Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classi
By that logic, people shouldn’t be able to use “Dracula” or “Alucard” as a name for a vampire without permission. It’s a name that is baked into our culture. That’s also how the public domain works, like it or not.
I should also note that while I consider Toy Story 4 to be a cashgrab and unnecessary to the overall plot, and I have some issues with Toy Story 3, neither ruin the original two movies. Furthermore, no instance of fanfiction or reimagining of old classics ruins the original story. People already have a dividing line in there minds between the George Lucas and Disney Star Wars universes, among many other series, and while generally I don’t like that sort of reimagining without input from the original creators for official, commercial releases, that a) doesn’t ruin the originals that I fell in love with (assuming that I did) and b) doesn’t apply when the original creator is dead.
And there are plenty of reasons to reuse an existing character. Ever heard of alternate universe fanfiction, “What if?” stories, or post-ending fanfiction (the latter specifically when there is no canonical follow-up to the original and likely never will be)? That’s not laziness; it’s highly creative. New works build off of old works all the time. There’re also cases where you move an old work (made before modern film techniques and/or video games existed) into new media. Changing the presentation can be a huge challenge in and of itself. You don’t need something to be 100% new and original in order to be creative.
At any rate, this is a case where the Sherlock Holmes character has been in the public domain for some time and the original creator is long dead. That’s how the public domain works; people get to build off of old works to make new ones. Maybe some of them are bad, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are or should be stopped.
If you do not like the new stuff, just ignore it. Don’t let them ruin your enjoyment of the old stuff. Besides, you yourself said that the classics annoy you in some areas; maybe someone will come up with a retelling that removes those annoyances. Either way, the originals are still there.
This appeal turns on one page of the transcript of Stryker’s deposition. In the context of Stryker’s attempt to convince Officer Davis to permit photographs, an attorney asked Stryker, “[W]ould it surprise you if Officer Davis thought you were arguing with him at that moment?” Stryker answered, “Yes.” After a clarifying question, the attorney tried again: “[I]f you were in [Officer Davis’s] shoes and you were hearing the explanation that you were giving him after he told you no pictures, could you see why he might think you’re arguing with him?” Stryker answered, “I wouldn’t be surprised.”
At the summary judgment stage, we must draw all reasonable inferences in Stryker’s favor. Even though his answer to the second question came perilously close to a concession that a reasonable officer could view the interaction as an argument, we must read the second answer in concert with the first. And reading the two answers together, it is reasonable to infer that Stryker meant only that it would be unsurprising if Officer Davis interpreted the interaction as an argument, not that reasonable officers generally could hold that view.
Can I just say that “having an argument with a cop” should not be a reason to tase, assault, pepper spray, or arrest someone? IMO, the officer’s reaction should still be considered unreasonable even if a reasonable officer could “interpret[] the interaction as an argument”?
It’s not spoliation of evidence if it happens before any alleged wrongdoing. Is it sketchy as hell? Absolutely. Should it be illegal for a cop to do this? Probably. Should it be counted as evidence against the credibility of the officer in question in this civil suit? Sure. But it’s not spoliation of evidence.
Firstly, it lets facebook etc. hide behind the original authors of the material they choose to promote, giving them complete immunity for that decision in a way that the editor of a traditional newspaper is not, even though they are the ones who choose what to bury in obscurity and what to promote to the world.
Remind me: is a newspaper legally responsible for the content of letters to the editor? Because that’s the closest equivalent to §230 immunity for third-party content. Is a newspaper legally responsible for decisions to not publish something? Because that’s the closest equivalent to suing for removing content from Facebook or something.
Secondly, it gives paid online service providers the right to unilaterally cancel contracts in the middle of a billing period without the customer having any protection under normal contract law.
When has this ever happened? Either way, that applies equally to many other subscriptions if the contract allows it. Double-check the terms of service you agree to.
In that case, I’d say there’s a great deal of disagreement with the claims that Chelsea Manning actual fits any of the description given, that she is guilty of treason, that she should be executed (metaphorically or not) for treason (or even at all), and that any given “transsexual traitor” who is actually guilty of treason should be executed for it. So yeah, we do dispute that, and it also has nothing to do with the discussion or the article.
