment and not wanting to lose your tax dollars.
It amuses me that in the Ars article this pathological liar implies that this case is not financially supported by Thiel or anyone else. I find this very hard to believe. Given the financial risk to Techdirt, who have a very strong case, he must be very confident he can succeed the same way he did with Gawker, which means cost is not a problem. Just another lie of top of all his others.
"It has become apparent? It has become apparent to whom?"
Anyone with half a brain who's been watching Trump's actions for the last few years. Rocket science this ain't.
"First, only Comey spoke to "pledging his allegiance", that does not make it a fact."
Nobody has ever said it is anything other than Comey's claim, and has no independent corroboration. But seriously, out of the two of them, who's got a proven track record as a serial liar?
"Second, it looks like Comey PLANNED to leak the memos FROM THE TIME HE CREATED THEM, and all bit admitted this under oath."
Obviously they were planned to be his record of events, to be released if necessary to protect himself if Trump turned on him, which he did. Not sure why you think that's a damming revelation, it's the smart think to do any time you may need to rely on your recollection of events. Smart people do it all the time in all walks of life.
You mean those ridiculous claims that are backed up by plenty of corroborating evidence and independently reported by many others? Those crazy claims that not a single other person besides Shiva have refuted?
"The "Tech" in Techdirt is for "Technology", right, genius?"
You should avoid sarcastically calling someone 'genius' while demonstrating your own far-from-genius abilities.
"...is it now OK for all FBI employees to take government documents and secretly send them to the press to promote their own agendas?"
A personal memo is not a government document, so that's a strawman argument.
"Did Comey said that the reason he made his "memos" was because he knew IN ADVANCE that Trump would lie?"
No he didn't. Perhaps watch the actual testimony instead of misquoting him to make yet another a strawman argument.
"Is it EVEN POSSIBLE that Comey, that is, the same Comey who acted (completely inappropriately) as judge and jury and pardoner in chief for Hillary Clinton could LIE? Could he be LYING?"
Whatever your opinion of Comey's past actions, there has never been any accusation of lying. Trump on the other hand has a long and well-documented history of outright and easily disproved lies. So it's pretty easy to take a punt of who's being the more honest here.
"I hope he gets a jail cell next to Hillary, that would be poetic justice."
I'm guessing you can't even see the irony of responding on Techdirt to people who have responded on Techdirt to your comments on Techdirt about how Techdirt censors you. Man Techdirt sucks at censorship!
Re: Flawed premises: A) Congress may be wrong in broad intent, B) obvious "everyone knows" limits to "free speech", C) maybe "platforms" are deeply flawed idea.
*"You're basically defending anarchy where every yahoo will try to shout and shock, and that's not going to end well."*
It takes a mix of a fiercely overactive imagination and gross ignorance to look at how Section 230 has been working for all these years and say it causes or is leading to anarchy. You seem to completely ignore, or just not be aware of, the massive amounts of completely innocuous user-generated content that exists on websites that are only possible because of the liability protections available. For all the highly publicised 'bad' content that generates these lawsuits and stories, the internet is still are far better place than it would be if everyone was too terrified of misguided lawsuits to allow any user-generated content.
*"I can tell you that at least many of MY comments disappear from that public comment box."*
"I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it."
I doubt he's very concerned about it, but there's zero reason to believe Pai had anything to do with it. It's a stupidly hamfisted approach that everyone can see right through, and whatever you think of him he's nowhere near that dumb.
You're making a wild conspiracy claim here so you'll need to actually provide some of those reasons and some evidence to back them up.
"Again, Tim Cushing continues to criticize law enforcement based on nothing more but his short-sighted perspectives."
Actually Tim was criticizing the police based on three examples that are described in the article that you clearly didn't read. And how exactly is that short sighted?
"Here at Techdirt, criminals are regularly cheered when they use technology and red tape to mask their activities. Is it any surprise that the police would decide to take shortcuts after being thwarted and trolled at every turn?"
