Re: Re: Re: For any new readers: "morganwick" has ODD 6 year gap
One of my favorite books growing up. It was "required" reading in my family after my Dad did a sociology paper on it when he was advancing his education in the middle of his career. Before he died, he made sure all of his grandchildren had hard-bound copies of it.
Thanks for showing all you've got is pointless sniping.
I'm not sure I would consider it "pointless". The point is usually to display your faulty logic, incorrect facts or hypocrisy and with you it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Re: For any new readers: "morganwick" has ODD 6 year gap...
ODD accounts are typical on Techdirt, and the dozens such persisting for years now -- even after I've been exposing them -- conclusively show astro-turfing.
Enjoy your swim through the Sea of Knowledge after that jump to Conclusions.
Makes me wonder how many more people are now aware that Google Maps/Waze has this feature than before NYPD sent their letter. A quick Google search comes back with tons of news outlets covering this story right now.
Individuals who post the location of DWI checkpoints may be engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws.
I have no clue about New York and my own state has made DUI checkpoints a violation of the state constitution, but I thought the purpose of announcing DUI checkpoints in advance was to alleviate some of the legal problems associated with the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their
What I say applies to many creators, not just me.
You do realize that with automatic copyright virtually EVERYONE is a creator and a copyright holder, right?
My side is also winning this war.
Which side would that be? If your talking about creators and/or copyright holders, than that would be all of us. The only other side I can think of would be the legacy gatekeepers. Is that the side you identify with?
Fair enough. I should have stated that your "facts" have absolutely no relevance to your final conclusion that SPLC should be liable for the actions of other people.
I used "I disagree" as shorthand for "I disagree that these facts are relevant to this discussion". My apologies.
I hope these simple points are clear enough that no one will find a reason to disagree with them:
I have to disagree with ALL of them.
The SPLC "stating their opinion" has caused real harm to others as a direct result of people accepting and acting on that opinion.
Unless their opinion is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" their speech is protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't really matter what other peoples actions are.
In most of these cases the SPLC knew--or at least they had no valid excuse not to know--that people would act upon their words in the same general way as what actually ended up happening. (In other words, the harmful effects that occurred were very easily predictable before the opinions were given.)
Same answer as above.
The SPLC freely acknowledges that their "opinion" being "stated" is not in line with the common understanding of the matters they are opining upon.
Not sure how that matters at all. Morons and idiots are allowed to express their opinions and it's still protected speech.
Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
Why is this comment flagged?
I simply asked this AC to clarify his/her position and his/her response was well thought out and polite. We even came to understanding of each other's position by the end of the thread, which ended being more of vernacular variation than anything else.
Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
So in this case, the court is rejecting that idea, “Opinion is not defamation. That's literally all there is to it.”
That's not my take on reading Milkovich. My opinion (lol) is that the court was saying this:
"Opinion is not defamation and the presentation of untrue facts is defamation, but the presentation of untrue facts couched within opinion can also be defamation."
Instead, as you yourself had to do in summarizing the extracts I provided earlier, the court has said there's a bit more than that to the test.
I'm not sure I would word it that way myself. There isn't really "a bit more than that to the test" because the "test" itself determines if the statement is truly opinion or not. Once it's determined the statement is truly opinion, the defamation claim is denied.
So, it's not “literally all there is to it”, and not only should you know better, but you ought to make sure that your readers are not misled on this point in this discussion.
I'm a little confused. Your quotations basically say that opinions are not defamation as long as those opinions are actually opinions and not presentations of untrue facts.
So where, exactly, is the "more" that isn't part of the "literally all there is to it"?
Lol again, Blue. Reread my quote, fool. I never claimed to be 65 at all.
I was implying that unless you are 20 years or so my senior (you know, the age between fathers and SONS) the label "Sonny" doesn't really fit the situation, but go ahead and enjoy your conspiracy delusions all the same.
Lol Blue. I've never said I was 60-something (which is why you can't find it). And yes, I assumed that I was older than you due to the fact that you express yourself like a petulant child most times.
I have nothing to settle with you. I purposely leave my private information somewhat vague online to protect my anonymity because there are creeps out there building dossiers on other people for unknown reasons.
