There's an enormous difference between "the supply chain can be compromised" and "the supply chain has been compromised, in this way, at this time, with these targets." The former is, I think, beyond reasonable question (especially since "can be" is a very low bar). The latter? Not so much.
I haven't made it all the way through the STH piece yet, though it does appear to be very thorough. As a counterpoint, this piece purports to explain how something like this would be possible.
Do they legally have the power to order a denial? Probably not, though like the warrant canary, it hasn't actually been tested, and "national security" frees up a lot of judges' pens (witness the blatantly unconstitutional prior restraint involving the 3d-printed guns). But you're probably right that there's no court order stating "respondent shall forthwith vocally and explicitly deny the truth of this story."
That doesn't preclude the possibility of "hey Amazon, you get an awful lot of business from the government. It'd be a shame if that business were to go away, wouldn't it?"
I'm not saying either way, because I don't know either way. I thought the Bloomberg story was suspicious when it came out, and I thought it more than a little strange that Bloomberg is where it would be. But you seem far too confident in something that I doubt you can have personal knowledge of.
I generally agree, but consider a counterpoint: the Supreme Court invented QI in 1982. At any time in the 36 years since then, Congress could have clarified that no, they didn't intend that to be the law--but they haven't. Given that, I don't think it's anywhere near clear that Congress doesn't intend for this to be the law.
Funny how the same half-dozen names (usually EFF) always turn up in articles like this. It's not lke there's a large consensus, just a small number of attorneys who seem to care about this a great deal more than others.
It's sadly true, most people don't care about principle, only about the outcome. Though it's worth pointing out the Bennett isn't with EFF. Bennett was also busting his ass on the 3D-printed-guns case. Agree with him or not, free speech is important to him.
None of it. But to harp on how stupid Moore was, and ignore how dishonest Cohen was, seems a little, well, one-sided.
OJ Simpson murdered his wife.
Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist.
Dick Cheney committed war crimes.
All of these are, broadly speaking, defamatory, presuming they are false. None of those people would have a chance of winning a defamation action against you, though, because they wouldn't be able to show actual malice (which will be fatal to Moore as well, if nothing else kills the case first).
"Opinion based on disclosed facts" only gets you so far--for it to work, you need to at least mention the known facts on which you base those opinions.
And lest it be unclear, I'm not saying I think Moore can win the case (he can't--inability to show actual malice will doom it). But it's a far cry from the vague, thuggish buffoonery that characterizes most defamation claims/lawsuits that we see around here.
But it's awfully interesting that you would describe Roy Moore as "the victim". I would save that particular descriptor for his victims.
Nice deflection, but irrelevant. Whatever he did or didn't do, he was still a victim (a foolish victim, to be sure, but a victim nonetheless) of Cohen's antics.
I see a lot about how foolish Moore was to not vet the producer/network/show/award (and he was), but you're suspiciously silent about the (claimed) fact that Cohen outright lied about who he was and what he was doing. Seems that would deserve some comment here--Cohen isn't sweetness and innocence.
As to the substance of it, well, Cohen pretty well claimed Moore was a sex offender. That, as far as it goes, would be defamatory, and the fact that he wasn't the first one to make those claims wouldn't make it non-defamatory. This is, perhaps, not quite so ridiculous a suit as you suggest.
Of course, if Moore actually does litigate this, it will involve discovery into whether those claims are true. He may not want to go there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
Nope, don't know who you mean, and wouldn't trust you to accurately characterize him or what he said in any event. But who he is doesn't really matter, as the rest of your comment is nonsensical.
In order to prevail, Shiva (not Mike) must show a number of things by clear and convincing evidence:
"Shiva is a liar" is a statement of (claimed) fact, not of opinion--this is where he lost at the district court
"Shiva is a liar" is false
At the time he said "Shiva is a liar", Masnick knew that statement to be false
Your argument above is that since people of good will can interpret the same facts in different ways, it's impossible to say Shiva is a liar, because instead he's simply interpreting the facts (specifically, the facts which show conclusively that he did not invent email) in a very special way (most often associated with one or more diagnoses out of the DSM-V) that makes him believe that he did invent email.
I first disagree with your premise in that you're claiming that people of good will (and at least ordinary intelligence, and sound mind, though you've left those unstated) can draw any conclusion from any set of facts. The law routinely concurs when it throws out jury verdicts, holding that no reasonable juror could have reached X conclusion from Y evidence.
But even leaving that aside, what's good for Shiva is good for Masnick as well. If Masnick can't legitimately say that Shiva is lying, neither can Shiva legitimately say that Masnick is lying--which means he can't prove the third point above, which means he loses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
Ah, so no, the Obama administration did not set judicial policy. And no, decisions from Obama appointees haven't been reversed at a markedly higher rate than decisions from judges appointed by any other president--not that that (or anything else in your comment) has anything to do with "judicial policies set by the Obama administration."
