it was to an attempt to preserve impartiality for the second trial.
And it was a very bad attempt, as has been pointed out and explained in detail. It was also a very weak excuse, as has also been pointed out in detail.
Jurors don't know . . .
Newsflash: juries are complicated. And there are a LOT of procedures in place to deal with that. An overreaching gag order is completely redundant.
It's also important to note the gag order was lifted as soon as practical.
It is more important to note that the gag order was unnecessary in the first place. The court deserves exactly zero praise for lifting the order, as they shouldn't have issued it to begin with.
And frankly, given the US's pre-emptive gag orders, FISC, NSLs and other facets of the US justice system (as you report on frequently), I don't think you're in a position to claim the US system "works just fine".
Nobody is claiming that the US system "works just fine." But do notice how courts have been a lot more open to challenges of those gag orders in recent years. The Supreme Court was very clear in stating that they're only allowable in extreme situations. Anything less than imminent death and destruction, and the order absolutely violates the first amendment.
US courts are just as capable of gagging things arbitrarily.
Yes, and the appeals court is usually quite vocal when they reverse that order. Or, more commonly, when the judge realizes they screwed up and rescinds it before it actually gets them in trouble.
That companies in other nations were scared speaks more for the stupidity of the company than of the gag order.
This is one of the most frightening sentences I have seen in a long time. Are you familiar with a "chilling effect?" The basics of censorship? And you're OK with your own country being the one to enact it? All just to hypothetically prevent a few hypothetical jurors from possibly hearing anything relating to a priest who was already convicted of molesting kids?
For those with an IQ below 60, who need it spelled out, Section 230 makes this self-evident, as do the number of fake-review scandals.
Even "those with an IQ below 60" could tell that your claims are complete BS.
Unaccountability is evidence of unreliability, though some might pretend it's not (no need for logic anymore to these folks).
So, how long have you hated the first amendment? Every single thing you are complaining about it 100% a 1A issue. Section 230 just makes sure it stays a 1A issue.
Copyrights were intended to prevent those who did not create something or buy the rights from profiting off the work (unless licensed).
This is entirely false. Copyright, at its core, exists to provide incentive for the creation of new works. The idea of locking down everything holding a Copyright and forcing licensing fees for any type of access at all is very new.
If the "fatal flaws" with the law only become clear when you change the wording to say something completely different that has no relation to the original wording at all, perhaps the alleged flaws aren't quite as fatal as you're suggesting.
But even then, child porn is a federal criminal offense, which is specifically exempted from Section 230 immunity. So no, if child porn gets involved, that blanket immunity almost immediately vaporizes.
People can't sue search engines for loss of reputation, which causes search engines to be weaponized by those who wish to defame.
Why is the search engine responsible for somebody else weaponizing it? And how do you prove that it was weaponized by that specific person in the first place? And what does Section 230 do to stop a lawsuit against the party actually responsible?
The collateral damage is the individual, as with revenge porn.
And why is the platform responsible for the shitty things other people do? Notice how most of the large "revenge porn" platforms ended up getting taken offline without even having to address the Section 230 protection. It's not even relevant.
Supportrs of Section 230 view this collateral damage as necessary.
No "supporter" has ever referred to that kind of hypothetical as "collateral damage" because it doesn't actually exist. So it's not even a Section 230 issue in the first place.
The EU, with the RTBF, does not agree with us.
You mean the law that was almost immediately used by bad actors to force "inconvenient" information offline? I don't think that was the EU's intention. They enacted a bad law, and they know it.
Many works from 1923 are unavailable due to the fact that the media storing them was crap and did not hold up to modern times.
Boy is that an understatement. We've lost the overwhelming majority of silent films because the prints had a tendency to spontaneously combust. The film stock itself was so dangerous that theatres actually started imposing strict safety rules on the projection booths, like insulation in the form of asbestos...
I'm genuinely not sure how humanity is still around.
Hoeppner had been known to be "argumentative" in the past.
If you need a small military unit and armored vehicle to deal with a 75-year-old man described as "argumentative," you're either on the wrong side of a Clint Eastwood film, or your police force is an innovative new type of pathetic.
How convenient. Section 223 just so happens to be where the content-specific restrictions of the Communications Decency were codified. The government was almost immediately banned from enforcing it, and SCOTUS unanimously struck it as unconstitutional in the above case.
