We can only hope that qualified immunity is codified into law. Otherwise, you can kiss your ass goodbye if you seek any kind of help in the face of brutal assault and worse from those who would do such things.
Why would any employee of the state assist you? Why would any employee of the state enforce any law? They would be sued into penury. No reason to do the job. You might do something or say something that a clever lawyer could then tie you up in a suit for 10 years and take all of your funds and leave you homeless.
Why take the chance? No qualified immunity? Bye bye a police force. Be careful of what you wish for: you just might get it.
So instead of addressing the law suits, let's try to use a SLAPP suit to figure out where Nunes is getting his money?
Because, who cares what Nunes is saying? I mean he's a conservative so obviously he has no relevant points to make, and absolutely no reason to sue anyone!
He's just a venal fool that no one (especially no judge) should ever listen to.
In fact the only people we should ever listen to ever are people like Rachel Maddow. I mean she has more "truthiness" in her little finger than one of the foremost US Representatives in American History.
It was kind of fun for about 4 paragraphs reading you twist yourself into what they call pretzel logic.
You rent a hall and then some people come and so then that hall is not allowed to call itself a hall? Or a forum? Or whatever you decided it was? Or was not?
I didn't read too much more but let me take a stab at your point: Anyone who is liberal and totalitarian can do anything he/she/it wants to do to anyone they don't like, and then every one in the mob (i.e., corporations, celebs, mascots, schoolmarms, etc.) can then cancel anyone unless they agree?
And that is your grand vision of a new world? Hmm, maybe that hall you rented should be turned into a vegetarian market or something.
I don't understand how anyone with even half a brain would support this line of thought.Don't you see where this leads? Hint: it ain't any place where the sun shines.
The screaming totalitarian harpy who lied about her "heritage" and can't even drink a beer without looking like a phony has now shown her true colors (known to almost all who have been in her presence in the last 4 decades) and wants the Amazon monopoly to remove (i.e., burn, as the Nazis used to do) books.
You seem to think that equates with the attempts by totalitarian corporations to "punish" voters for supporting voter integrity (popular by huge margins even by Democrat voters).
This is somehow equivalent for you? In what universe?
I know they have legalized some drugs in some parts of the United States, but I am asking you, nee begging you: put down the pipe before you write your next article pretending there is anything remotely similar between a totalitarian schoolmarm and a people's movement fighting giant monopolies.
Everyone on the political spectrum should be outraged that some corporate executive uses his power to try to manipulate the people who were elected to represent the people of Georgia.
It's arrogant, but what's worse, it's ignorant.
There is nothing in the law that is racist or that suppresses anyone.
And If I hear one more person claim that black people are too stupid to get an ID? Stop spouting that racist nonsense.
Delta doesn't deserve any perks from the state of Georgia. And if the executive has a personal political belief? Let him speak at a rally, let him vote for a different representative. If he goes any further? He's out of bounds and his stockholders and board of directors should fire him.
You at Tech Dirt don't want corporations telling people what is and is not ok or correct. Be careful. They coming for you next if you allow and even welcome this kind of thing.
It is astonishing this article. First there is the smearing of Parler for no reason. It's just a place where people can speak their mind. You know? Like Americans do?
Then there is the failure to report that Parler has been gelded anyway. It came back but not before the censorship of anti-American "moderation" was agreed to.
Then there is the idea that people gathering on January 6th were doing anything illegal. And the corollary that the FBI is an honest organization. Astounding that anyone could believe that.
The government's case is falling apart day by day on the non-insurrection that had no arms and that the cops let in without any push back whatsoever. Judges are challenging the no-bail nonsense. Testimony in Congress reveal there were no arms and there was no insurrection.
Therefore, the FBI wanting private speech from Parler is unconstitutional. They have no right to any of that.
Remember, the suppression of American rights that you fervently support here in articles like this, will, come back to you, and your own rights will be suppressed.
Wait for it. It's coming. Meanwhile, keep writing this nonsense.
