Do you honestly thing that calling everyone to the right of Carl Marx a fascist accomplishes anything?
" Twitter because he doesn't like how a private company is run (fascist), or breaking up lots of other companies he simply disagrees with (fascist), you can typically find him pretending the First Amendment works"
The same could be true for anyone on the economic compass not squarely on anarcho-capitalism. Anyone 0.1 to the right or left or up or down is a fascist according to you. So I guess we are all fascists.
Modern Capitalism comes from Adam Smith who was writing about the failed system of the time which was very much like modern silicon valley. Instead of a thriving competitive economy you had large near monopolies controlling their niche' of the economy then using their influence on government and policy.
Adam Smith argued for the break up of these large companies and opposed them because of the influence they were having on policy.
So I guess by your definition Adam Smith was also a fascist.
They did it because their ToS said they could do it. This is one of the biggest problems in BigTech right now. It was the fundamental issue in the Arizona google just lost over incognito mode. Google really believed and argued in court that because their ToS said so they could gather information when they were not a party to the conversation despite that being illegal in Arizona and almost every state in the Union. I cant think of state that allows third parties to the electronically record/monitor etc. conversations they are not a party to but I'm not going to check the law in all 50 state and territories.
BigTech believes that their ToS are a law unto themselves that trump actual law.
When you write articles saying 'ToS have to be ambiguous because "bad actors"' you are a part of the problem because ambiguous contracts are not legal contract.
"The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here."
The first Amendment isn't more important than the 6th Amendment. No right is more important than any other. Everyone has a right to counsel and within that right is the right to confidentiality. You cant have true counsel if you are afraid to speak freely with your counsel.
In cases like this the court has to weigh public interest and non-aggression. Who is the aggressing party here? Which party aggressed on the rights of the other? The NYT. Under our basic principle of non-aggression the NYT loses because they are the aggressor on the others rights.
Then there is the question of public interest. As in the original motion the NYT couldn't find a single case where a protective order against a news outlet filed by a private party against a new organization that had privileged attorney client communication was not granted. The NYT could only point to cases where the party petitioning for the order was the government or a quasi-government actor like a government contractor.
The 11th circuit was quite clear in the Noriega case. When CNN wanted to publish Noriega's attorney client communications. That was affirmed by the SCOTUS when it denied CNN's motion for a stay. If CNN is not allowed to publish Noriega's, who had been President of Panama, attorney client communications than NYT is isn't allowed to O'Keefe's.
"I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop."
I don't think you understand how insightful your comments are to the state of Big Tech. There are a lot of generation X that and older millennials that work in Big Tech like yourself as consultants who are unqualified and clueless. You just got there early when it was the wildwild west.
Yeah you got ToS to be considered legal contracts but you aren't a lawyer. So you really aren't qualified anymore to be giving professional about how a ToS should be written. I'm not saying it was you definitively that advised GoFundMe to commit a crime. But I have my suspicion. You haven't committed on the issue and its a very Mike Masnick kind of argument that came from GoFundMe.
Mike you are the type of person who would argue that a ToS can authorize a Big Tech company like GoFundMe to commit wire fraud. That is of course not true. Anyone who has had a first year law class can tell you that no contract can violate public policy but you haven't had a first year law class yet you advise on legal matters. "Well I've been doing this since the 90s." Yeah when ToS weren't legal contracts. The moment they became legal contracts you and those like you were no longer qualified.
Google just lost a major case in Arizona over incognito mode violating wire tapping law. Texas just opened an investigation of Meta for violation of their privacy statutes. This is happening all over the country and its guys like you that are the cause.
People more important than you thats for sure. The Mike's of the tech world need to go. The GoFundMe faisco was the last straw. These professional wonks like Mike advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal for them to redirect donations. This is one of the major problems in Big Tech very few of the "experts" are actually experts. They just got their foot in the door first. Mike isn't qualified to be talking about what should or should not be in ToS. It isn't 1997 anymore ToS are now legal contracts. Mike isn't a contract lawyer or a lawyer of any kind.
I'm really interested in seeing who advised GoFundMe that they had any legal right based on their ToS to redirect the money they were to hold in trust. Thats a crime. The ToS are moot. ToS cant void law. The problem is that non-experts in the tech world like Mike actually believe they do.