Re: No, 1A doesn't authorize controlling the speech of others.
Twitter can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Twitter.
Facebook can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Facebook.
YouTube can’t control others’ speech anywhere but YouTube.
Techdirt can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Techdirt.
Reddit can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Reddit.
4-chan can’t control others’ speech anywhere but 4-chan.
Parler can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Parler.
TikTok can’t control others’ speech anywhere but TikTok.
A newspaper can’t control others’ speech anywhere but that newspaper (or equivalent site(s)).
A broadcaster can’t control others’ speech anywhere but their broadcasts (or equivalent site(s)).
A bookstore can’t control others’ speech anywhere but that bookstore.
This isn’t about corporations controlling all speech, or even all speech on the internet. It’s about corporations controlling speech on their respective platforms and nowhere else. It’s not “you can’t say that anywhere”; it’s “you can’t say that here”.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to an audience.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to access someone else’s private property.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to stay on someone’s private property once access has been granted.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to say whatever you like wherever you like without consequences from private citizens or NGOs.
The 1A doesn’t prevent private persons from controlling others’ speech within their space(s).
The 1A does guarantee the right to not publish or repeat what you don’t want to, even if that speech you refuse to convey comes from someone else. Common law rights over private property guarantee any private person—including private corporations—the right to refuse, grant, and revoke access to their privately owned space(s) for any reason. The 1A guarantees the right to convey any change in another’s right to access one’s privately owned space(s).
Considering how many arguments I’ve gotten into during my limited time with Twitter and Facebook on those sites, and how many people I see complain about YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook on those sites without repercussions, I don’t see “Big Tech” prohibiting all disagreement.
Re: FAIRNESS and ability to BE IN public places actually over-ar
Also, you are guaranteed the right to make or not make speech. You are not guaranteed any audience (aside from the right to petition the government) at all, let alone a large one, nor are you guaranteed the right to be heard. Furthermore, where “common law” and the Constitution conflict, the Constitution wins.
Re: FAIRNESS and ability to BE IN public places actually over-ar
Twitter is not a public place in the sense that it is owned by the public. A space that is open to the public is not the same as a space that belongs to the public. A store or restaurant is open to the public; a public park or sidewalk belongs to the public. Any person—human or corporation—can restrict access to their property even if that property is opened to the public but cannot restrict access to space that belongs to the public. This applies equally to online spaces.
Re: IF your view were right, then we need to make hosts UTILITIE
If my electric company shuts off my power, I can’t switch to another electric company without both of me and the new electric company (and possibly the old one) incurring a ton of expenses replacing and building new infrastructure for it. If a social media company kicks me off of their platform, I can easily find another platform (like 4-Chan or 8-Chan) at no cost or, at little to no cost, create my own Mastadon instance to act as a platform.
Additionally, at no point does any of my speech actually get stored at the electric company, while Twitter’s servers do store every Tweet and Facebook every Facebook post unless and until they are somehow deleted. In fact, the electric company is never actually sent or made to send out any of my speech, so this analogy is really bad. At least an ISP controls the conduits through which my speech gets sent and received; an electric company has no business in my speech even if it wasn’t a utility.
Re: You're not defending the First Amendment for individuals!
The First Amendment only says that the government cannot control speech in public fora. Corporations have every right to do so if they have control and ownership of the public forum in question as long as they aren’t doing anything that has been historically reserved exclusively to the government. A corporation has just as much right to kick you off of their lawn as you have the right to kick people off of your lawn, even if they generally allow the public to make speeches there (which they aren’t required to do), and even if the “lawn” is their website or other virtual space.
Additionally, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are also publishing speech, and the 1A does allow anyone—including corporations—to moderate what they publish. The right to free speech includes the right to, say, remove someone else’s political signs from your front lawn.
Re: "your problem is with 1A" claims 1A authorizes total control
The hosts own servers on which your speech actually gets stored, not simply passed along. You might have had a point if the data was in transit (well, not really), but it’s not; it’s stored on their actual machines. Furthermore, the fact is that they aren’t just pipelines, and you can easily switch to another similar service at no financial cost.
