Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2020 @ 6:49am
Re: Re: A Stern Talking-to
"How much should these fine officers be forced to suffer?"
At the very least suspension without pay. More appropriately though, since they broke several laws (assault, civil rights violations, and perjury that I can think of), prosecution, fines, incarceration, loss of job, loss of license to operate as a law enforcement agent (if they have such in that state) and finally, fiscal responsibility when they lose the lawsuit that the victim is entitled to (though it is more likely that the municipality will endure that burden).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2020 @ 9:26am
Re: Re: Demonstrably False
"You're the one asking for it; why don't you come up with something that satisfies the requirements? "
I cannot, though I have tried at various times. The thing is, they keep trying, but they ignore the Constitution every time. So my challenge stands. Let them come up with something that satisfy's their need to control 'disingenuousness' yet does no harm to the root rules of our society.
I would be happy if they could, as the electorate keeps depending upon statements made during campaigns to make their choices, but the elected keep pandering to large contributions to enable their reelections. For me, money should not equal speech as speech is evenly distributed (access to platforms recently became more so to the disdain of those who seek power), but money is not.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2020 @ 7:57am
Demonstrably False
"Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage,..."
One could reasonably argue that lying to gain political office is to gain material advantage. That alone could eliminate around 99% of all political ads and speeches.
However, leaving Section 230 out of it, and going with the theme 'demonstrably false', let's see what legislation Congress can come up with that holds candidates to their campaign promises as well as their rhetoric while in office that will not only satisfy those of us who think politicians lie with impunity (and all the time), but also pass 1st Amendment muster.
While they are at it, how about promises made by private entities to gain monetary or marketplace advantages (tax breaks, etc.) that never come to fruition. Those are also demonstrably false and to gain material advantage.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2020 @ 3:07pm
Commission Makup
"...create a 13 member congressional commission representing interested parties—including law enforcement, communities subjected to surveillance, and privacy experts."
Let's see:
3 FBI
3 DHS
3 CBP
2 from communities subjected to surveillance and members of right wing groups
2 privacy experts
Majority rules apply and false positives are not counted as errors in any reports they make.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2020 @ 2:53pm
Scribble, scribble, write, write...is OK????
If the same person wrote the TOS and the merchandising blog, I can certainly understand the letter requesting the article deletion. This is one very confused person, or they are extremely self centered and have no ability to see the forest or the trees.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2020 @ 2:49pm
Re: Re:
When one's channel surfing is limited to Fox News and MSNBC and web surfing to Breitbart and other conservative sites, then they stumble across NPR on the radio, I can see where they might think of those broadcasts as fake news or lies. If one has only been exposed to a single perspective for a long time, different perspectives might take on a eerie quality.
When one looks into the abyss, the abyss looks back.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Feb 2020 @ 6:25pm
Nobody said it was bad
It appears that it is not clearly established that a significant number of judges and justices have any notion of the difference between right and wrong. It makes one wonder whether they could pass a reasonable person test.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2020 @ 11:55am
Re: Re: Misery loves company
Of course there is. The issue comes in priorities. Golden parachutes first, executive bonuses second, settling bankruptcies third (while cleaning out pension accounts and converting assets to fund 1&2), and leaving dregs to investors fourth. Then they think about the employees.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2020 @ 6:44am
Misery loves company
Charlie Ergen says the shipping industry is sinking, but our ships are still barely afloat. So let us merge with all the others in the shipping industry to take advantage of economies of scale so we can go down together. How many shares of our fantastic new conglomerate would you like?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2020 @ 2:45pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Parallel Construction
Are you saying that the US does not recognize Chinese patents and China does not recognize US patents? Seems like a big problem for all those US companies that use Chinese manufacturers. I wouldn't think that those companies would turn over their IP without some protection. I am aware that whatever protection there is has been ignored and knockoffs have been made, but some action was probably taken.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2020 @ 1:50pm
Re: Re: Another Parallel Construction
And yet patents get enforce across borders. Is that because patent applications are filed in many countries? If so, what are the rules if the patent application in the US is filed three days prior to the one filed in China? Does China acquiesce to the US patent?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2020 @ 12:03pm
Belief vs Proof
One can believe whatever fits their agenda/control system/explanation of the cosmos as they see it.
