Literally no one has said that Cotton shouldn't be allowed to express his views
The NY Times staff melted down precisely BECAUSE Cotton was allowed to express his views.
The staff outrage is not that they disagree, although they certainly do disagree. Their anger stems from it even being printed in the first place. What the biased reporters wanted was for an editorial board to reject the opinion piece BEFORE publication. Make no mistake - they do not want debate. They want conformity with their viewpoint only.
I see a different approach between modern conservatives and liberals. When conservatives see speech with which they disagree, they criticize it. When liberals see speech with which they disagree, they want the speech removed, and they want assurances that similar speech will be censored in the future.
It is entirely possible to believe in free speech, to believe in hearing all kinds of viewpoints, including those we disagree with and that make us feel uncomfortable, without saying "yes, this publication should post fundamentally terrible, intellectually dishonest support for a truly crazy idea."
If a lot of people agree with that crazy idea, then talk about it. Publish it. Criticize it. Debate it. Bring aboard its top proponent(s) and let them have their best shot. And then give the detractors time to explain how they disagree. This is what the intellectually honest and trusted publications of yesteryear used to do.
Nowadays the fake news is just going to publish only their opinion, but pretend that their way of thinking is the only option. All other viewpoints, no matter how popular or widespread must be "awful" or "crazy", perhaps even "deplorable" and unworthy of discussion. This process is precisely how once esteemed publishers lose credibility. The real reason why tears are being shed is that the NY Times allowed its reputation to crumble within public view.
Hardware manufacturers have provided some bogus reasons for why device repair should not be allowed, ranging from security, to safety issues for farm equipment. But the longer these small repair shops stay in business, the more it exposes the manufacturer concerns as unreasonable. It's sad to see these small businesses caught up in the David vs Goliath unwinnable situations.
The Prodigy decision was determined to be incorrect after the fact. 230 explained "the way it should be" and is based entirely on 1A.
Who determined it to be wrong? To my knowledge there was no re-review. A state supreme court said otherwise, and the federal supreme court declined to overrule. I dont even see where the defense attempted to assert 1st amendment protection in the case. Obviously if they did, it failed.
So the lawmakers disagreed, and they did the proper civics thing and passed a new law to change the outcome. But know that there was no successful 1st amendment protection ever established to protect moderators from liability. Only through a change in federal law did that occur.
Hey, you were the one that repeated the nearly identical 1st Amendment response 40 mins after Anonymous Coward up above. But yeah, swap over to that other line if you want, now that you see it.
Okay, so now that we're past that "retaliation" thing, we can get to the heart of the matter, which is the 1st amendment and not "retaliation". If you can explain where in the EO that speech is wrongly limited, I'd be glad to listen. But instead, it's mostly a shot against section 230 so it's not about the 1st amendment.
That's not correct. 230 is a clarification of what the 1st Amendment protects, not new law. 230 is all about the 1A.
Apparently, the courts were unconvinced. In Stratron Oakmont v Prodigy, the courts found Prodigy liable for defamation because it was moderating the messages posted to its platform. The 1st Amendment did not help.
Thus the CDA of 1996 was written in order to counteract the court decision. Section 230 completely contradicted what was previously determined in court, and was very much a new law. There is no first amendment right to section 230 protection.
One thing that I was unable to locate in the article was -- what percentage of shareholders were trying to offer this proposal? 5%? 0.5%? 0.05%? I could go out and buy a few shares this afternoon and call myself a shareholder. This sounds like a desperate attempt by the camel to get its nose under the tent.
In this case, there is the first amendment, and a major reason for its existence is to stop the government shutting down any opposition.
Okay, so now that we're past that "retaliation" thing, we can get to the heart of the matter, which is the 1st amendment and not "retaliation". If you can explain where in the EO that speech is wrongly limited, I'd be glad to listen. But instead, it's mostly a shot against section 230 so it's not about the 1st amendment.