No, this is what REALITY looks like. He is pointing out REALITY. And HE's RIGHT. You don't dispute that HE IS RIGHT.
About the account activity? No, we don’t. He’s probably right about that much, and it’s easy to verify. About the conclusions he draws from that? Yes, we most certainly do because they don’t logically follow from the premise. There are many alternative explanations for the account activity being observed. About the “Great Password Reset”? I don’t know; I wasn’t there for that, it doesn’t really matter, there’s no record of it, and I don’t care.
You don't dispute that Hunter's LAPTOP is REAL.
That it’s really Hunter’s laptop? Yes, that is most definitely in dispute. Why would Hunter Biden go all the way across the country to a computer shop owned by a guy with a known anti-Biden bias and a predilection towards conspiracy theories, leave his laptop there, and then never pick it up? How would anyone else have obtained the laptop to deliver it, and (again) why choose that specific computer shop? Why would he take screenshots of or save such (potentially) incriminating emails onto his laptop to begin with? Why would the computer shop owner contact Giuliani about it? And if the emails were authentic, why is it that the discussed meeting never actually take place (as public records demonstrate)? None of it makes sense unless the laptop is a fake.
This is also irrelevant to this discussion.
You don't dispute that the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY should go to PRISON.
We very much dispute that 1) there even is a “Biden crime family” and 2) the Biden family should go to prison. They haven’t broken any laws (or at least there is not even close to sufficient evidence of such), so why should they?
Actually, are there even any accusations against Biden’s wife at all? Why do you even want her in jail?
And this, too, is irrelevant to this discussion.
You don't dispute that Mike's great love the tran-sexual TRAITOR should be EXECUTED for TREASON, at least metaphorically.
First, what “transsexual traitor” are you even talking about? That’s a new one, I admit.
Second, treason has a very specific definition under the Constitution, and I don’t know of anyone in the past few decades who has fit that definition. As such, I highly doubt that I would agree with that statement, especially since I’m opposed to the death penalty.
And, finally, this, too, is just as irrelevant to the topic of this thread as the previous two points.
The rest just makes me think you’re just a troll and don’t actually believe a thing you just said.
Apparently, you know nothing about God, communism, China, this site, its common audience, or astroturfing.
God (as Jesus) espoused views that are pretty darn liberal (give everything you have to the poor, for example).
Nothing espoused on this site has come even remotely close to support of communism.
China has been discussed a number of times on this site, but never in a remotely positive light. Usually it’s to condemn the lack of free speech and the Great Firewall of China and stuff like that, as well as the surveillance stuff.
I sprawl comments so that when censored here, clearly isn't just one bit of commercial "spam".
Apparently, you don’t know what “spam” is. One characteristic that can be a sufficient (but not necessary) condition to call something spam is if someone bombards the comments/inbox of someone/thing, especially with repetitive comments or when it could have been done in fewer comments. In saying that you “sprawl comments” as a common practice, you’ve just admitted to spamming the comment sections here deliberately.
Also, no one claimed that any of your comments—spam or otherwise—were commercial in nature. Commercial spam is a subset of the broader category described by the word “spam” that no one would claim any of your comments fall under. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t spam (see above). Any kind of spam (commercial or not) can and generally does get flagged by the community and subsequently hidden; they can also lead a user’s subsequent comments to be caught up in a spam filter depending on various circumstances. However, only commercial spam actually gets removed from the comments of this site even if it was not originally filtered out through whatever spam filter they use. This has never happened to any of your comments as far as I can tell; all of those can still easily be viewed by anyone who chooses to, unlike the commercial spam.
And Masnick is fully authorized to remove "commercial speech",
He is also fully authorized to remove noncommercial speech. That’s his right as the owner/operator of this site under the First Amendment, CDA §230, and common law.
he does so in practice, pointing up [sic] that he regards businesses as less than "persons"!