And in case you forgot, the judge (F. Dennis Saylor) who correctly threw out Shiva's case before it got to the jury was appointed by Bush, not Obama.
Wow, the President sets policy for the judiciary? I guess I'll have to re-read my Constitution--I thought the Executive and the Judiciary were two of the three independent branches of our government.
No, lots of stuff never goes to a jury, and shouldn't go to a jury. And disposing of the case before it goes to a jury is the primary way of handling it "easily, quickly, and cheaply." That's why Shiva resoundingly lost, easily, quickly, and (relatively) cheaply. And why he'll lose again on appeal, except it won't be cheap for him when the First Circuit decides that California's anti-SLAPP law should be applied.
Apparent authority is a lot more nuanced than that, but even as presented, you lose--no "reasonable third party" would interpret "Techdirt Insider" the way you're claiming to. This doesn't even survive a 12(b)(6) motion. So sorry, no discovery for you.
Don’t you think that giving people a “badge” and having their posts appear with the “Insider” decal establishes the speaker as an agent of Techdirt?
Um, no. No, I don't. The suggestion is so nonsensical that I don't think it warrants anything other than the Billy Madison response. A "Techdirt Insider" is someone who gives money to Techdirt, and in exchange gets a warm fuzzy feeling, a badge when they post, and a few small perks with their subscriptions.
I mean, that’s what I infer when I see those things.
I doubt it. But if that's true, you need to spend quite a bit of time with a mental health professional. Or you simply haven't the foggiest clue of what an agent is.
Re: Clowns are PAID to push pro-corporate propaganda. So never ends.
The operator of a platform has a First Amendment right to decide what will appear on that platform, and it does not matter in the slightest whether that operator is an individual, partnership, corporation, LLC, or any other form of entity. You have a First Amendment right to speak, but not to use someone else's private property (e.g., Facebook, or Techdirt) to spread your message. If that operator doesn't like your message, they're free to stop you from spreading it on their platform.
"Probable cause" requires (in principle) strong reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the subject premises. "This law requires us to investigate" does not translate into "we have reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be found." If that's all the cops had, no warrant should have been issued.
Without exception, they admitted that they didn't have probable cause. No PC, no warrant. So, despite your apparent belief that a dead baby is automatic probable cause of a crime, none of the law enforcement personnel involved agreed.
Do you differentiate between releasing information to a journalistic outlet and providing it to a hostile government?
Why would you draw this distinction? If you release it to the press, it will quickly make its way to the readers, who will include foreign governments (friendly and hostile). And make no mistake, disclosing classified information to a friendly government (without the appropriate clearance, need to know, etc.) is just as much a violation as to a hostile government.
How are you supposed to use a "different Myspace"? Oh, wait.
The concept behind Facebook/eBay/Twitter is simple enough, and nothing stops a prospective competitor from building a workalike site. Or, even, a work-better site.
On the post: Detailed And Thorough Debunking Of Bloomberg's Sketchy Story About Supply Chain Hack
Re:
There's an enormous difference between "the supply chain can be compromised" and "the supply chain has been compromised, in this way, at this time, with these targets." The former is, I think, beyond reasonable question (especially since "can be" is a very low bar). The latter? Not so much.
I haven't made it all the way through the STH piece yet, though it does appear to be very thorough. As a counterpoint, this piece purports to explain how something like this would be possible.
On the post: Appeals Court Judge Tears Into ATF's Life-Wrecking, Discriminatory Stash House Stings
On the post: Apple Demands Retraction Of Bloomberg's Big 'Chip Infiltration' Story; Bloomberg Has Some Explaining To Do
Re: Re: Denials everywhere...
That doesn't preclude the possibility of "hey Amazon, you get an awful lot of business from the government. It'd be a shame if that business were to go away, wouldn't it?"
I'm not saying either way, because I don't know either way. I thought the Bloomberg story was suspicious when it came out, and I thought it more than a little strange that Bloomberg is where it would be. But you seem far too confident in something that I doubt you can have personal knowledge of.
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
Re: Law enforcement will never be run by pirates.
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
On the post: Vermont's Revenge Porn Law Ruled Constitutional... With An Incredibly Confused Ruling
Re:
It's sadly true, most people don't care about principle, only about the outcome. Though it's worth pointing out the Bennett isn't with EFF. Bennett was also busting his ass on the 3D-printed-guns case. Agree with him or not, free speech is important to him.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
On the post: Judge Roy Moore Sues Sacha Baron Cohen For Ruining His Immaculate Reputation
Re: Re: Blame the victim, shall we?
