- "Free speech, as a concept, doesn't exist on a private platform."
I agree, just to add though.
Biased media is far from new in America. Starting shortly after the Civil War, when tree pulp paper became widely available, newspapers flourished. Every group published their own paper. Some were monthly and others became daily and most published in between. But they all had an agenda.
Democrats had their papers in every city. Republicans had their papers. Libertarians, socialists, prohibitionists, free trade, even the Catholic Church had their own papers. In NYC 120 years ago they had over 100 papers publishing regularly. Each pushing their own agenda. Within 50 years the vast majority of those papers had ceased publication through either merger, bankruptcy, or the sponsor disbanding. Today most large cities count themselves lucky to have one healthy paper.
Radio and TV killed the newspaper cults. Instead of each paper with a political agenda, the national broadcasters instituted journalistic standard of neutrality, enforced by the FCC. The surviving newspapers adopted those standards. And the world was a much better place for that.
Klayman wants to take us back a century where he can publish his agenda. Except he wants to do it on other's dime. Tree pulp paper was cheap. The internet is much cheaper. The same problem exists then as now, people are free not to sell your trash in their stores or give you free space on their servers.
"If you cannot handle the idea that you may not be compensated for the work you produce, then DO NOT PUBLISH THE WORK. Society is better off without your contribution."
I, and most people, expect to be paid for our work. I used to do professional photography. Ya, taking photos for a living. Chasing people to get paid for my work is why I quit. Seeing my work republished without attribution or compensation is infuriating and expensive to chase.
If you don't think society is better with me, and many others, producing our work then you really should come out of your mother's basement. Disney produced their movies in the expectation of selling them so they could make a profit. You have no right to my work and you have no right to Disney's work. At the same time, I have no right to your paycheck.
If you insist on taking my paycheck then I'll want to have yours in return.
Obviously you know nothing about libel laws and how a defamation suit is handled.
Before you start with all your "yabutt, what if ..." scenarios, it would depend on the incident. Getting a woman fired is not defamation, most likely it is harassment, a criminal charge. The employer is not responsible for reacting to defamation but the harasser is.
All staff of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the intelligence Committees are vetted by the FBI. They may not have security clearance but they are not free from being investigated.
It appears the driver was in the process of being recruited and was warned by the FBI.
Sure thing dude. There is no inherent right to build your own weapon. If there was, you could produce some citation.
A State may still prohibit any weapon that is deemed to be dangerous. That includes nuclear weapons, silencers, full auto firearms, spring assisted knives, and practically any explosive device. Publishing of plans on making these items may result in prosecution.
The possession of child porn makes the holder a participant or accessory in the crime of sexual child abuse. This is similar to possession of stolen property makes the holder also guilty of a crime.
These are accepted exceptions to the First Amendment because they involve criminal activity.
Far from it. The Pentagon Papers was about a history; things already published, even though privately done. This is about the promotion of an illegal weapon.
Criminal activity is included as an exception to the First Amendment. Would it make your fee fees better if you knew you may not post the plans for the Ford Class Aircraft Carrier engines either.
BTW, Ellsberg was charged with theft of the report. The case was dismissed by the court because the government had repeatedly violated his rights, including tapping his phone, breaking into his home and doctor's office without warrants, etc. The case that set the standard was the New York Times' First Amendment "Freedom of the Press" ability to publish news worthy articles.
BUT, he was photographed with three guns and the accompanying post alluded that they were guns. The prosecutor entered expert evidence that at least one was a genuine gun. He was not allowed to possess guns, which violated the law.
While 15 years may seem excessive, guns are not toys. To illegally possess a gun and then brag about it, is just stupid. Stupid people with illegal guns belong in jail.
This is to stop caregivers from posting embarrassing shots of their charges. It does NOT include family members, even when caring for their relatives. Nor would it stop Silver Alerts or posting a 60 y/o photograph.
There is no evidence that her server was "hacked by foreign powers". The FBI found none. The State Department found no evidence. The State Department IG found none. The DOJ IG found none.
Again, any classified material found was classified AFTER they were received. That includes news stories from the NYT. notes of meetings from John Kerry (tabled publicly in Senate records), comments pointing to other public knowledge, etc.
State Department protocol requires that all classified material be sent by secure cable. Clinton had every right to assume that any email material was not classified. Spinning it that her server was compromised or knowingly had classified material is such a frail claim that no prosecutor would take it before a judge. Prosecutors know this would be tossed out on summary judgment.
The Russian fed trolls have been pushing your BS for two years. How many times does it need to be refuted before you give up?
Until February, 2013, (after Clinton left the Secretary's job) the Obama Administration made it policy that banned private email accounts and all government employees had to use a government account.
An Inspector General can not press charges or even recommend charges. All he can do is investigate and report facts. Much like any police report, it may be persuasive, but is still impeachable (may be challenged).
All criminal charges may only be filed by a prosecutor. At the Federal level that is the DOJ. Contrary to what many believe, even the FBI can not press charges.
Some Federal agencies do file charges, such as the SEC or EEC. These though are in front of Administrative Judges and do not involve jail time.
Not true. None of the emails she sent or received through her server were classified when sent or received. They were all classified after the fact. Several of these items were sharing of newspaper articles that the nimrods deemed were classified.
Comey's emails have not been released so we do not know how many contained classified information.
*italic* Yes, speech is involved, but this smacks of trying to simply punish the company for being the place where the legal loophole for private sale of guns does not allow for punishing anyone directly involved in the transaction. *italic*
No, that is not speech. That is commerce.
The Supreme Court in Heller admitted that States could regulate guns in their jurisdictions. That is what Wisconsin has done.
A pimp directing customers to a hooker is not free speech. It is a crime.