Proving what they believe in to everyone not of their belief system is a different matter. 'God told me' is an easy, but un-provable explanation (how much respect is to be given is an eye of the beholder type of situation though 'political correctness' suggests that respect should be given, always). Even some scientific 'proofs' fail because at some later date something new is learned that overturns something believed to be true in the past. And we continue to discover new things every day.
In the end, proof needs more than 'God told me', while at the same time there is room for skepticism for some things that have already been 'proven'.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2020 @ 11:45am
Another Parallel Construction
To find the most maximal of maximalists, let us explore a hypothetical. Two groups, one in the US and one in China actually invent the same thingamajig at about the same time totally independently of the other, and provably so. Both products work on basically the same principle and in the same way. The similarities are, in fact, uncanny.
Both apply for patents in their respective countries, and both are granted patents that have no prior art implications. The next step of course is both try to sell thingamajigs to someone in the EU and when they find out about not only the competing products but the similarities. Both companies claim patent infringement. The investigation uncovers the independent development processes that created ostensibly the same product in two different places at approximately the same time. At some point, the dispute might wind up in front of WIPO, and here is where it gets tricky. Which country does more to protect its IP when both IP claims are legitimate? Now we have exposed the most maximal of maximalists.
On the post: Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions
Re: Re: A Stern Talking-to
At the very least suspension without pay. More appropriately though, since they broke several laws (assault, civil rights violations, and perjury that I can think of), prosecution, fines, incarceration, loss of job, loss of license to operate as a law enforcement agent (if they have such in that state) and finally, fiscal responsibility when they lose the lawsuit that the victim is entitled to (though it is more likely that the municipality will endure that burden).
On the post: Trump Campaign Files Laughably Stupid SLAPP Suit Over A NY Times Opinion Piece
Re:
Which raises the question as to why they didn't sue Frankel, but sued the NYT instead?
On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads
Re: Re: Demonstrably False
I cannot, though I have tried at various times. The thing is, they keep trying, but they ignore the Constitution every time. So my challenge stands. Let them come up with something that satisfy's their need to control 'disingenuousness' yet does no harm to the root rules of our society.
I would be happy if they could, as the electorate keeps depending upon statements made during campaigns to make their choices, but the elected keep pandering to large contributions to enable their reelections. For me, money should not equal speech as speech is evenly distributed (access to platforms recently became more so to the disdain of those who seek power), but money is not.
On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads
Demonstrably False
One could reasonably argue that lying to gain political office is to gain material advantage. That alone could eliminate around 99% of all political ads and speeches.
However, leaving Section 230 out of it, and going with the theme 'demonstrably false', let's see what legislation Congress can come up with that holds candidates to their campaign promises as well as their rhetoric while in office that will not only satisfy those of us who think politicians lie with impunity (and all the time), but also pass 1st Amendment muster.
While they are at it, how about promises made by private entities to gain monetary or marketplace advantages (tax breaks, etc.) that never come to fruition. Those are also demonstrably false and to gain material advantage.
On the post: The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?
Methodology
From the Slashdot comments a suggestion about how to post comments to the FCC in order to minimize their shenanigans.
On the post: Barr's Motives, Encryption and Protecting Children; DOJ 230 Workshop Review, Part III
Re:
It is still the responsibility of the defamer, not whatever platforms, which includes search engines.
On the post: Barr's Motives, Encryption and Protecting Children; DOJ 230 Workshop Review, Part III
Re:
Subset, or cornerstone?
On the post: Senators Pitch Temporary Facial Recognition Ban, Leave Door Wide Open For Abuse By Federal Agencies
Commission Makup
Let's see:
3 FBI
3 DHS
3 CBP
2 from communities subjected to surveillance and members of right wing groups
2 privacy experts
Majority rules apply and false positives are not counted as errors in any reports they make.
On the post: Stalkerware Developer Demands TechCrunch Remove Article Detailing Its Leaking Of Sensitive Data
Scribble, scribble, write, write...is OK????
If the same person wrote the TOS and the merchandising blog, I can certainly understand the letter requesting the article deletion. This is one very confused person, or they are extremely self centered and have no ability to see the forest or the trees.
