Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
So it's the victim's fault for making it to easy? I imagine there are plenty of rapists in jail that think the same way.
Calling the US Government a "victim". That's beyond surreal. Don't make me laugh!
AN early US president, John Adams, said
Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The problem is that the US public is now so divided that whichever side wins behaves as if they got a unanimous vote.
Normally this is the part where I'd say "and yes, I'd say this if the electoral college had shafted Trump too" but the problem is this has happened twice in the past 20 years and BOTH TIMES it was my team, the Democrats, that got royally f**ked by this. The simple truth of the matter is that the system IS rigged. It's just that it's rigged in a manner to give rural, sparsely populated counties an unfair influence over the outcome of the election. i.e. rigged in favor of Trump supporters, and Republicans in general, NOT rigged against them.
No that isn't the problem - after all Trump could easily have won the popular vote too - and then you wouldn't have a complaint. No the problem is the winner takes all culture of politics by which elected governments ignore the wishes of the 49%. (or event he 51%)
This really started to get worse with Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
Even with a popular vote referendum you are not safe. The UK didn't vote for any particular Brexit outcome - they voted (narrowly) against the remain option. It is certain that whatever deal we end up with will be less popular than remaining in the EU.
Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Maybe their computers should not be so easy to break into that it practically amounts to entrapment - and maybe his own government should defend its citizens against agressive foreign governments.
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
_But at the same time, he should have considered the consequences BEFORE he broke the law._
The consequences in his own country maybe - but being sent halfway around the world to country with a very different culture and criminal justice system - no!
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Except that the US is a rogue state that practices cruel and unusual punishments, has the largest prison population in the world and has a uniquely awful plea bargaining system that basically denies justice to anyone sent there - especially for this type of crime.
"I don’t have time to play this constitutional bullshit."
Says Theresa May when faced by the Judges opinion on parliamentary approval for Article 50. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express scream in wild support.
You are correct in respect of the lawsuit- and I haven't seen anyone in the comments ay otherwise.
However there is a problem in that the constitution framers didn't predict the existence of large and powerful media corporations whose actions could be as damaging as government censorship - nor did they forsee that government could use pressure on these corporations as an end run around the 1st amendment. (Just like they have tried to starve anyone they don't like of funds by pressurising paypal, banks and credit card providers.)
I'm not wrong - all I'm saying is that censorship by a sufficiently large and powerful private organisation is in practice indistinguishable in it effects from censorship by government. In those circumstance the first amendment is of limited value.
The important bit is suppress, that is try to prevent all publication, which is different from not on my service, try elsewhere.
What if the government goes around to all the big service providers and has a quiet word in their ear about things they don't like?
If a private company is doing the business at the behest of government then really that is just as bad as the government doing it. We see governments putting this kind of pressure on in public in relation to porn and copyright.
I'm sorry to disagree with xkcd but both are censorship.
How serious it is depends on the amount of power possessed by the institution in question relative to the relevant audience. Even a local newspaper exercising censorship on a local issue can be a problem - if the have an effective local monopoly.
The medieval Catholic church wasn't the government anywhere (except perhaps Vatican city) but it was still responsible for effective censorship.
Also I would have thought that the folks here would have been aware of the role of the London Company of stationers (a private institution) as an organ of censorship in the early history of copyright.
Plus the folks here are quite happy to complain about copyright/censorship when exercised by (eg) youtube's content ID system.
It seems to me that the determining factor is that you don't like Pamela Geller's views - so the word games and sophistry starts to try to prove that she hasn't got a point. (Of course clearly the legal case was just stupid and doomed from the start but that doesn't mean that morally she doesn't have a point.)
The important bit is suppress, that is try to prevent all publication, which is different from not on my service, try elsewhere.
Not really - at least not when you are as big as Facebook.
Also, there is evidence that Zuckerberg is minded to co-operate with governments to suppress things they don't like - so where doe sthat leave the "Facebook isn't government" arguemnt?
Well, I agree with needing real change. Problem just is that a real change for the worse is not helping.
Not necessarily. Change - even if initially for the worse - may have the effect of freeing up the system so that change for the better becomes possible later.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point. Do you really think that it would have been wrong to stop that, to make it illegal?
But - he did that from a position of power - when there were no free speech rights. The fact is that most examples quoted as reasons for limiting free speech are misleading - for exactly that reason. Totalitarians don't get into power by "hate speech" - they get into power by first claiming victimhood and railing against other people's "hate speech" against them.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
What's not to like?
(Apart from the US government not getting the opportunity to be a big bully!)
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
After all, if the US an UK are suffiently in tune to have an extradition treaty then why can't the US trust the UK to try such a case?
Doesn't sound like much of a "special relationship" to me.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
So it's the victim's fault for making it to easy? I imagine there are plenty of rapists in jail that think the same way. Calling the US Government a "victim". That's beyond surreal. Don't make me laugh!