Of course, the Senate then voted that "abuse of power" was not an impeachable offense, and he was acquitted. Again, it's a nice concept, but you need to cite some kind of violation of a statute. Simply saying "abuse of power" means that you don't agree with the outcome, which truly is how you feel, but is not legally actionable.
This seems to me as though it is an abuse of power. I thought there were words on paper, that everyone agreed to, stipulating that abuse of power will not be tolerated and yet here we are. It makes those words on paper seem worthless,
I dont see those words words written anywhere, "don't abuse power". It's certainly an excellent concept, but one that lacks specificity. You can't pass a law which says "dont abuse power" anymore than you can pass a law that says "everyone must act nicely".
That being said, Trump's executive order certainly seems retaliatory, but is there some kind of law against retaliation? If a foreign country tried to hack into a computer system to alter the outcome of an election, I would love for the authorities to retaliate by cutting off the offending nation. Sometimes you desire retaliation.
We need to come up with some kind of counter-conspiracy, like say that Wyoming is the only place in the U.S. where the 5G signal will not reach, and popularize living inside a tin foil tent to block out the coronavirus rays. They can wait on the side of the mountain for the apocalypse, and then they won't bother the rest of us.
George Floyd “kept cool”. Now he’s dead. If you think race didn’t have anything to do with it, you’re out of your fucking mind.
And again, that's why people are upset. Did racism have something to do with it? It sure seems that way, and I haven't heard of a better explanation.
But it does not logically follow that all police are out to kill crime suspects based upon the color of their skin. And that therefore, most whites survive police encounters based upon that. Unilaterally staying calm as a citizen is probably one of the best ways to get a good outcome from a police interaction, and will probably sidestep problems of racism in a vast majority of cases.
That´s funny, because the surveillance footage shows George Floyd ´playing it cool´ for the entirety of the interaction, but that didn´t save his life.
And that's why a lot of people are very upset, and very few people are defending the police in this case. Most people expected this outcome to be very different than what it was.
And I still stand by my earlier point: that if you do play it cool, then you'll be fine in 99.99% of interactions. It's not some special racial priviledge, anyone can keep cool. You can demonstrate exceptions, but it won't change the fact that it's still the smart way to handle the situation.
Therein lies the problem: When it comes to cops, bad apples don’t get removed that quickly.
There is a powerful police union in most major cities. I say eliminate all unions that represent government workers, on the basis that there is effectively noone against which they negotiate. In the case of policing, it seems like noone has taken the side of the people.
You’re not afraid of “drown[ing] in criticism”. You’re afraid of having to answer that criticism. When criticism of your ideas gets to a point where you can’t justify your ideas any further, you disappear from the conversation. I should know — you did it to me a few articles back.
Actually, I have certain time during the day for discussion, and I cannot devote 100% of my day to the forums here. At some point, the discussion has gone on for awhile, where much of everything has been said. So I'm willing to leave it to readers to judge. If you're dissatisfied with getting the last word, then I dunno what to tell you.
Justified unrest? Time to put down the unrest? It's tough to say, and I'm not going to make any predictions. All I know is that I know which side the toast is buttered on around here.
This is absolutely bullshit. You assume because he passed a counterfeit bill that he is guilty? My white mom had paid with cash at a grocery store a few years ago. She gets her cash only from the bank. It came up as counterfeit. She was pulled aside, cops were called, she explained that she had no idea because the bill looked legit. The cop said it happens sometimes and that the bill was a good one. She left alive... probably because she was a middle-aged white woman and not a black guy...
This is just slander. The reason why everything was okay was because your mom played it cool. She didn't become belligerent. She didn't hop in her car and get into a high speed chase. She didn't resist arrest and go limp when a cop tried to put her into the back seat of a squad car. If you dont get into a confrontation, then the chances of harm or death become astronomically small.
Does this excuse the police when they do the wrong thing? Nope, absolutely not. But just be cool for 10 minutes, is all it takes.
That I wasn't buried by critics perhaps demonstrates my points were well-made. Or it may just indicate the general public is sick and tired of cop bullshit
Be careful of a 3rd possibility: you are preaching to the choir on techdirt. I, for one, was certain that if I were to comment with disagreement, that I would have been drowned in criticism, instead.