Nope. I mean, he does only remove commercial spam, but not because “he regards businesses as less than ‘persons’.” It’s because these comment sections are meant for a particular purpose (to promote discourse and discussion of the articles on this site, the topics they discuss, and related ideas, as well as to allow people to express their views and opinions), and commercial spam clearly and objectively does not contribute to or promote that purpose at all by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, whether or not one person or organization acts as though businesses are less than persons has no bearing on whether or not corporations are or should be legally less than other legal “persons”. That was pretty well settled in Citizens United, Whether you agree or disagree with whether or not that’s a good idea, common law in the US is pretty clear that, under the First Amendment at least, corporate persons are treated equally with human persons.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
And we’re arguing that this is no different from what happens on Twitter and FB.
On the post: 'Enola Holmes' Producers Go In Hard On Conan Doyle Estate In Motion To Dismiss Its Bullshit Lawsuit
Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classi
By that logic, people shouldn’t be able to use “Dracula” or “Alucard” as a name for a vampire without permission. It’s a name that is baked into our culture. That’s also how the public domain works, like it or not.
I should also note that while I consider Toy Story 4 to be a cashgrab and unnecessary to the overall plot, and I have some issues with Toy Story 3, neither ruin the original two movies. Furthermore, no instance of fanfiction or reimagining of old classics ruins the original story. People already have a dividing line in there minds between the George Lucas and Disney Star Wars universes, among many other series, and while generally I don’t like that sort of reimagining without input from the original creators for official, commercial releases, that a) doesn’t ruin the originals that I fell in love with (assuming that I did) and b) doesn’t apply when the original creator is dead.
And there are plenty of reasons to reuse an existing character. Ever heard of alternate universe fanfiction, “What if?” stories, or post-ending fanfiction (the latter specifically when there is no canonical follow-up to the original and likely never will be)? That’s not laziness; it’s highly creative. New works build off of old works all the time. There’re also cases where you move an old work (made before modern film techniques and/or video games existed) into new media. Changing the presentation can be a huge challenge in and of itself. You don’t need something to be 100% new and original in order to be creative.
At any rate, this is a case where the Sherlock Holmes character has been in the public domain for some time and the original creator is long dead. That’s how the public domain works; people get to build off of old works to make new ones. Maybe some of them are bad, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are or should be stopped.
If you do not like the new stuff, just ignore it. Don’t let them ruin your enjoyment of the old stuff. Besides, you yourself said that the classics annoy you in some areas; maybe someone will come up with a retelling that removes those annoyances. Either way, the originals are still there.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Can I just say that “having an argument with a cop” should not be a reason to tase, assault, pepper spray, or arrest someone? IMO, the officer’s reaction should still be considered unreasonable even if a reasonable officer could “interpret[] the interaction as an argument”?
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re:
It’s not spoliation of evidence if it happens before any alleged wrongdoing. Is it sketchy as hell? Absolutely. Should it be illegal for a cop to do this? Probably. Should it be counted as evidence against the credibility of the officer in question in this civil suit? Sure. But it’s not spoliation of evidence.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: Re:
Remind me: is a newspaper legally responsible for the content of letters to the editor? Because that’s the closest equivalent to §230 immunity for third-party content. Is a newspaper legally responsible for decisions to not publish something? Because that’s the closest equivalent to suing for removing content from Facebook or something.
When has this ever happened? Either way, that applies equally to many other subscriptions if the contract allows it. Double-check the terms of service you agree to.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re:
Again, a great counterargument.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Re: Re: Path to Litigation
Also a supermajority of state legislators.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
In that case, I’d say there’s a great deal of disagreement with the claims that Chelsea Manning actual fits any of the description given, that she is guilty of treason, that she should be executed (metaphorically or not) for treason (or even at all), and that any given “transsexual traitor” who is actually guilty of treason should be executed for it. So yeah, we do dispute that, and it also has nothing to do with the discussion or the article.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: No, 1A doesn't authorize controlling the speech of others.
Twitter can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Twitter.
Facebook can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Facebook.
YouTube can’t control others’ speech anywhere but YouTube.
Techdirt can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Techdirt.
Reddit can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Reddit.
