Boy those zeroes of violent counter protesters sure caused those Nazi's to equip themselves with riot shields, gas masks, and pepper spray before showing up and are very responsible for inciting the violence of allowing themselves to be run over. Monsters, those people are!
Confederate statues have been a 'big deal' for many years - we aren't responsible if the hole you've been hiding in prevented you from knowing that. The fact that the decades long struggle to remove them from the public square and stop lionizing men who committed treason and killed hundreds of thousands on both sides of the civil war for the right to own brown people achieved another victory and the 'only concerned with fairly portraying history' white supremacists murdered someone last week while throwing a public tantrum about it doesn't make it something new. I first heard about the movement to remove Confederate glorifying statues in the late 80s but, as both a foreigner and under 10 at that time, I'm quite my awareness was late to the party and the movement predated it - likely back to roughly the end of the civil war.
Whether it be 10 years ago or today, if for example, someone approached a publication about a story that x major politician was snorting coke every day while embezzling funds to pay for that habit, no one would publish that unless it could be 100% sure it was true.
*Active duty* military personnel with the 'Proud Boys' threatened the protestors and disrupted their peaceful protest. Thankfully since Canada is reasonably sane they've all been suspended from duty and are all likely to be fired or demoted.
Hopefully some free speech favouring Canadian lawyer will step up and take this pro-bono rather than letting this person self represent before the court of appeals and create bad precedent that we will be stuck with forever. While I wish people could self represent successfully as it would make access to justice more equitable mostly they just wreck it for themselves AND everyone else who has similar cases in the future.
The kitapsun article DOES, in fact, say that Moriwaki claims Rynearson is sending him many harassing text message which is why I specified that those particular actions, and not any of his other postings, seemed to constitute harassment. Now I don't actually trust Moriwaki's claim without some further verification since he seems like the sort of idiot who would set up Twitter text alerts for his own name and then complain he was 'being harassed' by getting the notifications he asked for.
In what way did they 'invite' the court to commit constitutional error?
They vigorously opposed the idea that the court could and should issue an injunction that acted as prior restraint on speech. Having lost that argument based on the judge not understanding the First Amendment they continued to represent their clients interests by asking the court to apply the (improper) ruling to both sides so that at least their client wasn't handcuffed while letting their opposition free to do and say as they wanted.
Posting critical or embarrassing things online is completely legit but if the claims about the frequent harassing texts directly to him (particularly after being asked to stop) seem to meet a reasonable standard for what most people would consider harassment. Obviously, indirect posts should be legal since the 'victim' is opting in to seeing them if they choose to view them and legal remedies for false defamatory statements already exist.
It would be ridiculous to rule that SDCC couldn't use Comic Con since it is a descriptive term regardless of their bad behaviour. It would be like making a (theoretically) litigatious Taco Bell take the word Taco out of their name for trademark bullying.
Frankly hitting them with a declaration of descriptive or nominative use so that every other Comic Con in the world is safe from their threats along with a million in Salt Lake's legal fees should be plenty. That leaves them having wasted several million dollars to lose the tool that they've been suppressing competition with for many years.
It is extremely typical for lawyers to present multiple, sometimes contradictory, arguments with the implicit claim that argument B is only relevant if the court has already disagreed with their assessment of argument A. So in this case they argued that it was an unconstitutional restraint of speech but even if the court thought that it wasn't the order should apply equally to both sides. It would be pretty stupid for the lawyers to lose on the argument that it was prior restraint and just go home rather than continuing to oppose any portion or its severity that they can.
The breadsticks are strictly limited and while the servers also provide something that is tasteless and bizarre the ones at the White House don't have a dress code.
If anything it is relieving their pocketbooks of the burden of carrying around an (even more) massive amount of money extracted via monopoly and other anti-competitive behaviours.
The money is with the advertisers who pay a rate based on Nielens average viewership numbers. By cutting out a poor performing episode from the 'average' calculation it creates an artificially inflated value that the network gets paid for commercials during that show. If a news show that airs 5 days a week normally gets 500,000 viewers but only 250,000 viewers when scheduled against a football game 'misspelling' the shows name means that the rate they are being paid for commercial time during a week with a football game is at the 500,000 viewers/show rate (2 mil / 4 shows) rather than 450,000 viewers/show (2.25 mil / 5 shows) or roughly 11% more than they should be getting paid based on the contracts with the advertisers.