If you can't really do something to cure the problem, then just give them a placebo. If it buys enough time, then eventually it won't be your problem anymore. I have to admit, it's a nerfariously genius solution.
On the post: If The NY Times Doesn't Publish My OpEd On Why James Bennet Is An Incompetent Dweeb, It Must Hate Free Speech
Re: Re: Reputation Crumbles
The NY Times staff melted down precisely BECAUSE Cotton was allowed to express his views.
The staff outrage is not that they disagree, although they certainly do disagree. Their anger stems from it even being printed in the first place. What the biased reporters wanted was for an editorial board to reject the opinion piece BEFORE publication. Make no mistake - they do not want debate. They want conformity with their viewpoint only.
On the post: If The NY Times Doesn't Publish My OpEd On Why James Bennet Is An Incompetent Dweeb, It Must Hate Free Speech
Reputation Crumbles
I see a different approach between modern conservatives and liberals. When conservatives see speech with which they disagree, they criticize it. When liberals see speech with which they disagree, they want the speech removed, and they want assurances that similar speech will be censored in the future.
If a lot of people agree with that crazy idea, then talk about it. Publish it. Criticize it. Debate it. Bring aboard its top proponent(s) and let them have their best shot. And then give the detractors time to explain how they disagree. This is what the intellectually honest and trusted publications of yesteryear used to do.
Nowadays the fake news is just going to publish only their opinion, but pretend that their way of thinking is the only option. All other viewpoints, no matter how popular or widespread must be "awful" or "crazy", perhaps even "deplorable" and unworthy of discussion. This process is precisely how once esteemed publishers lose credibility. The real reason why tears are being shed is that the NY Times allowed its reputation to crumble within public view.
On the post: Norway Supreme Court Signs Off On Apple's Harassment Of An Independent Repair Shop
Hardware manufacturers have provided some bogus reasons for why device repair should not be allowed, ranging from security, to safety issues for farm equipment. But the longer these small repair shops stay in business, the more it exposes the manufacturer concerns as unreasonable. It's sad to see these small businesses caught up in the David vs Goliath unwinnable situations.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: where
Who determined it to be wrong? To my knowledge there was no re-review. A state supreme court said otherwise, and the federal supreme court declined to overrule. I dont even see where the defense attempted to assert 1st amendment protection in the case. Obviously if they did, it failed.
So the lawmakers disagreed, and they did the proper civics thing and passed a new law to change the outcome. But know that there was no successful 1st amendment protection ever established to protect moderators from liability. Only through a change in federal law did that occur.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: where
Hey, you were the one that repeated the nearly identical 1st Amendment response 40 mins after Anonymous Coward up above. But yeah, swap over to that other line if you want, now that you see it.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: where
Okay, so now that we're past that "retaliation" thing, we can get to the heart of the matter, which is the 1st amendment and not "retaliation". If you can explain where in the EO that speech is wrongly limited, I'd be glad to listen. But instead, it's mostly a shot against section 230 so it's not about the 1st amendment.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: where
Apparently, the courts were unconvinced. In Stratron Oakmont v Prodigy, the courts found Prodigy liable for defamation because it was moderating the messages posted to its platform. The 1st Amendment did not help.
Thus the CDA of 1996 was written in order to counteract the court decision. Section 230 completely contradicted what was previously determined in court, and was very much a new law. There is no first amendment right to section 230 protection.
On the post: Facebook Shareholders The Latest Group To Ask Facebook To Drop Its Encryption Plans
What Percentage?