It is odd that a "journalist" such as yourself should be thinking he is an attorney. To say nothing of thinking he is judge and jury.
It appears that you are unaware of the fact that a preliminary defense (e.g., the court has no jurisdiction as in other recent cases, etc.) is not in any way the last and the only one.
Yet, you continue to do this kind of thing, saying "this is her best and only defense" in all theses articles commenting on court cases going on. Your ignorance is comical.
Powell is lying in wait. Dominion is subject to extensive discovery as the suit proceeds. At which point, Dominion will be slapped, big time. Dominion will be subject to SLAPP laws. Of course, their machines are solely for the commission of election fraud, that evidence has been out for months. That will come out in discovery.
They'd be wise to back out now while they still can. Powell is being charitable, while at the same time raising Free Speech issues. It is just the first prong in a mutl-prong approach.
And you, a supposed objective "journalist", fell for it? You aren't a journalist. You are a propagandist. Remember this: It ain't over til it's over. Cool your prejudiced jets.
So let me get this clear: you just wrote an article pretending you looked at some evidence (as if you were a jury) and pronounced judgment on a case that was dismissed purely on procedural grounds (i.e, the court didn't hear any of the evidence)?
Why didn't you just write one paragraph? Or better yet, one sentence: Case of alleged hacking by corrupt official Rob Rosenstein dismissed for being brought in wrong jurisdiction, stand by for the refiling.
Why expound dump trucks of hot air claiming you know all about something you obviously know nothing about? And it doesn't matter what you think you know about this case at all. It's just weird. Can't you stick to Copyright, Patent and telco overreach? What provokes you to go off the deep end with this emotional and hysterical speculation?
It is so difficult to get through an article like this, when it begins with such obvious nonsense. Slander and lies are not simply the press being mean to a group.
Here's a way for you to check this out for yourself. The next time you read some libelous slanderous nonsense from some "journalist" replace that person or entity they are attacking with Al Sharpton or some other sacred black cow, and see if the "journalist" was just being "mean."
We all know that that "journalist" would be fried alive at sundown and "canceled" from ever writing another piece of "journalism" again.
No, it's not just being mean. And it should be against the law. Sullivan does need to be overhauled. The "press" has become the lugenpresse and needs to be reined in.
Here is a helpful advice for all kids of every race: do not walk around a park with a gun that looks real. If you see a cop car driving up on you? Throw your gun to the ground and put your hands up.
Most kids know this instinctively. Some don't though. They seem to think that in cities chock a block full of black gun violence that they should go to public parks with their guns and everything will just be fine.
How could anyone be that stupid?
And then the 2nd guessers come in. The cops should have known. They should have gone to a fortune telling lady before to determine the motive of the male with the gun. It's all so easy to see in hindsight. Vision is always 20/20 then.
Enough of this nonsense. There needs to be classes in all city schools especially in black majority schools on dealing with the police. Do not hold a gun of any kind; do not resist arrest; do not disobey police orders. You want to fight an unfair or illegal arrest? Do so in court, not in the street.
All kids would be required to take such courses and pass them. Start them in 5th grade. Sign o' the times. Classes on dealing with police and learning what and what not to do. Real talk. Real education.
In the meantime, throw your (toy) gun to the ground immediately.
And live to see another day.
So, in a super litigious society, you don't appear to understand that making cops personally liable for every law suit that 2nd guesses split-second actions, might be chilling, and thus the equivalent of defunding the police?
And this from someone who writes 24/7 about all of the law suits without merit that are brought in American in other fields?
Thank you for this excellent article on policing in Vallejo. Your splendid reporting has convinced me and many others that the only solution for Vallejo is to abolish the police. While this will be the best solution for Vallejo (it will also save 50 million dollars for the city in law suits, too!), it probably is not the solution for every American city with majority black populations.
After all, I mean, how many times do you have a guy dozing off right at the window at the drive thru in other cities? Like never. And how often do you hear about rhyme-rapping cops rapping about shooting people dead while chowing down at their evil barbeques? Again probably never.
Another solution might be: issue police badges without points on them. There!! No more bending the points ceremonies in the catacombs underneath the police station.
Vallejo doesn't really need a police force. And no one wants them there anyway. They are like Portland and many other cities nowadays. Cops: who need them?
It's too bad that Oliver does not follow the lead of his fellow Brit, Jonathan Hari, who full-on 6 years ago wrote "Chasing the Scream: the First and Last Days of the War on Drugs" about drug legalization in Portugal (some 15 years before that) and its myriad benefits to society and to policing in general, and instead chooses to beat the dead horse of "racism," the utterly deluded concept that when black men commit more crime, it's racist to arrest and convict them for it.
Instead of complaining about the police, how about removing the police entirely from the equation by legalizing all drugs? No more no-knock warrants, poof! No more prison sentences, poof! No more civil sanctions for those once convicted of a drug offense, poof. No more Mexican cartels, poof!
John? What's wrong with you. Come on, man! -Joe Biden
You mean that a Trump appointee wanted to turn the Voice of America from a left propaganda machine that everyone it broadcasts to laughs at because it is so obviously fake news, and make it into a once-again respectable and powerful force in the world, and was attempting to rid the organization of ideologues and their toxic wokeness--the ridicule of the world.
It's so good you are pointing this out. Too bad you aren't celebrating his failed effort.
Thank you for all of your many articles on the stupidity and futility of content moderation. Not following the 1st Amendment leads to the constant failures and absurdities of the absurd concept of content moderation.
The principle of Free Speech is to protect speech that is offensive, not to ban or censor it. You have done an excellent job of making the case against all content moderation of any kind.
It takes a certain kind of simpleton mind to seriously believe that if you write for an outlet financed by a government (e.g., US, UK, Russia, etc.), that that government controls your writing.
Maddow made that simpleton claim and should have been sued into oblivion. Apparently the court is full of idiots who also believe that the BBC is "controlled" by the Queen of England who tells them what to write.
And so obviously does this writer. The suit had merit, even Maddow started waffling when sued and challenged. The Kremlin did not control Larry King or Jesse Ventura, both of whom had shows on Russia Today. It's a certain kind of stupid to even think that they were.
Interesting the Smartmatic people do not understand discovery. I guess it's true as Ron White says: Sometimes you just can't fix stupid. Reap the whirlwind. Change your name to Dumbmatic.
On the post: Iowa Senate Approves Bill That Would Add Qualified Immunity To The State Law Books
Hope and Change
We can only hope that qualified immunity is codified into law. Otherwise, you can kiss your ass goodbye if you seek any kind of help in the face of brutal assault and worse from those who would do such things.
Why would any employee of the state assist you? Why would any employee of the state enforce any law? They would be sued into penury. No reason to do the job. You might do something or say something that a clever lawyer could then tie you up in a suit for 10 years and take all of your funds and leave you homeless.
Why take the chance? No qualified immunity? Bye bye a police force. Be careful of what you wish for: you just might get it.
On the post: Michigan AG Using Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell's 'No Reasonable Person Would Believe Me' Statements To Seek Sanctions Against Her
Curious
So the batshit crazy totalitarian Michigan AG is trying to impose sanctions to shut up Sydney Powell?
And how is that a good thing?
And why is that something you would write about?
You are now in favor of shutting down dissent? Is this the TechDirt stand now?
What universe are you in?
On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another One Of His SLAPP Suits
Slap
So instead of addressing the law suits, let's try to use a SLAPP suit to figure out where Nunes is getting his money?
Because, who cares what Nunes is saying? I mean he's a conservative so obviously he has no relevant points to make, and absolutely no reason to sue anyone!
He's just a venal fool that no one (especially no judge) should ever listen to.
In fact the only people we should ever listen to ever are people like Rachel Maddow. I mean she has more "truthiness" in her little finger than one of the foremost US Representatives in American History.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Pretzel
It was kind of fun for about 4 paragraphs reading you twist yourself into what they call pretzel logic.
You rent a hall and then some people come and so then that hall is not allowed to call itself a hall? Or a forum? Or whatever you decided it was? Or was not?
I didn't read too much more but let me take a stab at your point: Anyone who is liberal and totalitarian can do anything he/she/it wants to do to anyone they don't like, and then every one in the mob (i.e., corporations, celebs, mascots, schoolmarms, etc.) can then cancel anyone unless they agree?
And that is your grand vision of a new world? Hmm, maybe that hall you rented should be turned into a vegetarian market or something.
I don't understand how anyone with even half a brain would support this line of thought.Don't you see where this leads? Hint: it ain't any place where the sun shines.
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Confused
You are confused.
The screaming totalitarian harpy who lied about her "heritage" and can't even drink a beer without looking like a phony has now shown her true colors (known to almost all who have been in her presence in the last 4 decades) and wants the Amazon monopoly to remove (i.e., burn, as the Nazis used to do) books.
You seem to think that equates with the attempts by totalitarian corporations to "punish" voters for supporting voter integrity (popular by huge margins even by Democrat voters).
This is somehow equivalent for you? In what universe?
I know they have legalized some drugs in some parts of the United States, but I am asking you, nee begging you: put down the pipe before you write your next article pretending there is anything remotely similar between a totalitarian schoolmarm and a people's movement fighting giant monopolies.
On the post: Georgia Republicans Try To Punish Delta For CEO's Statement About Voting Rights Law
Corporate Overreach
Everyone on the political spectrum should be outraged that some corporate executive uses his power to try to manipulate the people who were elected to represent the people of Georgia.
It's arrogant, but what's worse, it's ignorant.
There is nothing in the law that is racist or that suppresses anyone.
And If I hear one more person claim that black people are too stupid to get an ID? Stop spouting that racist nonsense.
Delta doesn't deserve any perks from the state of Georgia. And if the executive has a personal political belief? Let him speak at a rally, let him vote for a different representative. If he goes any further? He's out of bounds and his stockholders and board of directors should fire him.
You at Tech Dirt don't want corporations telling people what is and is not ok or correct. Be careful. They coming for you next if you allow and even welcome this kind of thing.
On the post: Why Did Not A Single Representative Want To Discuss Jack Dorsey's Plans For Dealing With Disinformation?
What?
Uhm, since nobody on Earth even knows what disinformation even is, why would anyone with a brain want to discuss it?
Disinformation is code for I don't like what you are saying.
Meaning you are again for the umpteenth time running cover for anti-Free Speech demons.
Disinformation. Indeed.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Curious
It is astonishing this article. First there is the smearing of Parler for no reason. It's just a place where people can speak their mind. You know? Like Americans do?
Then there is the failure to report that Parler has been gelded anyway. It came back but not before the censorship of anti-American "moderation" was agreed to.
Then there is the idea that people gathering on January 6th were doing anything illegal. And the corollary that the FBI is an honest organization. Astounding that anyone could believe that.
The government's case is falling apart day by day on the non-insurrection that had no arms and that the cops let in without any push back whatsoever. Judges are challenging the no-bail nonsense. Testimony in Congress reveal there were no arms and there was no insurrection.
Therefore, the FBI wanting private speech from Parler is unconstitutional. They have no right to any of that.
Remember, the suppression of American rights that you fervently support here in articles like this, will, come back to you, and your own rights will be suppressed.
Wait for it. It's coming. Meanwhile, keep writing this nonsense.
On the post: Sidney Powell Asks Court To Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit Because She Was Just Engaging In Heated Hyperbole... Even When She Was Filing Lawsuits
Schooling
It is odd that a "journalist" such as yourself should be thinking he is an attorney. To say nothing of thinking he is judge and jury.
It appears that you are unaware of the fact that a preliminary defense (e.g., the court has no jurisdiction as in other recent cases, etc.) is not in any way the last and the only one.
Yet, you continue to do this kind of thing, saying "this is her best and only defense" in all theses articles commenting on court cases going on. Your ignorance is comical.
Powell is lying in wait. Dominion is subject to extensive discovery as the suit proceeds. At which point, Dominion will be slapped, big time. Dominion will be subject to SLAPP laws. Of course, their machines are solely for the commission of election fraud, that evidence has been out for months. That will come out in discovery.
They'd be wise to back out now while they still can. Powell is being charitable, while at the same time raising Free Speech issues. It is just the first prong in a mutl-prong approach.
And you, a supposed objective "journalist", fell for it? You aren't a journalist. You are a propagandist. Remember this: It ain't over til it's over. Cool your prejudiced jets.
On the post: Sharyl Attkisson Lawsuit Against Rod Rosenstein Claiming She Was Hacked By Government Tossed
Curiosity
So let me get this clear: you just wrote an article pretending you looked at some evidence (as if you were a jury) and pronounced judgment on a case that was dismissed purely on procedural grounds (i.e, the court didn't hear any of the evidence)?
Why didn't you just write one paragraph? Or better yet, one sentence: Case of alleged hacking by corrupt official Rob Rosenstein dismissed for being brought in wrong jurisdiction, stand by for the refiling.
Why expound dump trucks of hot air claiming you know all about something you obviously know nothing about? And it doesn't matter what you think you know about this case at all. It's just weird. Can't you stick to Copyright, Patent and telco overreach? What provokes you to go off the deep end with this emotional and hysterical speculation?
And I thought tech guys were rational.
On the post: Appeals Court Judge Attacks Fundamental Principle Of 1st Amendment Law, Because He Thinks The Media Likes Democrats Too Much
Difficulties
It is so difficult to get through an article like this, when it begins with such obvious nonsense. Slander and lies are not simply the press being mean to a group.
Here's a way for you to check this out for yourself. The next time you read some libelous slanderous nonsense from some "journalist" replace that person or entity they are attacking with Al Sharpton or some other sacred black cow, and see if the "journalist" was just being "mean."
We all know that that "journalist" would be fried alive at sundown and "canceled" from ever writing another piece of "journalism" again.
No, it's not just being mean. And it should be against the law. Sullivan does need to be overhauled. The "press" has become the lugenpresse and needs to be reined in.
On the post: Appeals Court Decision Shows The Cleveland PD Cares More About Being Lied To Than About Officers Killing Children
Helpful Tips
Here is a helpful advice for all kids of every race: do not walk around a park with a gun that looks real. If you see a cop car driving up on you? Throw your gun to the ground and put your hands up.
Most kids know this instinctively. Some don't though. They seem to think that in cities chock a block full of black gun violence that they should go to public parks with their guns and everything will just be fine.
How could anyone be that stupid?
And then the 2nd guessers come in. The cops should have known. They should have gone to a fortune telling lady before to determine the motive of the male with the gun. It's all so easy to see in hindsight. Vision is always 20/20 then.
Enough of this nonsense. There needs to be classes in all city schools especially in black majority schools on dealing with the police. Do not hold a gun of any kind; do not resist arrest; do not disobey police orders. You want to fight an unfair or illegal arrest? Do so in court, not in the street.
All kids would be required to take such courses and pass them. Start them in 5th grade. Sign o' the times. Classes on dealing with police and learning what and what not to do. Real talk. Real education.
In the meantime, throw your (toy) gun to the ground immediately.
And live to see another day.
On the post: Police, Police Supporters: Ending Qualified Immunity Makes Being A Cop Too Hard, Somehow 'Defunds' The Police
Our Society
So, in a super litigious society, you don't appear to understand that making cops personally liable for every law suit that 2nd guesses split-second actions, might be chilling, and thus the equivalent of defunding the police?
And this from someone who writes 24/7 about all of the law suits without merit that are brought in American in other fields?
Stunning blindness on your part.
On the post: Whistleblower: Police Officers Celebrated Shooting People With Badge-Bending, BBQs
Solutions
Thank you for this excellent article on policing in Vallejo. Your splendid reporting has convinced me and many others that the only solution for Vallejo is to abolish the police. While this will be the best solution for Vallejo (it will also save 50 million dollars for the city in law suits, too!), it probably is not the solution for every American city with majority black populations.
After all, I mean, how many times do you have a guy dozing off right at the window at the drive thru in other cities? Like never. And how often do you hear about rhyme-rapping cops rapping about shooting people dead while chowing down at their evil barbeques? Again probably never.
Another solution might be: issue police badges without points on them. There!! No more bending the points ceremonies in the catacombs underneath the police station.
Vallejo doesn't really need a police force. And no one wants them there anyway. They are like Portland and many other cities nowadays. Cops: who need them?
Great article. Keep writing this stuff.
On the post: John Oliver On Drug Raids: Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?
Policing
It's too bad that Oliver does not follow the lead of his fellow Brit, Jonathan Hari, who full-on 6 years ago wrote "Chasing the Scream: the First and Last Days of the War on Drugs" about drug legalization in Portugal (some 15 years before that) and its myriad benefits to society and to policing in general, and instead chooses to beat the dead horse of "racism," the utterly deluded concept that when black men commit more crime, it's racist to arrest and convict them for it.
Instead of complaining about the police, how about removing the police entirely from the equation by legalizing all drugs? No more no-knock warrants, poof! No more prison sentences, poof! No more civil sanctions for those once convicted of a drug offense, poof. No more Mexican cartels, poof!
John? What's wrong with you. Come on, man! -Joe Biden
On the post: Trump Appointee Who Wanted To Turn Voice Of America Into Breitbart Spent Millions Of Taxpayer Dollars Investigating His Own Staff
Staffing
You mean that a Trump appointee wanted to turn the Voice of America from a left propaganda machine that everyone it broadcasts to laughs at because it is so obviously fake news, and make it into a once-again respectable and powerful force in the world, and was attempting to rid the organization of ideologues and their toxic wokeness--the ridicule of the world.
It's so good you are pointing this out. Too bad you aren't celebrating his failed effort.
On the post: New York City Shifting Mental Health Calls From NYPD To Actual Mental Health Professionals
Policy
Counting down the days and weeks until a mental health professional is killed or seriously injured by one of those kindly mentally ill "victims."
I'd change fields if I were one of those poor sitting ducks.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Recent Examples Of Misunderstanding Context
Futility
Thank you for all of your many articles on the stupidity and futility of content moderation. Not following the 1st Amendment leads to the constant failures and absurdities of the absurd concept of content moderation.
The principle of Free Speech is to protect speech that is offensive, not to ban or censor it. You have done an excellent job of making the case against all content moderation of any kind.
Keep up the good work!
On the post: Conservative News Outlet Ordered To Pay More Than $250,000 In Legal Fees To Rachel Maddow, MSNBC
The Kremlin Blues
It takes a certain kind of simpleton mind to seriously believe that if you write for an outlet financed by a government (e.g., US, UK, Russia, etc.), that that government controls your writing.
Maddow made that simpleton claim and should have been sued into oblivion. Apparently the court is full of idiots who also believe that the BBC is "controlled" by the Queen of England who tells them what to write.
And so obviously does this writer. The suit had merit, even Maddow started waffling when sued and challenged. The Kremlin did not control Larry King or Jesse Ventura, both of whom had shows on Russia Today. It's a certain kind of stupid to even think that they were.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
The Kraken
Interesting the Smartmatic people do not understand discovery. I guess it's true as Ron White says: Sometimes you just can't fix stupid. Reap the whirlwind. Change your name to Dumbmatic.
Next >>