The parts that remain are ridiculously specific. If you think you've read it in a way that covers "anonymous" "hecklers" "online," you read it wrong.
Linehan's comments are less "criticism" and more ad-hominem attacks, hate-speech, and such.
You launched an ad-hominem attack in response to the reply to a post where you condemned someone for using ad-hominem attacks. What are you doing with your life?
Ah yes, that's right. "Defamatory" content often does get "taken down" after a proper court order, but not necessarily because the law requires it. If they refuse, they won't lose their overall immunity, after all. Once again, it's a point that has nothing to do with Section 230 in the first place.
Section 230 is also at the root of false advertising, hate marketing, cyberbullying, etc.
No, no it is not. That would be caused by shitty people being shitty people. Specifically, shitty people who are absolutely liable for their own shitty actions. Section 230 does nothing to stop anyone from going after them.
People have won large judgments in Australia and the UK over what ppears in search results.
Which makes no sense at all. Why on earth would the platform need to be liable for that?
Section 230 literally immunizes those who inflict the harm of defamation (search engines), to the point where even if one "sues the original publisher" the engine still doen't have to remove what was posted.
Section 230 does not immunize anyone who defames. Search engines are also not the ones doing the defamation in whatever example you're thinking of. That would be like suing the company that made the megaphone when someone yells a lie through it.
Oh, and as an added bonus, your note about the engine not having to remove the offending content is flat out wrong. This has happened many times before. They can refuse to remove it in some cases involving default judgements, but that's an exception.
This is unique to the US. it is not the law globally, for a reason. ONe judge in NY wondered why he couldn't sue ebay when someone put him up for sale btw.
I believe it was also a judge in NY who posited that prior restraint was the answer to all problems of "Internet" as well. People say stupid things, and judges are no exception. Neither are you.
Not only is this irrelevant to the issue at hand, it's a self-fueling ad hom attack (ad hom-nom-nominem, as I prefer to call it) that goes nowhere and doesn't even attack anything. Even by your standards, this is grabbing at strings.
Really? Which court determined that? And which doctrine did they imply?
We have laws against hate speech in America.
This is news to me. Would you like to share an example or two with the class?
And no, hate speech is not covered under the first amendment.
Yes, yes it is. The government is not allowed to even try defining what counts as "offensive" speech, let alone hateful. Look up the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam. Decided 2017, 8-0 in favor of banning the government from making those decisions.
On the post: VP Of 'Students For Free Speech' Sues Critic For (Among Other Things) Calling Him A 'Free Speech Asshole'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you?
On the post: The Tyranny Of Copyright: How A Once-Humble Legal Issue Has Tormented A Generation Of Speech
Re:
9 out of 10 of my alternate personalities agree that you are probably the one who is crazy.
On the post: Two Months Later, News Orgs Are Finally 'Allowed' To Report On Top Vatican Official's Child Molestation Conviction
And it was a very bad attempt, as has been pointed out and explained in detail. It was also a very weak excuse, as has also been pointed out in detail.
Newsflash: juries are complicated. And there are a LOT of procedures in place to deal with that. An overreaching gag order is completely redundant.
It is more important to note that the gag order was unnecessary in the first place. The court deserves exactly zero praise for lifting the order, as they shouldn't have issued it to begin with.
Nobody is claiming that the US system "works just fine." But do notice how courts have been a lot more open to challenges of those gag orders in recent years. The Supreme Court was very clear in stating that they're only allowable in extreme situations. Anything less than imminent death and destruction, and the order absolutely violates the first amendment.
Yes, and the appeals court is usually quite vocal when they reverse that order. Or, more commonly, when the judge realizes they screwed up and rescinds it before it actually gets them in trouble.
This is one of the most frightening sentences I have seen in a long time. Are you familiar with a "chilling effect?" The basics of censorship? And you're OK with your own country being the one to enact it? All just to hypothetically prevent a few hypothetical jurors from possibly hearing anything relating to a priest who was already convicted of molesting kids?
Sort out your priorities.
On the post: Two Months Later, News Orgs Are Finally 'Allowed' To Report On Top Vatican Official's Child Molestation Conviction
Re: Latest Zombie: "PapaFox", 5 comments in nearly 8 years!
Pot, meet kettle.