One thing that I was unable to locate in the article was -- what percentage of shareholders were trying to offer this proposal? 5%? 0.5%? 0.05%? I could go out and buy a few shares this afternoon and call myself a shareholder. This sounds like a desperate attempt by the camel to get its nose under the tent.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: where
Okay, so now that we're past that "retaliation" thing, we can get to the heart of the matter, which is the 1st amendment and not "retaliation". If you can explain where in the EO that speech is wrongly limited, I'd be glad to listen. But instead, it's mostly a shot against section 230 so it's not about the 1st amendment.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: where
Of course, the Senate then voted that "abuse of power" was not an impeachable offense, and he was acquitted. Again, it's a nice concept, but you need to cite some kind of violation of a statute. Simply saying "abuse of power" means that you don't agree with the outcome, which truly is how you feel, but is not legally actionable.
On the post: CDT First Out The Gate In Suing To Block Donald Trump's Silly Executive Order On Section 230
Re: where
I dont see those words words written anywhere, "don't abuse power". It's certainly an excellent concept, but one that lacks specificity. You can't pass a law which says "dont abuse power" anymore than you can pass a law that says "everyone must act nicely".
That being said, Trump's executive order certainly seems retaliatory, but is there some kind of law against retaliation? If a foreign country tried to hack into a computer system to alter the outcome of an election, I would love for the authorities to retaliate by cutting off the offending nation. Sometimes you desire retaliation.
On the post: 5G Conspiracy Idiots Now Threatening Telecom Workers That Don't Even Work In Wireless
Here's Your Sign
We need to come up with some kind of counter-conspiracy, like say that Wyoming is the only place in the U.S. where the 5G signal will not reach, and popularize living inside a tin foil tent to block out the coronavirus rays. They can wait on the side of the mountain for the apocalypse, and then they won't bother the rest of us.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re:
And again, that's why people are upset. Did racism have something to do with it? It sure seems that way, and I haven't heard of a better explanation.
But it does not logically follow that all police are out to kill crime suspects based upon the color of their skin. And that therefore, most whites survive police encounters based upon that. Unilaterally staying calm as a citizen is probably one of the best ways to get a good outcome from a police interaction, and will probably sidestep problems of racism in a vast majority of cases.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Re: Re: First and foremost... fuck off...
And that's why a lot of people are very upset, and very few people are defending the police in this case. Most people expected this outcome to be very different than what it was.
And I still stand by my earlier point: that if you do play it cool, then you'll be fine in 99.99% of interactions. It's not some special racial priviledge, anyone can keep cool. You can demonstrate exceptions, but it won't change the fact that it's still the smart way to handle the situation.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re:
There is a powerful police union in most major cities. I say eliminate all unions that represent government workers, on the basis that there is effectively noone against which they negotiate. In the case of policing, it seems like noone has taken the side of the people.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re:
Actually, I have certain time during the day for discussion, and I cannot devote 100% of my day to the forums here. At some point, the discussion has gone on for awhile, where much of everything has been said. So I'm willing to leave it to readers to judge. If you're dissatisfied with getting the last word, then I dunno what to tell you.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Re: Echo Chamber
Meh, other polls show 71% of voters now want to see the National Guard brought in to quash the unrest.
https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/06/01181629/2005131_crosstabs_POLICE_RVs_F INAL_LM-1.pdf
Justified unrest? Time to put down the unrest? It's tough to say, and I'm not going to make any predictions. All I know is that I know which side the toast is buttered on around here.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: First and foremost... fuck off...
This is just slander. The reason why everything was okay was because your mom played it cool. She didn't become belligerent. She didn't hop in her car and get into a high speed chase. She didn't resist arrest and go limp when a cop tried to put her into the back seat of a squad car. If you dont get into a confrontation, then the chances of harm or death become astronomically small.
Does this excuse the police when they do the wrong thing? Nope, absolutely not. But just be cool for 10 minutes, is all it takes.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Echo Chamber
Be careful of a 3rd possibility: you are preaching to the choir on techdirt. I, for one, was certain that if I were to comment with disagreement, that I would have been drowned in criticism, instead.
On the post: Facebook's Oversight Board Can't Intervene, So Stop Asking
Do Something
If you can't really do something to cure the problem, then just give them a placebo. If it buys enough time, then eventually it won't be your problem anymore. I have to admit, it's a nerfariously genius solution.
Next >>