4-chan can’t control others’ speech anywhere but 4-chan.
Parler can’t control others’ speech anywhere but Parler.
TikTok can’t control others’ speech anywhere but TikTok.
A newspaper can’t control others’ speech anywhere but that newspaper (or equivalent site(s)).
A broadcaster can’t control others’ speech anywhere but their broadcasts (or equivalent site(s)).
A bookstore can’t control others’ speech anywhere but that bookstore.
This isn’t about corporations controlling all speech, or even all speech on the internet. It’s about corporations controlling speech on their respective platforms and nowhere else. It’s not “you can’t say that anywhere”; it’s “you can’t say that here”.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to an audience.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to access someone else’s private property.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to stay on someone’s private property once access has been granted.
The 1A doesn’t guarantee the right to say whatever you like wherever you like without consequences from private citizens or NGOs.
The 1A doesn’t prevent private persons from controlling others’ speech within their space(s).
The 1A does guarantee the right to not publish or repeat what you don’t want to, even if that speech you refuse to convey comes from someone else. Common law rights over private property guarantee any private person—including private corporations—the right to refuse, grant, and revoke access to their privately owned space(s) for any reason. The 1A guarantees the right to convey any change in another’s right to access one’s privately owned space(s).
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: The problem is greedy corporatist power grab.
Considering how many arguments I’ve gotten into during my limited time with Twitter and Facebook on those sites, and how many people I see complain about YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook on those sites without repercussions, I don’t see “Big Tech” prohibiting all disagreement.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: FAIRNESS and ability to BE IN public places actually over-ar
Also, you are guaranteed the right to make or not make speech. You are not guaranteed any audience (aside from the right to petition the government) at all, let alone a large one, nor are you guaranteed the right to be heard. Furthermore, where “common law” and the Constitution conflict, the Constitution wins.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: FAIRNESS and ability to BE IN public places actually over-ar
Twitter is not a public place in the sense that it is owned by the public. A space that is open to the public is not the same as a space that belongs to the public. A store or restaurant is open to the public; a public park or sidewalk belongs to the public. Any person—human or corporation—can restrict access to their property even if that property is opened to the public but cannot restrict access to space that belongs to the public. This applies equally to online spaces.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: IF your view were right, then we need to make hosts UTILITIE
If my electric company shuts off my power, I can’t switch to another electric company without both of me and the new electric company (and possibly the old one) incurring a ton of expenses replacing and building new infrastructure for it. If a social media company kicks me off of their platform, I can easily find another platform (like 4-Chan or 8-Chan) at no cost or, at little to no cost, create my own Mastadon instance to act as a platform.
Additionally, at no point does any of my speech actually get stored at the electric company, while Twitter’s servers do store every Tweet and Facebook every Facebook post unless and until they are somehow deleted. In fact, the electric company is never actually sent or made to send out any of my speech, so this analogy is really bad. At least an ISP controls the conduits through which my speech gets sent and received; an electric company has no business in my speech even if it wasn’t a utility.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: You're not defending the First Amendment for individuals!
The First Amendment only says that the government cannot control speech in public fora. Corporations have every right to do so if they have control and ownership of the public forum in question as long as they aren’t doing anything that has been historically reserved exclusively to the government. A corporation has just as much right to kick you off of their lawn as you have the right to kick people off of your lawn, even if they generally allow the public to make speeches there (which they aren’t required to do), and even if the “lawn” is their website or other virtual space.
Additionally, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are also publishing speech, and the 1A does allow anyone—including corporations—to moderate what they publish. The right to free speech includes the right to, say, remove someone else’s political signs from your front lawn.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: The mechanical host of a website is NOT the publisher.
As far as I can tell, yes they do. At least legally. I believe that there was an article saying as much.