On the post: NPR Pulls Out The Big Guns: Asks For Sanctions Against Lawyer Steven Biss For Lying
Re: Re:
When one's channel surfing is limited to Fox News and MSNBC and web surfing to Breitbart and other conservative sites, then they stumble across NPR on the radio, I can see where they might think of those broadcasts as fake news or lies. If one has only been exposed to a single perspective for a long time, different perspectives might take on a eerie quality.
When one looks into the abyss, the abyss looks back.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Nobody said it was bad
It appears that it is not clearly established that a significant number of judges and justices have any notion of the difference between right and wrong. It makes one wonder whether they could pass a reasonable person test.
On the post: FCC Does Bupkis As US Telco Networks Fall Apart, Putting Lives At Risk
Re:
Frontier's situation is just a symptom of the dysfunctional political system.
FTFY
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
If law enforcement had better imaginations they would be in different careers. Hollywood could use some help.
On the post: Dish Floats DirecTV Merger, Because What's A Little Mindless Monopolization Among Friends?
Re: Re: Misery loves company
Of course there is. The issue comes in priorities. Golden parachutes first, executive bonuses second, settling bankruptcies third (while cleaning out pension accounts and converting assets to fund 1&2), and leaving dregs to investors fourth. Then they think about the employees.
On the post: Attempt To Put Every Musical Melody Into The Public Domain Demonstrates Craziness Of Modern Copyright
Re:
Ahhh, the golden age of Beethoven. Deafness could show independent creation, and as Beethoven showed us, does not preclude writing music.
On the post: Dish Floats DirecTV Merger, Because What's A Little Mindless Monopolization Among Friends?
Misery loves company
Charlie Ergen says the shipping industry is sinking, but our ships are still barely afloat. So let us merge with all the others in the shipping industry to take advantage of economies of scale so we can go down together. How many shares of our fantastic new conglomerate would you like?
/s
On the post: The US Spent Years Telling China To Take Patents Seriously; Now It's Freaking Out That China Is Doing So
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Parallel Construction
Are you saying that the US does not recognize Chinese patents and China does not recognize US patents? Seems like a big problem for all those US companies that use Chinese manufacturers. I wouldn't think that those companies would turn over their IP without some protection. I am aware that whatever protection there is has been ignored and knockoffs have been made, but some action was probably taken.
On the post: The US Spent Years Telling China To Take Patents Seriously; Now It's Freaking Out That China Is Doing So
Re: Re: Another Parallel Construction
And yet patents get enforce across borders. Is that because patent applications are filed in many countries? If so, what are the rules if the patent application in the US is filed three days prior to the one filed in China? Does China acquiesce to the US patent?
On the post: Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics
Belief vs Proof
One can believe whatever fits their agenda/control system/explanation of the cosmos as they see it.
Proving what they believe in to everyone not of their belief system is a different matter. 'God told me' is an easy, but un-provable explanation (how much respect is to be given is an eye of the beholder type of situation though 'political correctness' suggests that respect should be given, always). Even some scientific 'proofs' fail because at some later date something new is learned that overturns something believed to be true in the past. And we continue to discover new things every day.
In the end, proof needs more than 'God told me', while at the same time there is room for skepticism for some things that have already been 'proven'.
On the post: The US Spent Years Telling China To Take Patents Seriously; Now It's Freaking Out That China Is Doing So
Another Parallel Construction
To find the most maximal of maximalists, let us explore a hypothetical. Two groups, one in the US and one in China actually invent the same thingamajig at about the same time totally independently of the other, and provably so. Both products work on basically the same principle and in the same way. The similarities are, in fact, uncanny.
Both apply for patents in their respective countries, and both are granted patents that have no prior art implications. The next step of course is both try to sell thingamajigs to someone in the EU and when they find out about not only the competing products but the similarities. Both companies claim patent infringement. The investigation uncovers the independent development processes that created ostensibly the same product in two different places at approximately the same time. At some point, the dispute might wind up in front of WIPO, and here is where it gets tricky. Which country does more to protect its IP when both IP claims are legitimate? Now we have exposed the most maximal of maximalists.
Next >>