Someone who sells cars knowing, or not caring, if they are legal is still breaking the law. There is no speech issue involved.
These are commercial activities, not free speech issues. The 11th Amendment reserves that for the States.
Re: Re: Net neutrality hypocracy
I agree, just to add though.
Biased media is far from new in America. Starting shortly after the Civil War, when tree pulp paper became widely available, newspapers flourished. Every group published their own paper. Some were monthly and others became daily and most published in between. But they all had an agenda.
Democrats had their papers in every city. Republicans had their papers. Libertarians, socialists, prohibitionists, free trade, even the Catholic Church had their own papers. In NYC 120 years ago they had over 100 papers publishing regularly. Each pushing their own agenda. Within 50 years the vast majority of those papers had ceased publication through either merger, bankruptcy, or the sponsor disbanding. Today most large cities count themselves lucky to have one healthy paper.
Radio and TV killed the newspaper cults. Instead of each paper with a political agenda, the national broadcasters instituted journalistic standard of neutrality, enforced by the FCC. The surviving newspapers adopted those standards. And the world was a much better place for that.
Klayman wants to take us back a century where he can publish his agenda. Except he wants to do it on other's dime. Tree pulp paper was cheap. The internet is much cheaper. The same problem exists then as now, people are free not to sell your trash in their stores or give you free space on their servers.
Re: Re:
I, and most people, expect to be paid for our work. I used to do professional photography. Ya, taking photos for a living. Chasing people to get paid for my work is why I quit. Seeing my work republished without attribution or compensation is infuriating and expensive to chase.
If you don't think society is better with me, and many others, producing our work then you really should come out of your mother's basement. Disney produced their movies in the expectation of selling them so they could make a profit. You have no right to my work and you have no right to Disney's work. At the same time, I have no right to your paycheck.
If you insist on taking my paycheck then I'll want to have yours in return.
Re: Re: Re:
It took less than 60 years for Plessy to be overturned. Plessy was 1896, Brown I was 1954 and Brown II was 1955.
You claimed that SLAPP suits were unconstitutional. When pressed on what part of the Constitution, you can't tell us.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Slapp in the face
Before you start with all your "yabutt, what if ..." scenarios, it would depend on the incident. Getting a woman fired is not defamation, most likely it is harassment, a criminal charge. The employer is not responsible for reacting to defamation but the harasser is.
Re: Re: The only problem I have with your POV on this story...
It appears the driver was in the process of being recruited and was warned by the FBI.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
A State may still prohibit any weapon that is deemed to be dangerous. That includes nuclear weapons, silencers, full auto firearms, spring assisted knives, and practically any explosive device. Publishing of plans on making these items may result in prosecution.
Re: Re:
These are accepted exceptions to the First Amendment because they involve criminal activity.
Re: Bad cases make bad laws...
Re: Pentagon Papers
Criminal activity is included as an exception to the First Amendment. Would it make your fee fees better if you knew you may not post the plans for the Ford Class Aircraft Carrier engines either.
BTW, Ellsberg was charged with theft of the report. The case was dismissed by the court because the government had repeatedly violated his rights, including tapping his phone, breaking into his home and doctor's office without warrants, etc. The case that set the standard was the New York Times' First Amendment "Freedom of the Press" ability to publish news worthy articles.
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Incompetent Lawyer
BUT, he was photographed with three guns and the accompanying post alluded that they were guns. The prosecutor entered expert evidence that at least one was a genuine gun. He was not allowed to possess guns, which violated the law.
While 15 years may seem excessive, guns are not toys. To illegally possess a gun and then brag about it, is just stupid. Stupid people with illegal guns belong in jail.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
This is to stop caregivers from posting embarrassing shots of their charges. It does NOT include family members, even when caring for their relatives. Nor would it stop Silver Alerts or posting a 60 y/o photograph.
This takes over where HIPPA stops.
Re: Re: Re:
The DOJ IG found none.
Again, any classified material found was classified AFTER they were received. That includes news stories from the NYT. notes of meetings from John Kerry (tabled publicly in Senate records), comments pointing to other public knowledge, etc.
State Department protocol requires that all classified material be sent by secure cable. Clinton had every right to assume that any email material was not classified. Spinning it that her server was compromised or knowingly had classified material is such a frail claim that no prosecutor would take it before a judge. Prosecutors know this would be tossed out on summary judgment.
The Russian fed trolls have been pushing your BS for two years. How many times does it need to be refuted before you give up?
Re: Re: bipartisan self-protection
It has been reported that Trump still uses an unsecured Android phone. https://gizmodo.com/report-trump-using-personal-cell-phone-a-lot-more-jus-1825488093
Until February, 2013, (after Clinton left the Secretary's job) the Obama Administration made it policy that banned private email accounts and all government employees had to use a government account.
Re: Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
All criminal charges may only be filed by a prosecutor. At the Federal level that is the DOJ. Contrary to what many believe, even the FBI can not press charges.
Some Federal agencies do file charges, such as the SEC or EEC. These though are in front of Administrative Judges and do not involve jail time.
Re:
Comey's emails have not been released so we do not know how many contained classified information.
To this day Trump still uses an unsecure phone. https://gizmodo.com/report-trump-using-personal-cell-phone-a-lot-more-jus-1825488093
(untitled comment)
Re:
No, that is not speech. That is commerce.
The Supreme Court in Heller admitted that States could regulate guns in their jurisdictions. That is what Wisconsin has done.
A pimp directing customers to a hooker is not free speech. It is a crime.
Someone who sells cars knowing, or not caring, if they are legal is still breaking the law. There is no speech issue involved.
These are commercial activities, not free speech issues. The 11th Amendment reserves that for the States.
More comments from ralph_the_bus_driver >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ralph_the_bus_driver.
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