It is the same strategy that some schools use by encouraging poor performers to drop out school to artificially inflate their test scores on the standardized testing. By eliminating (through unethical means) the worst performers the reported average goes up despite not actually doing a better job.
Unless you have a particularly unusual name, or there is other details that connect it to you, it probably is just someone who has the same name who, like almost everybody who isn't paid to believe otherwise, is pro net neutrality.
Honestly you should consider yourself having been unwittingly saved a good chunk of change. Spore is 5 mediocre minigames stuck together with an interesting creature builder that is more fun when used outside the restrictions of the game.
Except that in practice the exact opposite is true. When true net neutrality exists and companies are forced to treat their own data equally instead of exempting them from artificially low caps the prices drop and the offerings improve because they actually have to _compete_ now. Just look at European cell service after exempting certain types of data from the caps became illegal to see.
But if we don't try it again it might just have been freak luck that made having a sociopathic billionaire with narcissistic personality disorder as President not work out. I mean no one could identify any reasons that it might not have been a great idea the first time so it should obviously be tested for replicability.
I picked up 'Battleborne' on Steam when it was released and spent about 4 hours attempting to play it and working with tech support to fix the persistent performance issues that was making it unplayable. I eventually decided that it wasn't worth my time to keep fighting with it when the first 8 supposed fixes made no difference and was able to refund it, despite being past the official 2 hour playtime limit.
As a result I moved on with my life and bought 'Overwatch' instead. If I had been out the $70 that I'd paid for an unplayable game I would have been quite upset and left some nasty review about how the game was substandard and never risked buying a game from that developer again. Instead I still view the developer with a relatively positive attitude since they produce interesting games and might, if it is ever on sale significantly, try buying it again and see if they fixed the issues I was having.
Based on how the system appears to work no one actual pays any additional fees for the refunds. Refunds go back into the users 'Steam Wallet' which will then almost always be used buying other games since most users aren't entering the Steam ecosystem just for a single game and cashing out is a pain. That just means Valve needs to track refunds and adjust their periodic payouts to account for them since it is quite unlikely that a game will ever generate negative revenue over a moderate period and they would have to get money back from the developer (something generally akin to getting blood from a stone).
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Too speculative (as Daniel Audy)
Re: What link?
Wait you've got the story about James Woods too?!
Re: Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Clues
They vigorously opposed the idea that the court could and should issue an injunction that acted as prior restraint on speech. Having lost that argument based on the judge not understanding the First Amendment they continued to represent their clients interests by asking the court to apply the (improper) ruling to both sides so that at least their client wasn't handcuffed while letting their opposition free to do and say as they wanted.
(untitled comment)
Posting critical or embarrassing things online is completely legit but if the claims about the frequent harassing texts directly to him (particularly after being asked to stop) seem to meet a reasonable standard for what most people would consider harassment. Obviously, indirect posts should be legal since the 'victim' is opting in to seeing them if they choose to view them and legal remedies for false defamatory statements already exist.
Re: Re:
Frankly hitting them with a declaration of descriptive or nominative use so that every other Comic Con in the world is safe from their threats along with a million in Salt Lake's legal fees should be plenty. That leaves them having wasted several million dollars to lose the tool that they've been suppressing competition with for many years.
Re: Clues
Re: Re: Olaf Guardin'
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
Re: Drop?
It is the same strategy that some schools use by encouraging poor performers to drop out school to artificially inflate their test scores on the standardized testing. By eliminating (through unethical means) the worst performers the reported average goes up despite not actually doing a better job.
Re:
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: (as Daniel Audy)
Re: (as Daniel Audy)
I picked up 'Battleborne' on Steam when it was released and spent about 4 hours attempting to play it and working with tech support to fix the persistent performance issues that was making it unplayable. I eventually decided that it wasn't worth my time to keep fighting with it when the first 8 supposed fixes made no difference and was able to refund it, despite being past the official 2 hour playtime limit.
As a result I moved on with my life and bought 'Overwatch' instead. If I had been out the $70 that I'd paid for an unplayable game I would have been quite upset and left some nasty review about how the game was substandard and never risked buying a game from that developer again. Instead I still view the developer with a relatively positive attitude since they produce interesting games and might, if it is ever on sale significantly, try buying it again and see if they fixed the issues I was having.
Re: Re: Who is paying for the credit card refund fees? (as Daniel Audy)
More comments from Dan Audy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dan Audy.
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