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
Yes the source is most likely the FBI or someone within the DOJ but this demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it came from the FBI specifically is far beyond what is required for the order.
Again Mike you are not a lawyer. Neither am I but law classes were required for my masters unlike yourself. The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
You never had hte legal qualifications do so what yhou do for a living. Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money. As if ToS matter at all as it comes to charitable donations and fraud.
Maybe its time the states started putting the screws to the "Mike Masniks" of the tech world who think practicing law without a license is fun. The California courts treat BigTech with kid gloves. Texas courts will not.
Mike showing his bias citing the NYT in a case pertaining to the NYT. There were otehr sources with their own reporting like The Hill but Mike intentionally went with the most biased and one sided source possible. You will also notice that this time around while mike uploaded the actual ruling for US to read on the lower courts order Mike did no such thing here. He intentionally keeps the actual ruling hidden from his audience and instead posts only the NYT, who are a party to the case spin on it.
Just when I think Mike cant go any lower the find a way to dig down.
Other than their own reporting where the NYT admits that they are being fed information from within the DOJ.
"Federal agents in New York conducted the court-ordered searches on Thursday — one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County — targeting people who had worked with the group and its leader, James O’Keefe, according to two of the people briefed on the events."
Mike playing fake lawyer again thinking confusing evidence, proof, standard of proof, and burden of proof.
I'm really interested why you have been so silent on GoFundMe trying to steal the trucker money. I wonder if your day job has caught up with you. Is Mike Masnick amongst the "experts" who advised GoFundMe that it would be perfectly legal for GoFundMe to redirect donations it was to hold in trust to other parties?
I know its your "job" Mike but this isn't 1997 anymore. The stakes are much bigger today and you are playing a game you are neither qualified or arguably even legally allowed to play.
As said before the standard of proof to obtain a protective order is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in our judicial system and only comes into play in criminal cases.
The standard of proof in obtaining a protective order is reasonable belief. Its actually the complete inverse of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable belief standard of proof is more than satisficed by the NYT's own reporting of information that they admit came from sources in the DOJ.
"Except, that's false. He might fight to prevent it from being updated in ways that completely overturn how those concepts work in the real world. If you're trying to force the same common carrier status on to a social media site as exists on an ISP or telephone network, you're either misunderstanding what a common carrier is on a fundamental level, or you really haven't thought through the differences and why they're relevant."
Problem with your thinking is that updating common carrier to include Social Media is far less of a jump than when it was updated to include Telecom in 1934. Common Carrier is a legal frame work. Folding social media into that legal framework in no way lessees common carrier law anymore than adding telecom in 1934 lessened its meaning for shipping. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.
"Do we? I don't know which investigations you're referring to, but I suspect you're referring to the recent spate of people who have attempts to fundraise for legal funds despite that being against their T&Cs. But, where in the law is it stated that a private corporation has to help you do this?"
Texas, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, West Virginia. GoFundMe believed that because their ToS said so that they had a right to hold a charitable contribution in trust and then direct that money to another party. They have since backed off but as far as state AGs are concerned its too late for that.
The Mike Masnick's of the tech world are the reason GoFundMe was stupid enough to have something so blatantly illegal written into their ToS.
As I said before Mike's job is to do what ever he can to preserve the regulatory wild wild west that is Big Tech.
As I have said before it seems that Mike's model is to fight tooth and nail to prevent any common regulatory law from being updated to include modern social media. And also to prevent any contract law from every being applied to big tech. ToS are legal contracts but they do not have to follow basic contract law. They can be written as ambigious as possible because "bad faith" actors.
Now we got GoFundMe facing real criminal investigations because they listen to people like Mike. They thought their ToS trumped the existing law on charitable giving. This of course isn't true no contract can contradict existing law. The reason they think their ToS supersede the law is because they have peopled like Mike advising them it does.
"Which is an idiotic and ridiculous proposal that seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what the term was ever meant to mean, let alone does mean."
Whats idiotic is using a 1934 definition to regulate technology in 2022. But Mike isn't even using the 1934 definition. He is using his own hodgepodge. I posted the current definition from the 1934 Communications Act which is the current operative definition of "common carrier". It says nothing about "data".
"In the mean time, I prefer my articles to be talking about "this is what the law currently means" rather than "if my fantasy bill gets in this is how things will work"
This is a thread about proposals by state governments to update their local regulatory laws to include social media as a common carrier, just as the law was updated in 1934 to include telecom. Your reasoning is completely circular.