On the post: Pissed Consumer Exposes New York Luxury Car Dealer's Use Of Bogus Notarized Letters To Remove Critical Reviews [UPDATE]
Even "those with an IQ below 60" could tell that your claims are complete BS.
So, how long have you hated the first amendment? Every single thing you are complaining about it 100% a 1A issue. Section 230 just makes sure it stays a 1A issue.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re:
Since when is it reckless to not include information that you don't know you don't have?
On the post: German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google
Narrator: That's not how it works.
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
Re: Re: Copyrights for individuals...
This is entirely false. Copyright, at its core, exists to provide incentive for the creation of new works. The idea of locking down everything holding a Copyright and forcing licensing fees for any type of access at all is very new.
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse
What planet are you visiting from, and just how much time elapsed during your journey?
On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230
Re:
But even then, child porn is a federal criminal offense, which is specifically exempted from Section 230 immunity. So no, if child porn gets involved, that blanket immunity almost immediately vaporizes.
On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is the search engine responsible for somebody else weaponizing it? And how do you prove that it was weaponized by that specific person in the first place? And what does Section 230 do to stop a lawsuit against the party actually responsible?
And why is the platform responsible for the shitty things other people do? Notice how most of the large "revenge porn" platforms ended up getting taken offline without even having to address the Section 230 protection. It's not even relevant.
No "supporter" has ever referred to that kind of hypothetical as "collateral damage" because it doesn't actually exist. So it's not even a Section 230 issue in the first place.
You mean the law that was almost immediately used by bad actors to force "inconvenient" information offline? I don't think that was the EU's intention. They enacted a bad law, and they know it.
On the post: New York Times Moves To Dismiss Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit By Pointing Out It's Impossible To Defame Him
He was. And then he was pardoned.
On the post: Announcing The Public Domain Game Jam: Gaming Like It's 1923
Re: Re:
Boy is that an understatement. We've lost the overwhelming majority of silent films because the prints had a tendency to spontaneously combust. The film stock itself was so dangerous that theatres actually started imposing strict safety rules on the projection booths, like insulation in the form of asbestos...
I'm genuinely not sure how humanity is still around.
On the post: County Pays $90,000 Settlement To Man After Seizing $80,000 Judgment From Him Using 24 Deputies And An Armored Vehicle
Sheriff Greg Bean is a certified weenie
If you need a small military unit and armored vehicle to deal with a 75-year-old man described as "argumentative," you're either on the wrong side of a Clint Eastwood film, or your police force is an innovative new type of pathetic.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
Re: Re:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/
How convenient. Section 223 just so happens to be where the content-specific restrictions of the Communications Decency were codified. The government was almost immediately banned from enforcing it, and SCOTUS unanimously struck it as unconstitutional in the above case.
The parts that remain are ridiculously specific. If you think you've read it in a way that covers "anonymous" "hecklers" "online," you read it wrong.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You launched an ad-hominem attack in response to the reply to a post where you condemned someone for using ad-hominem attacks. What are you doing with your life?
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: The amount of wrong…
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
The amount of wrong…
No, no it is not. That would be caused by shitty people being shitty people. Specifically, shitty people who are absolutely liable for their own shitty actions. Section 230 does nothing to stop anyone from going after them.
Which makes no sense at all. Why on earth would the platform need to be liable for that?
Section 230 does not immunize anyone who defames. Search engines are also not the ones doing the defamation in whatever example you're thinking of. That would be like suing the company that made the megaphone when someone yells a lie through it.
Oh, and as an added bonus, your note about the engine not having to remove the offending content is flat out wrong. This has happened many times before. They can refuse to remove it in some cases involving default judgements, but that's an exception.
I believe it was also a judge in NY who posited that prior restraint was the answer to all problems of "Internet" as well. People say stupid things, and judges are no exception. Neither are you.
On the post: Slack Banning Random Iranian Ex-Pats Shows Why Making Tech Companies Police The Internet Is Crazy Stupid
Re: Are you for sanctions on Iran?
On the post: Why Is Congress Trying To Pass An Obviously Unconstitutional Bill That Would Criminalize Boycotts Of Israel?
Really? Which court determined that? And which doctrine did they imply?
This is news to me. Would you like to share an example or two with the class?
Yes, yes it is. The government is not allowed to even try defining what counts as "offensive" speech, let alone hateful. Look up the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam. Decided 2017, 8-0 in favor of banning the government from making those decisions.
Next >>