On the post: Your Problem Is Not With Section 230, But The 1st Amendment
Re: "your problem is with 1A" claims 1A authorizes total control
The hosts own servers on which your speech actually gets stored, not simply passed along. You might have had a point if the data was in transit (well, not really), but it’s not; it’s stored on their actual machines. Furthermore, the fact is that they aren’t just pipelines, and you can easily switch to another similar service at no financial cost.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Grave Matter Has Arisen: NEW RECORD ZOMBIE! 12 YEAR
Or they just aren’t the type to comment very often. Nothing suspicious about it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
About the account activity? No, we don’t. He’s probably right about that much, and it’s easy to verify. About the conclusions he draws from that? Yes, we most certainly do because they don’t logically follow from the premise. There are many alternative explanations for the account activity being observed. About the “Great Password Reset”? I don’t know; I wasn’t there for that, it doesn’t really matter, there’s no record of it, and I don’t care.
That it’s really Hunter’s laptop? Yes, that is most definitely in dispute. Why would Hunter Biden go all the way across the country to a computer shop owned by a guy with a known anti-Biden bias and a predilection towards conspiracy theories, leave his laptop there, and then never pick it up? How would anyone else have obtained the laptop to deliver it, and (again) why choose that specific computer shop? Why would he take screenshots of or save such (potentially) incriminating emails onto his laptop to begin with? Why would the computer shop owner contact Giuliani about it? And if the emails were authentic, why is it that the discussed meeting never actually take place (as public records demonstrate)? None of it makes sense unless the laptop is a fake.
This is also irrelevant to this discussion.
We very much dispute that 1) there even is a “Biden crime family” and 2) the Biden family should go to prison. They haven’t broken any laws (or at least there is not even close to sufficient evidence of such), so why should they?
Actually, are there even any accusations against Biden’s wife at all? Why do you even want her in jail?
And this, too, is irrelevant to this discussion.
First, what “transsexual traitor” are you even talking about? That’s a new one, I admit.
Second, treason has a very specific definition under the Constitution, and I don’t know of anyone in the past few decades who has fit that definition. As such, I highly doubt that I would agree with that statement, especially since I’m opposed to the death penalty.
And, finally, this, too, is just as irrelevant to the topic of this thread as the previous two points.
The rest just makes me think you’re just a troll and don’t actually believe a thing you just said.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Apparently, you know nothing about God, communism, China, this site, its common audience, or astroturfing.
God (as Jesus) espoused views that are pretty darn liberal (give everything you have to the poor, for example).
Nothing espoused on this site has come even remotely close to support of communism.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Fix Politicians' Issues With Section 230
Re: Re: Time to answer One Simple Question.
Apparently, you don’t know what “spam” is. One characteristic that can be a sufficient (but not necessary) condition to call something spam is if someone bombards the comments/inbox of someone/thing, especially with repetitive comments or when it could have been done in fewer comments. In saying that you “sprawl comments” as a common practice, you’ve just admitted to spamming the comment sections here deliberately.
Also, no one claimed that any of your comments—spam or otherwise—were commercial in nature. Commercial spam is a subset of the broader category described by the word “spam” that no one would claim any of your comments fall under. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t spam (see above). Any kind of spam (commercial or not) can and generally does get flagged by the community and subsequently hidden; they can also lead a user’s subsequent comments to be caught up in a spam filter depending on various circumstances. However, only commercial spam actually gets removed from the comments of this site even if it was not originally filtered out through whatever spam filter they use. This has never happened to any of your comments as far as I can tell; all of those can still easily be viewed by anyone who chooses to, unlike the commercial spam.
He is also fully authorized to remove noncommercial speech. That’s his right as the owner/operator of this site under the First Amendment, CDA §230, and common law.
Nope. I mean, he does only remove commercial spam, but not because “he regards businesses as less than ‘persons’.” It’s because these comment sections are meant for a particular purpose (to promote discourse and discussion of the articles on this site, the topics they discuss, and related ideas, as well as to allow people to express their views and opinions), and commercial spam clearly and objectively does not contribute to or promote that purpose at all by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, whether or not one person or organization acts as though businesses are less than persons has no bearing on whether or not corporations are or should be legally less than other legal “persons”. That was pretty well settled in Citizens United, Whether you agree or disagree with whether or not that’s a good idea, common law in the US is pretty clear that, under the First Amendment at least, corporate persons are treated equally with human persons.
Next >>