Actually I posted days ago. It stood "in review" for days as Mike's Misfits thought up a response.
"So, your argument is that what the rules actually are now don't matter, the real issue to address is the possible future you made up in your head?"
What we are talking about here are proposals at the state and federal level to add social media to "common carrier" definition. Mike says 'you cant do that, that isn't what a common carrier is" what mike fails to mention is that his definition of "common carrier" is the 19th century version. "Common Carrier" is nothing more than a legal framework. Legal frameworks are changed by law or judicial precedent as technology changes.
It too the merry band of Mike's misfits 2 days to come up with that response?
lol
1934 analog voice signal is not considered "data". Trying to claim that 1934 analog voice over wire is "data" is trying to pound a square peg into a round hole after you realized that Mike messed up yet again.
Mike's fundamental problem is he fails to understand a simple concept " THE LAW!!!" This is not surprising when Mike argues that its perfectly fine for the tech overloads he works for to write ambitious contracts. Mike is by definition a scofflaw. He doesn't believe in the rule of law as it relates to him and his chosen field.
A common carrier is what ever the hell the law says it is.
Prior to 1934 common carrier only related to transportation of goods and people.
In 1934 congress redefined it because that is a power congress has.
"(10) COMMON CARRIER.--The term ''common carrier'' or ''carrier'' means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier."
If the US congress wishes to change the definition of common carrier to include social media, they can. What the current definition is or what Mike thinks the current definition is means absolutely nothing. Common Carrier is nothing more than a legal definition established by law which can be just as easily changed by law.
If common carrier requires "which means providing commodity-like, interchangeable services to transport goods or data from place a to place b" then how are phone companies considered common carriers under The Communications Act of 1934?
Mike as always will say anything he has to, to protect his Big Tech overlords. Mikes definition may have been true 2 centuries ago. But it hasn't been true for a long time. As usual Mike is lying to his ever dwindling audience.
There is no change in standard of proof just what must be proved under the low standard of proof. Prior restraint only extends a third burden to the petitioner seeking the restraint that the material is not a matter of public concern.
In all the cases the Time's cited where the courts struck down Protective Orders the plaintiffs were either government themselves or quasi government. This inherently makes them matters of public concern. Veritas is not government. They are private. And the issue of private privilaged communications being a matter of public concern has already been decided by the courts "the general public has no right of access to private communications between a defendant and his counsel" US v. Noriega 1990.
If you actually read the decision the biggest issue here is private v. public. Yes protective orders against the publishing of privilaged communications when the petitioner was a government entity have been shut down. But historically the courts have taken a far different stance when the petitioner is private.
1st Amendment? What about the 6th Amendment. The courts have long held that legal privilaged is implicit in the 6th Amendment. No one can have adequate legal council if the communication is not privilaged. To deny anyone their right to privilaged council is to deny them their 6th Amendment right to council.
Again as the courts have said
"the general public has no right of access to private communications between a defendant and his counsel"
The public has a far greater interest in securing the 6th Amendment than they would ever possibly have in a single case involving a private entities discussion with their lawyer.
"Introd uction
T o deter violent, abusive, and intimidating acts against victims, both civil and criminal courts have been granted the authority to restrain improper conduct. Referred to as “restraining orders,” “injunctions,” or “protective orders,” these orders restrict or prohibit one individual’s behavior to protect another individual"
The judge himself in the ruling Mike posted calls it a protective order. You scholars just didn't read it.
Oh god! Did you even read your own links. From the judges decision which you linked to in the original article.
"Unlimited disclosure is not mandated, however, and a court may issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER, pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying, limiting conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device "to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person of the courts. The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent an improvement exercise the discretion, its determination will not be disturbed" (Ligoure v City of New York, 128 AD3d 1027,1028 [2d Dept 2015])."
"Project Veritas claims that these improper irregular actions by the Times have substantianially prejudiced its rights, and thus the court should issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER mandating that the times cease such conduct immediately"
"Project Veritas argues that "a decision denying this PROTECTIVE ORDER-particularly in todays internet an social media age -will permit any would-be citizen journalist, blogger, or Instagram influence to claim right to publish their litigation adversary's attorney-client privileged communication with impunity.""
