Absolutely the wrongest thing you could've said. Your personal security is your business, not anyone else's, period.
The comment you're replying to says nothing other than security updates to software are important, because new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time. And you're disagreeing with that. So what are you saying, we should all write our own operating systems so we're not relying on others for our security? Or just write the update patches ourselves?
But, I don't think I'm wrong in stating that McConnell and his ilk were very happy for corporations to get involved in politics, and indeed actively encouraged them, until the moment they weren't on their side.
McConnell statement 1: Corporations should stay out of politics.
McConnell statement 2: I'm not talking about campaign contributions!
Not making it up, he actually said both of those things out loud.
If the "someone" is an abusive megacorps, then I don't really care.
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
'Aside from Alito... almost everyone else who has studied the matter has considered it one of the worst decisions ever handed down. It’s been called “infamous,” “clearly wrong,” “[a] curious and narrow misreading of the antitrust laws and/or [an] utter misunderstanding of the nature of the business of baseball,” “remarkably myopic, “willfully ignorant,” “simple and simplistic,” and “an embarrassment for scholars of Holmes.”. Even judges have said so in their own opinions, with a federal appeals court judge once calling the decision an “impotent zombie void of vitality in light of the Court’s more recent decisions.” Another judge has said that “Federal Baseball was not one of Mr. Justice Holmes’s happiest days.” '
The real answer to this is just to accept that a certain amount of child porn is unavoidably going to get passed around.
Not acceptable to a politician, because next election cycle the opposition runs ads saying "Joe Smith voted in favor of child pornography and think it's fine to let internet criminals abuse YOUR children! Vote for Cindy Jones, because she will fight for the safety of our kids!" Or substitute political parties for candidate names if that is how it works in your country.
Trump directly threatening the lives of everyone in Congress wasn't enough to get 67 votes to convict in the Senate.
I didn't say anything about convicting. Clearly that can only happen if one party has a supermajority now. But you never know if the House could decide to impeach.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
My understanding is the supremacy clause extends to statute because of Congress' constitutional power to make law. So the 10th would not apply, because it is in fact a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
For similar reasons, some commentators have suggested that immunity provisions like §230 could potentially violate the First Amendment to the extent those provisions pre-empt state laws that protect speech from private censorship.
Um... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to work? Federal law preempts state law. If a state has a law that is contradicted by a federal law, the state law is effectively void.
that case that upended centuries of precedent... that consistently held that defamation is not and never has been protected speech.
It did no such thing. Rather, it redefined the standard necessary to prove defamation of a public figure. Defamation is still not protected speech, but there are some things that might have been defamation before the decision and not after it.
That's an expensive proposition if they're currently in California. And then they would have to hope (/lobby) that whatever state they move to doesn't end up doing the same thing.
It's the immunity AND hosts still acting as publishers with full control that needs changed.
Hosts are completely liable for anything they publish themselves. Section 230 only immunizes them for the speech of others, and their moderation (or lack thereof) of such. Surely you knew that though, right?
Only thing I can think of is that it can be seen from neighboring second floor windows. I assume it would be legal for police to take photos from a neighbor's house (with their consent of course).
On the post: New Info About Encrypted Messaging Service Bust Shows Signal Protocol Is Still Secure, Law Enforcement Can Still Bypass Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comment you're replying to says nothing other than security updates to software are important, because new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time. And you're disagreeing with that. So what are you saying, we should all write our own operating systems so we're not relying on others for our security? Or just write the update patches ourselves?
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: McConnell and "consequences"
McConnell statement 1: Corporations should stay out of politics.
McConnell statement 2: I'm not talking about campaign contributions!
Not making it up, he actually said both of those things out loud.