First, can you actually provide any examples of this "cheering"? And second, it takes a massive leap of logic to conflate using technology and red tape to mask activities and the examples of police incompetence above. They have literally nothing to do with each other. Nobody was thwarted or trolled. But no I'm not surprised the police take illegal shortcuts, because that seems to be pretty typical these day.
"Also, fuck you Leigh. I know you're going to hold this comment for moderation. Nobody is going to engage me in conversation, thanks to you."
Allow me to engage you in conversation to point out what a whiny little snowflake you are. And note that for an actual conversation to occur you need to reply.
On the post: ICE Says The Hell With The President, DHS; Orders Officers To Remove ALL Undocumented Immigrants
Re:
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said
"The general rule is, if you begin the process of assaulting someone, then you generally have forfeited your right to not being assaulted either."
That may be the rule in your head, or even in your lifestyle, but not so much in law. Even Trump knew that, that's why he said he'd pay the legal fees.
Note the instruction was also to a large crowd. So in your eyes an appropriate response to the heinous act of throwing a tomato (aren't you a little snowflake...) is multiple people delivering a severe beating, under circumstances that could easily get completely out of control. You are a pretty shit person, you know that?
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!
Anti-idiot bias? Yes.
Anti-bullshit bias? Yes.
Anti-corruption bias? Yes.
Anti-misogyny bias? Yes.
Anti-racism bias? Yes.
Anti-nepotism bias? Yes.
Anti-bully bias? Yes.
I'm a victim of my terrible biases.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
""You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites."
Genuinely curious as to what you think an 'elite' actually is. Coz according to the dictionary you have a very high and flattering opinion of us all. So thanks, I think...
On the post: RIAA Trashes Its Legacy As A 1st Amendment Supporter By Cheering On Global Internet Censorship
Re: screeeeeech!!!
On the post: To Keep The Skies Safe, The TSA Wants To Know What You're Reading
Re: Re: Re: Re: free 2 choose
You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution is not a list of things you're allowed to do, it's a list of things the government is not allowed to do, or prevent you from doing. And for obvious reasons, there is nothing in the Constitution about airline travel.
On the post: To Keep The Skies Safe, The TSA Wants To Know What You're Reading
Re: Re: free 2 choose
"The 'right to travel' is a bedrock of Anglo-American law going back to the Magna Carta."
The right to travel sure, under your own power. But you have no inherent right to get on a plane owned by a private company and allowed to leave the ground only with a government agency's permission.
On the post: Colorado Legalizes Another Vice: Texting While Driving
Re: Re: Re:
"Seat-belt laws are nothing more than cash grab material. Sure it is stupid for people to not wear one, but that is their choice. If people want to risk their lives, that is their choice, government really has no right to proxy parent you."
Just curious, who do you think pays for the millions of dollars worth of medical care required to treat the serious injuries of all those who survive unbelted crashes?
And have you considered the net loss to society caused by serious injuries and deaths? If the government acting as a proxy parent upsets your conservative sensibilities so much, why don't you instead look at it as the government protecting it's financial investment and not wanting to lose your tax dollars.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of A SLAPP Suit: My Story
Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
On the post: Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General
Re:
"It has become apparent? It has become apparent to whom?"
Anyone with half a brain who's been watching Trump's actions for the last few years. Rocket science this ain't.
"First, only Comey spoke to "pledging his allegiance", that does not make it a fact."
Nobody has ever said it is anything other than Comey's claim, and has no independent corroboration. But seriously, out of the two of them, who's got a proven track record as a serial liar?
"Second, it looks like Comey PLANNED to leak the memos FROM THE TIME HE CREATED THEM, and all bit admitted this under oath."
Obviously they were planned to be his record of events, to be released if necessary to protect himself if Trump turned on him, which he did. Not sure why you think that's a damming revelation, it's the smart think to do any time you may need to rely on your recollection of events. Smart people do it all the time in all walks of life.
On the post: Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General
Re: Did you see the memos?