"Further, the Times' reliance on Seattle Times Co v Rinehart is misplaced here. In Seattle Times Co., the issue was not the violation of attorney-client privilege, but rather use and publication of financial records obtained during disclosure of the Aquarian Foundation and its "spiritual leader," Rhinehart. Initial, the trial court denied any PROTECTIVE ORDER"
"Here, the court's PROTECTIVE ORDER does not act as an impermissible prior restraint on the Times."
Its now clear the despite I see the header of the ducmentcloud as "Contributed by Mike Mansick (Techdirt)" you didn't read the decision. Its actually a good read I suggest you read it. Yet another own goal by Mike Mansick.
Very low standard of proof for protective orders in NY State. You only need show reasonable grounds which is an exceptionally low standard of proof.
NBC was present at the raid which means they were tipped off. They information was "leaked" shortly there after. It is no unreasonable to say the FBI are the ones who gave it to the NYT.
You do not have to connect the dots for a protective order. You do not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence. The argument the court need only be reasonable.
"There is no evidence, whatsoever, that supports this contention, and if there was, PV would need to show it in court."
Timelines are evidence, relationships are evidence.
You seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof" as most people on the left do when making legal arguments. The standard of proof here is not
In New York state as in many states states the standard of proof for a protective order is just reasonable grounds which is an extremely low standard of proof.
Fact FBI raided O'Keefe and other Veritas reports. Fact NBC was present at the raid. Fact NBC then acquired confidential documents and refuses to name the source.
Under reasonable grounds standard of proof this fact pattern is more than enough for a protective order.
Reading that article where Wajahat Ali does nothing but exaggerate upon his previous exaggerations. I'm rather new here. I didnt realize you were that much off your rocker insane as to take something ass off the rails as that article as truth.
Sorry I have written some good articles and assumed you were a little more level headed. You are clearly insane. Algorithmic psychosis. You need to unplug for a bit and also get some therapy, like a lot of therapy.
Fascist
Do you honestly thing that calling everyone to the right of Carl Marx a fascist accomplishes anything?
" Twitter because he doesn't like how a private company is run (fascist), or breaking up lots of other companies he simply disagrees with (fascist), you can typically find him pretending the First Amendment works"
The same could be true for anyone on the economic compass not squarely on anarcho-capitalism. Anyone 0.1 to the right or left or up or down is a fascist according to you. So I guess we are all fascists.
Modern Capitalism comes from Adam Smith who was writing about the failed system of the time which was very much like modern silicon valley. Instead of a thriving competitive economy you had large near monopolies controlling their niche' of the economy then using their influence on government and policy.
Adam Smith argued for the break up of these large companies and opposed them because of the influence they were having on policy.
So I guess by your definition Adam Smith was also a fascist.
Re: Re:
They did it because their ToS said they could do it. This is one of the biggest problems in BigTech right now. It was the fundamental issue in the Arizona google just lost over incognito mode. Google really believed and argued in court that because their ToS said so they could gather information when they were not a party to the conversation despite that being illegal in Arizona and almost every state in the Union. I cant think of state that allows third parties to the electronically record/monitor etc. conversations they are not a party to but I'm not going to check the law in all 50 state and territories.
BigTech believes that their ToS are a law unto themselves that trump actual law.
When you write articles saying 'ToS have to be ambiguous because "bad actors"' you are a part of the problem because ambiguous contracts are not legal contract.
(untitled comment)
"The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here."
The first Amendment isn't more important than the 6th Amendment. No right is more important than any other. Everyone has a right to counsel and within that right is the right to confidentiality. You cant have true counsel if you are afraid to speak freely with your counsel.
In cases like this the court has to weigh public interest and non-aggression. Who is the aggressing party here? Which party aggressed on the rights of the other? The NYT. Under our basic principle of non-aggression the NYT loses because they are the aggressor on the others rights.
Then there is the question of public interest. As in the original motion the NYT couldn't find a single case where a protective order against a news outlet filed by a private party against a new organization that had privileged attorney client communication was not granted. The NYT could only point to cases where the party petitioning for the order was the government or a quasi-government actor like a government contractor.
The 11th circuit was quite clear in the Noriega case. When CNN wanted to publish Noriega's attorney client communications. That was affirmed by the SCOTUS when it denied CNN's motion for a stay. If CNN is not allowed to publish Noriega's, who had been President of Panama, attorney client communications than NYT is isn't allowed to O'Keefe's.
