Re: Re: 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'
They want an echochamber where everyone who isn't a republican has to sit and listen, and they're prepared to ruin the internet to get it. No giving, only taking.
In other words, they want a return to the heyday when Rush Limbaugh was the king of AM talk radio and basically everyone else on AM stations was a bilious right-wing disinformer.
Considering you used the actual Nazi word "Lügenpresse" to describe the media, that should tell me everything I need to know about your interpretation of the First Amendment: that you don't believe it protects and guarantees actual Free Speech, but "Freeze Peach" and Free Reach.
Interesting that the MPA (then MPAA) went to hell and back to war against the internet with PROTECT IP, SOPA, PIPA, etc., when it turned out the internet is what saved them in a time of crisis thanks to the streaming path that Netflix paved. Now, Disney can have a business model where they make 100% of the revenue from theatrical runs instead of just a part of it.
If you think the Americans wearing American-flag-patterned bikinis are fat, well, you just searched google images because I can guarantee there are plenty of fit Americans wearing American-flag-patterned swimwear and underwear…
Sorry, should be "for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion:"
Do you know what is also law? Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity. …
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property. …
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
(Stephen T. Stone, I know this is what you usually do, but I'm out of Dragon Balls)
Writing bogus and unequally enforced rules into a contract is something that states are empowered to modify.
Nice to see you admit that causing an insurrection is a "bogus and unequally enforced rule". To see how full of shit you are, a bot that just retweeted Donald Trump's tweets was banned but Donald Trump's twitter account stayed up because he was the president. You're not asking for equal treatment but special treatment (which is was Trumpy actually got).
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Re: 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'
In other words, they want a return to the heyday when Rush Limbaugh was the king of AM talk radio and basically everyone else on AM stations was a bilious right-wing disinformer.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Correction
Considering you used the actual Nazi word "Lügenpresse" to describe the media, that should tell me everything I need to know about your interpretation of the First Amendment: that you don't believe it protects and guarantees actual Free Speech, but "Freeze Peach" and Free Reach.
Go fuck yourself, Nazi.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Well…
If the armband with the swastika fits…
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Chief Ferengi here...
Who do you think you are, Ticketmaster?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Re: Re: Re: "Series of Tubes"
Thanks for checking it out!
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Re:
I now see the problem: I was logged into the backend and the track was a bonus track. Now that I made it a regular track, you can listen to it.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Re: Re: Re: "Series of Tubes"
Anyway, if you can't go to the link, just past this URL in your browser: https://ironcurtain.bandcamp.com/track/occupy-chiptune-series-of-tubes-vip
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Re: Re: Re: "Series of Tubes"
Weird. It works for me.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Re: "Series of Tubes"
Oh, and before I forget, I made a remix of Ted Stevens' "Series of Tubes".
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 4th - 10th
Golden Goose Hunters
Interesting that the MPA (then MPAA) went to hell and back to war against the internet with PROTECT IP, SOPA, PIPA, etc., when it turned out the internet is what saved them in a time of crisis thanks to the streaming path that Netflix paved. Now, Disney can have a business model where they make 100% of the revenue from theatrical runs instead of just a part of it.
On the post: Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just so you know, the plural of "penis" in Latin is "penes". But you could just use the English plural: "penises".
On the post: Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment
Re:
If you think the Americans wearing American-flag-patterned bikinis are fat, well, you just searched google images because I can guarantee there are plenty of fit Americans wearing American-flag-patterned swimwear and underwear…
On the post: Why Do We So Quickly Blame The Internet And Anonymity For Things That Are Not About Anonymous People Online?
Re:
Two things
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Sorry, should be "for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion:"
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Do you know what is also law? Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, for which Trump-appointed (and voted by GOP senators in an overwhelming majority and voted against by Dem senators unanimously) Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
(Stephen T. Stone, I know this is what you usually do, but I'm out of Dragon Balls)
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, Mr. Masnick. You're going to have to sit down for this one...
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher vs Platforms
Nice to see you admit that causing an insurrection is a "bogus and unequally enforced rule". To see how full of shit you are, a bot that just retweeted Donald Trump's tweets was banned but Donald Trump's twitter account stayed up because he was the president. You're not asking for equal treatment but special treatment (which is was Trumpy actually got).
On the post: Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Re: Google more "permissive" than Apple is like Singapore
Here's a refutation of the charges:
How is Google's play store a monopoly when you can sideload apps easily?
You're a meritless troll as always, Blue-Balzac...
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
How about “evil one-trick pony”?
On the post: Community Broadband Dominates List Of Fastest US ISPs
Re: An idea for ISPs
That’s exactly what I want out of ISPs as well. It’s a goddamn shame in the USA that minimum expectation is way too much to ask for in many places.
Next >>