"Those memos, I think anyone would agree, are not COMEY memos, the are official government records created as part of his government official duties."
No I doubt many will agree, because it's a desperately weak argument. Surely you realize that right?
On the post: Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General
Re: Re: Re:
"The "Tech" in Techdirt is for "Technology", right, genius?"
You should avoid sarcastically calling someone 'genius' while demonstrating your own far-from-genius abilities.
"...is it now OK for all FBI employees to take government documents and secretly send them to the press to promote their own agendas?"
A personal memo is not a government document, so that's a strawman argument.
"Did Comey said that the reason he made his "memos" was because he knew IN ADVANCE that Trump would lie?"
No he didn't. Perhaps watch the actual testimony instead of misquoting him to make yet another a strawman argument.
"Is it EVEN POSSIBLE that Comey, that is, the same Comey who acted (completely inappropriately) as judge and jury and pardoner in chief for Hillary Clinton could LIE? Could he be LYING?"
Whatever your opinion of Comey's past actions, there has never been any accusation of lying. Trump on the other hand has a long and well-documented history of outright and easily disproved lies. So it's pretty easy to take a punt of who's being the more honest here.
"I hope he gets a jail cell next to Hillary, that would be poetic justice."
Hey, whatever fantasies get you off I guess...
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm guessing you can't even see the irony of responding on Techdirt to people who have responded on Techdirt to your comments on Techdirt about how Techdirt censors you. Man Techdirt sucks at censorship!
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Re: Flawed premises: A) Congress may be wrong in broad intent, B) obvious "everyone knows" limits to "free speech", C) maybe "platforms" are deeply flawed idea.
It takes a mix of a fiercely overactive imagination and gross ignorance to look at how Section 230 has been working for all these years and say it causes or is leading to anarchy. You seem to completely ignore, or just not be aware of, the massive amounts of completely innocuous user-generated content that exists on websites that are only possible because of the liability protections available. For all the highly publicised 'bad' content that generates these lawsuits and stories, the internet is still are far better place than it would be if everyone was too terrified of misguided lawsuits to allow any user-generated content.
*"I can tell you that at least many of MY comments disappear from that public comment box."*
Obvious liar is obvious.
On the post: More Legislators Jump On The 'Blue Lives Matter' Bandwagon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Defamation: The act of damaging the good reputation of someone."
Thanks for proving me right.
On the post: More Legislators Jump On The 'Blue Lives Matter' Bandwagon
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I see a lot of defamation, it seems to be the point of each and every article."
That simply proves you have no idea what defamation actually is.
On the post: The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments
Re: Assumptions
"I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it."
I doubt he's very concerned about it, but there's zero reason to believe Pai had anything to do with it. It's a stupidly hamfisted approach that everyone can see right through, and whatever you think of him he's nowhere near that dumb.
You're making a wild conspiracy claim here so you'll need to actually provide some of those reasons and some evidence to back them up.
On the post: Law Enforcement 'Training And Expertise' On Parade!
Re:
"Again, Tim Cushing continues to criticize law enforcement based on nothing more but his short-sighted perspectives."
Actually Tim was criticizing the police based on three examples that are described in the article that you clearly didn't read. And how exactly is that short sighted?
"Here at Techdirt, criminals are regularly cheered when they use technology and red tape to mask their activities. Is it any surprise that the police would decide to take shortcuts after being thwarted and trolled at every turn?"
First, can you actually provide any examples of this "cheering"? And second, it takes a massive leap of logic to conflate using technology and red tape to mask activities and the examples of police incompetence above. They have literally nothing to do with each other. Nobody was thwarted or trolled. But no I'm not surprised the police take illegal shortcuts, because that seems to be pretty typical these day.
"Also, fuck you Leigh. I know you're going to hold this comment for moderation. Nobody is going to engage me in conversation, thanks to you."
Allow me to engage you in conversation to point out what a whiny little snowflake you are. And note that for an actual conversation to occur you need to reply.
Next >>