"I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop."
I don't think you understand how insightful your comments are to the state of Big Tech. There are a lot of generation X that and older millennials that work in Big Tech like yourself as consultants who are unqualified and clueless. You just got there early when it was the wildwild west.
Yeah you got ToS to be considered legal contracts but you aren't a lawyer. So you really aren't qualified anymore to be giving professional about how a ToS should be written. I'm not saying it was you definitively that advised GoFundMe to commit a crime. But I have my suspicion. You haven't committed on the issue and its a very Mike Masnick kind of argument that came from GoFundMe.
Mike you are the type of person who would argue that a ToS can authorize a Big Tech company like GoFundMe to commit wire fraud. That is of course not true. Anyone who has had a first year law class can tell you that no contract can violate public policy but you haven't had a first year law class yet you advise on legal matters. "Well I've been doing this since the 90s." Yeah when ToS weren't legal contracts. The moment they became legal contracts you and those like you were no longer qualified.
Google just lost a major case in Arizona over incognito mode violating wire tapping law. Texas just opened an investigation of Meta for violation of their privacy statutes. This is happening all over the country and its guys like you that are the cause.
Re:
People more important than you thats for sure. The Mike's of the tech world need to go. The GoFundMe faisco was the last straw. These professional wonks like Mike advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal for them to redirect donations. This is one of the major problems in Big Tech very few of the "experts" are actually experts. They just got their foot in the door first. Mike isn't qualified to be talking about what should or should not be in ToS. It isn't 1997 anymore ToS are now legal contracts. Mike isn't a contract lawyer or a lawyer of any kind.
I'm really interested in seeing who advised GoFundMe that they had any legal right based on their ToS to redirect the money they were to hold in trust. Thats a crime. The ToS are moot. ToS cant void law. The problem is that non-experts in the tech world like Mike actually believe they do.
Re: Re:
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
Yes the source is most likely the FBI or someone within the DOJ but this demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it came from the FBI specifically is far beyond what is required for the order.
Again Mike you are not a lawyer. Neither am I but law classes were required for my masters unlike yourself. The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
You never had hte legal qualifications do so what yhou do for a living. Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money. As if ToS matter at all as it comes to charitable donations and fraud.
Maybe its time the states started putting the screws to the "Mike Masniks" of the tech world who think practicing law without a license is fun. The California courts treat BigTech with kid gloves. Texas courts will not.
Re: Re:
Yeah I had look hard to find the exact order.
Mike showing his bias citing the NYT in a case pertaining to the NYT. There were otehr sources with their own reporting like The Hill but Mike intentionally went with the most biased and one sided source possible. You will also notice that this time around while mike uploaded the actual ruling for US to read on the lower courts order Mike did no such thing here. He intentionally keeps the actual ruling hidden from his audience and instead posts only the NYT, who are a party to the case spin on it.
Just when I think Mike cant go any lower the find a way to dig down.
Re: Re:
Other than their own reporting where the NYT admits that they are being fed information from within the DOJ.
"Federal agents in New York conducted the court-ordered searches on Thursday — one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County — targeting people who had worked with the group and its leader, James O’Keefe, according to two of the people briefed on the events."
Mike playing fake lawyer again thinking confusing evidence, proof, standard of proof, and burden of proof.
I'm really interested why you have been so silent on GoFundMe trying to steal the trucker money. I wonder if your day job has caught up with you. Is Mike Masnick amongst the "experts" who advised GoFundMe that it would be perfectly legal for GoFundMe to redirect donations it was to hold in trust to other parties?
I know its your "job" Mike but this isn't 1997 anymore. The stakes are much bigger today and you are playing a game you are neither qualified or arguably even legally allowed to play.
Re: That is not the standard of proof
As said before the standard of proof to obtain a protective order is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in our judicial system and only comes into play in criminal cases.
The standard of proof in obtaining a protective order is reasonable belief. Its actually the complete inverse of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable belief standard of proof is more than satisficed by the NYT's own reporting of information that they admit came from sources in the DOJ.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable S
"Except, that's false. He might fight to prevent it from being updated in ways that completely overturn how those concepts work in the real world. If you're trying to force the same common carrier status on to a social media site as exists on an ISP or telephone network, you're either misunderstanding what a common carrier is on a fundamental level, or you really haven't thought through the differences and why they're relevant."