None of it. But to harp on how stupid Moore was, and ignore how dishonest Cohen was, seems a little, well, one-sided.
All of these are, broadly speaking, defamatory, presuming they are false. None of those people would have a chance of winning a defamation action against you, though, because they wouldn't be able to show actual malice (which will be fatal to Moore as well, if nothing else kills the case first).
"Opinion based on disclosed facts" only gets you so far--for it to work, you need to at least mention the known facts on which you base those opinions.
And lest it be unclear, I'm not saying I think Moore can win the case (he can't--inability to show actual malice will doom it). But it's a far cry from the vague, thuggish buffoonery that characterizes most defamation claims/lawsuits that we see around here.
Nice deflection, but irrelevant. Whatever he did or didn't do, he was still a victim (a foolish victim, to be sure, but a victim nonetheless) of Cohen's antics.
On the post: Judge Roy Moore Sues Sacha Baron Cohen For Ruining His Immaculate Reputation
Blame the victim, shall we?
As to the substance of it, well, Cohen pretty well claimed Moore was a sex offender. That, as far as it goes, would be defamatory, and the fact that he wasn't the first one to make those claims wouldn't make it non-defamatory. This is, perhaps, not quite so ridiculous a suit as you suggest.
Of course, if Moore actually does litigate this, it will involve discovery into whether those claims are true. He may not want to go there.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
Nope, don't know who you mean, and wouldn't trust you to accurately characterize him or what he said in any event. But who he is doesn't really matter, as the rest of your comment is nonsensical.
In order to prevail, Shiva (not Mike) must show a number of things by clear and convincing evidence:
Your argument above is that since people of good will can interpret the same facts in different ways, it's impossible to say Shiva is a liar, because instead he's simply interpreting the facts (specifically, the facts which show conclusively that he did not invent email) in a very special way (most often associated with one or more diagnoses out of the DSM-V) that makes him believe that he did invent email.
I first disagree with your premise in that you're claiming that people of good will (and at least ordinary intelligence, and sound mind, though you've left those unstated) can draw any conclusion from any set of facts. The law routinely concurs when it throws out jury verdicts, holding that no reasonable juror could have reached X conclusion from Y evidence.
But even leaving that aside, what's good for Shiva is good for Masnick as well. If Masnick can't legitimately say that Shiva is lying, neither can Shiva legitimately say that Masnick is lying--which means he can't prove the third point above, which means he loses.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
And in case you forgot, the judge (F. Dennis Saylor) who correctly threw out Shiva's case before it got to the jury was appointed by Bush, not Obama.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
No, lots of stuff never goes to a jury, and shouldn't go to a jury. And disposing of the case before it goes to a jury is the primary way of handling it "easily, quickly, and cheaply." That's why Shiva resoundingly lost, easily, quickly, and (relatively) cheaply. And why he'll lose again on appeal, except it won't be cheap for him when the First Circuit decides that California's anti-SLAPP law should be applied.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: CDA 230 does not apply to agents
Um, no. No, I don't. The suggestion is so nonsensical that I don't think it warrants anything other than the Billy Madison response. A "Techdirt Insider" is someone who gives money to Techdirt, and in exchange gets a warm fuzzy feeling, a badge when they post, and a few small perks with their subscriptions.
I doubt it. But if that's true, you need to spend quite a bit of time with a mental health professional. Or you simply haven't the foggiest clue of what an agent is.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: Re: AND??
See, e.g., Joseph Rakofsky.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Clowns are PAID to push pro-corporate propaganda. So never ends.
On the post: Officers Lose Their Evidence After Turning A Medical Emergency Call Into A Warrantless Search Party
Re: Georgia Death Investigations Act
"Probable cause" requires (in principle) strong reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the subject premises. "This law requires us to investigate" does not translate into "we have reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be found." If that's all the cops had, no warrant should have been issued.
On the post: Officers Lose Their Evidence After Turning A Medical Emergency Call Into A Warrantless Search Party
Re: Dead baby is probable cause, like it or not.
Without exception, they admitted that they didn't have probable cause. No PC, no warrant. So, despite your apparent belief that a dead baby is automatic probable cause of a crime, none of the law enforcement personnel involved agreed.
On the post: Reality Winner Will Spend Five Years In Jail For Leaking Info Government Officials Released Publicly
Re: Re:
Why would you draw this distinction? If you release it to the press, it will quickly make its way to the readers, who will include foreign governments (friendly and hostile). And make no mistake, disclosing classified information to a friendly government (without the appropriate clearance, need to know, etc.) is just as much a violation as to a hostile government.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re:
The concept behind Facebook/eBay/Twitter is simple enough, and nothing stops a prospective competitor from building a workalike site. Or, even, a work-better site.
Next >>