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Knowing that, the UK government should protect its citizens against them.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Somewhat off point, but...
Addendum.
AN early US president, John Adams, said Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The problem is that the US public is now so divided that whichever side wins behaves as if they got a unanimous vote.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Somewhat off point, but...
Normally this is the part where I'd say "and yes, I'd say this if the electoral college had shafted Trump too" but the problem is this has happened twice in the past 20 years and BOTH TIMES it was my team, the Democrats, that got royally f**ked by this. The simple truth of the matter is that the system IS rigged. It's just that it's rigged in a manner to give rural, sparsely populated counties an unfair influence over the outcome of the election. i.e. rigged in favor of Trump supporters, and Republicans in general, NOT rigged against them.
No that isn't the problem - after all Trump could easily have won the popular vote too - and then you wouldn't have a complaint. No the problem is the winner takes all culture of politics by which elected governments ignore the wishes of the 49%. (or event he 51%) This really started to get worse with Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
Even with a popular vote referendum you are not safe. The UK didn't vote for any particular Brexit outcome - they voted (narrowly) against the remain option. It is certain that whatever deal we end up with will be less popular than remaining in the EU.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
The consequences in his own country maybe - but being sent halfway around the world to country with a very different culture and criminal justice system - no!
On the post: UK Home Secretary Agrees To Turn Over Accused Hacker Lauri Love To US Government
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Even the DAILY MAIL disagrees with you!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3940392/Twisted-justice-Left-s-pin-Assange-evades-extr adition-grotesque-sending-young-Briton-Asperger-s-face-99-years-jail.html
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity
Re: Constitutional Bullshit
"I don’t have time to play this constitutional bullshit."
Says Theresa May when faced by the Judges opinion on parliamentary approval for Article 50. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express scream in wild support.
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However there is a problem in that the constitution framers didn't predict the existence of large and powerful media corporations whose actions could be as damaging as government censorship - nor did they forsee that government could use pressure on these corporations as an end run around the 1st amendment. (Just like they have tried to starve anyone they don't like of funds by pressurising paypal, banks and credit card providers.)
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The important bit is suppress, that is try to prevent all publication, which is different from not on my service, try elsewhere.
What if the government goes around to all the big service providers and has a quiet word in their ear about things they don't like?
If a private company is doing the business at the behest of government then really that is just as bad as the government doing it. We see governments putting this kind of pressure on in public in relation to porn and copyright.
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
anti-mulism
http://phrontistery.info/disq5.html
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re:
I'm sorry to disagree with xkcd but both are censorship.
How serious it is depends on the amount of power possessed by the institution in question relative to the relevant audience. Even a local newspaper exercising censorship on a local issue can be a problem - if the have an effective local monopoly.
The medieval Catholic church wasn't the government anywhere (except perhaps Vatican city) but it was still responsible for effective censorship.
Also I would have thought that the folks here would have been aware of the role of the London Company of stationers (a private institution) as an organ of censorship in the early history of copyright.
Plus the folks here are quite happy to complain about copyright/censorship when exercised by (eg) youtube's content ID system.
It seems to me that the determining factor is that you don't like Pamela Geller's views - so the word games and sophistry starts to try to prove that she hasn't got a point. (Of course clearly the legal case was just stupid and doomed from the start but that doesn't mean that morally she doesn't have a point.)
The word hypocrites springs to mind.
On the post: Court Dismisses Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller's Lawsuit Against The DOJ For Facebook's Moderating Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The important bit is suppress, that is try to prevent all publication, which is different from not on my service, try elsewhere.
Not really - at least not when you are as big as Facebook.
Also, there is evidence that Zuckerberg is minded to co-operate with governments to suppress things they don't like - so where doe sthat leave the "Facebook isn't government" arguemnt?
See http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immig rant-posts.html
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Change
Well, I agree with needing real change. Problem just is that a real change for the worse is not helping.
Not necessarily. Change - even if initially for the worse - may have the effect of freeing up the system so that change for the better becomes possible later.
On the post: Elon Musk Clarifies That Tesla's Patents Really Are Free; Investor Absolutely Freaks Out
Re: Re: Re:
Tesla make electric cars.
The future development of electric cars critically depends on available infrastructure.
The more companies make good electric cars the more infrastructure there will be.
Elon Musk has rightly calculated that 5% of a 100 Billion dollar market is way better than 100% of a 1 billion dollar market.
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point. Do you really think that it would have been wrong to stop that, to make it illegal?
But - he did that from a position of power - when there were no free speech rights. The fact is that most examples quoted as reasons for limiting free speech are misleading - for exactly that reason. Totalitarians don't get into power by "hate speech" - they get into power by first claiming victimhood and railing against other people's "hate speech" against them.
Next >>