Problem with your thinking is that updating common carrier to include Social Media is far less of a jump than when it was updated to include Telecom in 1934. Common Carrier is a legal frame work. Folding social media into that legal framework in no way lessees common carrier law anymore than adding telecom in 1934 lessened its meaning for shipping. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.
"Do we? I don't know which investigations you're referring to, but I suspect you're referring to the recent spate of people who have attempts to fundraise for legal funds despite that being against their T&Cs. But, where in the law is it stated that a private corporation has to help you do this?"
Texas, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, West Virginia. GoFundMe believed that because their ToS said so that they had a right to hold a charitable contribution in trust and then direct that money to another party. They have since backed off but as far as state AGs are concerned its too late for that.
The Mike Masnick's of the tech world are the reason GoFundMe was stupid enough to have something so blatantly illegal written into their ToS.
As I said before Mike's job is to do what ever he can to preserve the regulatory wild wild west that is Big Tech.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
As I have said before it seems that Mike's model is to fight tooth and nail to prevent any common regulatory law from being updated to include modern social media. And also to prevent any contract law from every being applied to big tech. ToS are legal contracts but they do not have to follow basic contract law. They can be written as ambigious as possible because "bad faith" actors.
Now we got GoFundMe facing real criminal investigations because they listen to people like Mike. They thought their ToS trumped the existing law on charitable giving. This of course isn't true no contract can contradict existing law. The reason they think their ToS supersede the law is because they have peopled like Mike advising them it does.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
"Which is an idiotic and ridiculous proposal that seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what the term was ever meant to mean, let alone does mean."
Whats idiotic is using a 1934 definition to regulate technology in 2022. But Mike isn't even using the 1934 definition. He is using his own hodgepodge. I posted the current definition from the 1934 Communications Act which is the current operative definition of "common carrier". It says nothing about "data".
"In the mean time, I prefer my articles to be talking about "this is what the law currently means" rather than "if my fantasy bill gets in this is how things will work"
This is a thread about proposals by state governments to update their local regulatory laws to include social media as a common carrier, just as the law was updated in 1934 to include telecom. Your reasoning is completely circular.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
Actually I posted days ago. It stood "in review" for days as Mike's Misfits thought up a response.
"So, your argument is that what the rules actually are now don't matter, the real issue to address is the possible future you made up in your head?"
What we are talking about here are proposals at the state and federal level to add social media to "common carrier" definition. Mike says 'you cant do that, that isn't what a common carrier is" what mike fails to mention is that his definition of "common carrier" is the 19th century version. "Common Carrier" is nothing more than a legal framework. Legal frameworks are changed by law or judicial precedent as technology changes.
Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
It too the merry band of Mike's misfits 2 days to come up with that response?
lol
1934 analog voice signal is not considered "data". Trying to claim that 1934 analog voice over wire is "data" is trying to pound a square peg into a round hole after you realized that Mike messed up yet again.
Mike's fundamental problem is he fails to understand a simple concept " THE LAW!!!" This is not surprising when Mike argues that its perfectly fine for the tech overloads he works for to write ambitious contracts. Mike is by definition a scofflaw. He doesn't believe in the rule of law as it relates to him and his chosen field.
A common carrier is what ever the hell the law says it is.
Prior to 1934 common carrier only related to transportation of goods and people.
In 1934 congress redefined it because that is a power congress has.
"(10) COMMON CARRIER.--The term ''common carrier'' or ''carrier'' means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier."
If the US congress wishes to change the definition of common carrier to include social media, they can. What the current definition is or what Mike thinks the current definition is means absolutely nothing. Common Carrier is nothing more than a legal definition established by law which can be just as easily changed by law.
Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
If common carrier requires "which means providing commodity-like, interchangeable services to transport goods or data from place a to place b" then how are phone companies considered common carriers under The Communications Act of 1934?
Mike as always will say anything he has to, to protect his Big Tech overlords. Mikes definition may have been true 2 centuries ago. But it hasn't been true for a long time. As usual Mike is lying to his ever dwindling audience.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
There is no change in standard of proof just what must be proved under the low standard of proof. Prior restraint only extends a third burden to the petitioner seeking the restraint that the material is not a matter of public concern.