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re: Re: Re: punitive antitrust
'Aside from Alito... almost everyone else who has studied the matter has considered it one of the worst decisions ever handed down. It’s been called “infamous,” “clearly wrong,” “[a] curious and narrow misreading of the antitrust laws and/or [an] utter misunderstanding of the nature of the business of baseball,” “remarkably myopic, “willfully ignorant,” “simple and simplistic,” and “an embarrassment for scholars of Holmes.”. Even judges have said so in their own opinions, with a federal appeals court judge once calling the decision an “impotent zombie void of vitality in light of the Court’s more recent decisions.” Another judge has said that “Federal Baseball was not one of Mr. Justice Holmes’s happiest days.” '
https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/05/29/happy-birthday-to-baseballs-antitrust-exemption/
On the post: UK Politicians Getting Serious About Ending End-To-End Encryption
Re: How?
It would seem that it does, which makes the statement about warrant canaries rather confusing. Perhaps there is an exception for these secret orders.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2018/10/16/jacob-rowbottom-cakes-gay-marriage-and-the-right- against-compelled-speech/
On the post: UK Politicians Getting Serious About Ending End-To-End Encryption
Re:
Not acceptable to a politician, because next election cycle the opposition runs ads saying "Joe Smith voted in favor of child pornography and think it's fine to let internet criminals abuse YOUR children! Vote for Cindy Jones, because she will fight for the safety of our kids!" Or substitute political parties for candidate names if that is how it works in your country.
On the post: UK Politicians Getting Serious About Ending End-To-End Encryption
Re: Hey England, you okay? You’re having a bad case of hypocri
Also also also UK: Surely you tech geniuses can come up with a way to break encryption without breaking it, just nerd harder.
Also also also also UK: We couldn't possibly figure out any way to combat child abuse without breaking encryption.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Pretzel
If you can't comprehend what is being written maybe you should go find a different site.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say anything about convicting. Clearly that can only happen if one party has a supermajority now. But you never know if the House could decide to impeach.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Preemption
My understanding is the supremacy clause extends to statute because of Congress' constitutional power to make law. So the 10th would not apply, because it is in fact a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Preemption
Um... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to work? Federal law preempts state law. If a state has a law that is contradicted by a federal law, the state law is effectively void.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re:
It did no such thing. Rather, it redefined the standard necessary to prove defamation of a public figure. Defamation is still not protected speech, but there are some things that might have been defamation before the decision and not after it.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re:
It could be - it's whatever reason the House of Representatives decides is good enough.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/politics/scotus-impeach
On the post: New Info About Encrypted Messaging Service Bust Shows Signal Protocol Is Still Secure, Law Enforcement Can Still Bypass Encryption
History
Back to ancient Greece, at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histiaeus#Ionian_revolt_%28499-494_BC%29
On the post: California Legislators Now Get Into The Pointless & Likely Counterproductive Content Moderation Legislating Business
Re: Re: Re:
True, but then it becomes a prisoner's dilemma. Hopefully this thing doesn't end up passing.
On the post: California Legislators Now Get Into The Pointless & Likely Counterproductive Content Moderation Legislating Business
Re:
That's an expensive proposition if they're currently in California. And then they would have to hope (/lobby) that whatever state they move to doesn't end up doing the same thing.
On the post: Donald Trump's Website's Terms Of Service Rely On Section 230, And Promise To Remove Content That Violates Its Terms
Re: Re: The hypocrisy is delicious.
Hosts are completely liable for anything they publish themselves. Section 230 only immunizes them for the speech of others, and their moderation (or lack thereof) of such. Surely you knew that though, right?
On the post: California Legislators Now Get Into The Pointless & Likely Counterproductive Content Moderation Legislating Business
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Look at us Doing Something!'
Found the Fox News viewer.
On the post: California Legislators Now Get Into The Pointless & Likely Counterproductive Content Moderation Legislating Business
Which is better than most of these bills.
On the post: State Appeals Court Says Flying A Drone Over Someone's Property Violates The Fourth Amendment
Re: Missing the underlying point
Only thing I can think of is that it can be seen from neighboring second floor windows. I assume it would be legal for police to take photos from a neighbor's house (with their consent of course).
Next >>