You are an idiot, Blue. I was in my late teens/early twenties when I waited tables in the early eighties. It was how I paid for my college tuition for the two years I attended before landing the corporate position I held and advanced in for 16 years.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: For any new readers: "morganwick" has ODD 6 year gap
One of my favorite books growing up. It was "required" reading in my family after my Dad did a sociology paper on it when he was advancing his education in the middle of his career. Before he died, he made sure all of his grandchildren had hard-bound copies of it.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I would consider it "pointless". The point is usually to display your faulty logic, incorrect facts or hypocrisy and with you it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, we get it. Your mind is made up and you don't want be confused with actual facts.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: For any new readers: "morganwick" has ODD 6 year gap...
Enjoy your swim through the Sea of Knowledge after that jump to Conclusions.
On the post: NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps
Streisand Effect
Makes me wonder how many more people are now aware that Google Maps/Waze has this feature than before NYPD sent their letter. A quick Google search comes back with tons of news outlets covering this story right now.
On the post: NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps
I have no clue about New York and my own state has made DUI checkpoints a violation of the state constitution, but I thought the purpose of announcing DUI checkpoints in advance was to alleviate some of the legal problems associated with the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."
On the post: New Study Says The Removal Of Craigslist Erotic Services Pages May Be Linked To An Increase In Murdered Females
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I agree that it would be nice if the preview rendered the comment exactly same as the regular pages do.
I guess they haven't gotten around to updating the preview page code yet.
On the post: New Study Says The Removal Of Craigslist Erotic Services Pages May Be Linked To An Increase In Murdered Females
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Ninja. I noticed you were asking on the Insider Chat about putting double line spaces in comments.
You can use a HTML nonbreakable linespace for that: (& n b s p ;) (no spaces or parenthesis)
This will give you blank two lines:
<enter key> nonbreakable linespace <enter key>
Like this:
▲ Two blank lines ▲
Hope this helps.
On the post: Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their
You do realize that with automatic copyright virtually EVERYONE is a creator and a copyright holder, right?
Which side would that be? If your talking about creators and/or copyright holders, than that would be all of us. The only other side I can think of would be the legacy gatekeepers. Is that the side you identify with?
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. I should have stated that your "facts" have absolutely no relevance to your final conclusion that SPLC should be liable for the actions of other people.
I used "I disagree" as shorthand for "I disagree that these facts are relevant to this discussion". My apologies.
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to disagree with ALL of them.
Unless their opinion is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" their speech is protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't really matter what other peoples actions are.
Same answer as above.
Not sure how that matters at all. Morons and idiots are allowed to express their opinions and it's still protected speech.
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
Why is this comment flagged?
I simply asked this AC to clarify his/her position and his/her response was well thought out and polite. We even came to understanding of each other's position by the end of the thread, which ended being more of vernacular variation than anything else.
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside: How many other people besides me had to Google the definition of "diktat" when reading this thread?
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
Yes, exactly.
Thank you for skillfully wording what I was having trouble expressing coherently myself.
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
That's not my take on reading Milkovich. My opinion (lol) is that the court was saying this:
"Opinion is not defamation and the presentation of untrue facts is defamation, but the presentation of untrue facts couched within opinion can also be defamation."
I'm not sure I would word it that way myself. There isn't really "a bit more than that to the test" because the "test" itself determines if the statement is truly opinion or not. Once it's determined the statement is truly opinion, the defamation claim is denied.
On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center
Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]
I'm a little confused. Your quotations basically say that opinions are not defamation as long as those opinions are actually opinions and not presentations of untrue facts.
So where, exactly, is the "more" that isn't part of the "literally all there is to it"?
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol again, Blue. Reread my quote, fool. I never claimed to be 65 at all.
I was implying that unless you are 20 years or so my senior (you know, the age between fathers and SONS) the label "Sonny" doesn't really fit the situation, but go ahead and enjoy your conspiracy delusions all the same.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol Blue. I've never said I was 60-something (which is why you can't find it). And yes, I assumed that I was older than you due to the fact that you express yourself like a petulant child most times.
I have nothing to settle with you. I purposely leave my private information somewhat vague online to protect my anonymity because there are creeps out there building dossiers on other people for unknown reasons.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are an idiot, Blue. I was in my late teens/early twenties when I waited tables in the early eighties. It was how I paid for my college tuition for the two years I attended before landing the corporate position I held and advanced in for 16 years.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.
Not projecting, the preceding sentences provided evidence to the claim, Sherlock.
And "pirate-fanboy-trolls" should be considered a compliment, Einstein?
Next >>