In all the cases the Time's cited where the courts struck down Protective Orders the plaintiffs were either government themselves or quasi government. This inherently makes them matters of public concern. Veritas is not government. They are private. And the issue of private privilaged communications being a matter of public concern has already been decided by the courts "the general public has no right of access to private communications between a defendant and his counsel" US v. Noriega 1990.
If you actually read the decision the biggest issue here is private v. public. Yes protective orders against the publishing of privilaged communications when the petitioner was a government entity have been shut down. But historically the courts have taken a far different stance when the petitioner is private.
1st Amendment? What about the 6th Amendment. The courts have long held that legal privilaged is implicit in the 6th Amendment. No one can have adequate legal council if the communication is not privilaged. To deny anyone their right to privilaged council is to deny them their 6th Amendment right to council.
Again as the courts have said
"the general public has no right of access to private communications between a defendant and his counsel"
The public has a far greater interest in securing the 6th Amendment than they would ever possibly have in a single case involving a private entities discussion with their lawyer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Oh look at the legal minds. An injunction is a type of Protective Order. They are interchangable
From the DOJ you genius
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin4/ncj189190.pdf
"Introd uction
T o deter violent, abusive, and intimidating acts against victims, both civil and criminal courts have been granted the authority to restrain improper conduct. Referred to as “restraining orders,” “injunctions,” or “protective orders,” these orders restrict or prohibit one individual’s behavior to protect another individual"
The judge himself in the ruling Mike posted calls it a protective order. You scholars just didn't read it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Oh god! Did you even read your own links. From the judges decision which you linked to in the original article.
"Unlimited disclosure is not mandated, however, and a court may issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER, pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying, limiting conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device "to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person of the courts. The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent an improvement exercise the discretion, its determination will not be disturbed" (Ligoure v City of New York, 128 AD3d 1027,1028 [2d Dept 2015])."
"Project Veritas claims that these improper irregular actions by the Times have substantianially prejudiced its rights, and thus the court should issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER mandating that the times cease such conduct immediately"
"Project Veritas argues that "a decision denying this PROTECTIVE ORDER-particularly in todays internet an social media age -will permit any would-be citizen journalist, blogger, or Instagram influence to claim right to publish their litigation adversary's attorney-client privileged communication with impunity.""
"Further, the Times' reliance on Seattle Times Co v Rinehart is misplaced here. In Seattle Times Co., the issue was not the violation of attorney-client privilege, but rather use and publication of financial records obtained during disclosure of the Aquarian Foundation and its "spiritual leader," Rhinehart. Initial, the trial court denied any PROTECTIVE ORDER"
"Here, the court's PROTECTIVE ORDER does not act as an impermissible prior restraint on the Times."
Its now clear the despite I see the header of the ducmentcloud as "Contributed by Mike Mansick (Techdirt)" you didn't read the decision. Its actually a good read I suggest you read it. Yet another own goal by Mike Mansick.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Very low standard of proof for protective orders in NY State. You only need show reasonable grounds which is an exceptionally low standard of proof.
NBC was present at the raid which means they were tipped off. They information was "leaked" shortly there after. It is no unreasonable to say the FBI are the ones who gave it to the NYT.
You do not have to connect the dots for a protective order. You do not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence. The argument the court need only be reasonable.
Don't confuse proof and evidence.
Re: Re: Other Side
"There is no evidence, whatsoever, that supports this contention, and if there was, PV would need to show it in court."
Timelines are evidence, relationships are evidence.
You seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof" as most people on the left do when making legal arguments. The standard of proof here is not
In New York state as in many states states the standard of proof for a protective order is just reasonable grounds which is an extremely low standard of proof.
Fact FBI raided O'Keefe and other Veritas reports. Fact NBC was present at the raid. Fact NBC then acquired confidential documents and refuses to name the source.
Under reasonable grounds standard of proof this fact pattern is more than enough for a protective order.
Thats Some Lack of Self Awarness
Wow you are a pice of work mike.
Reading that article where Wajahat Ali does nothing but exaggerate upon his previous exaggerations. I'm rather new here. I didnt realize you were that much off your rocker insane as to take something ass off the rails as that article as truth.
Sorry I have written some good articles and assumed you were a little more level headed. You are clearly insane. Algorithmic psychosis. You need to unplug for a bit and also get some therapy, like a lot of therapy.
Goodbye.
More comments from Chozen >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chozen.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt