Stephen T. Stone’s comment is not “biting.” It is ignorant. And it’s not funny. That so much of the TD community would think either is shocking.
Justice Thomas is an originalist. The original constitution provided for amendments. The constitution was amended to abolish slavery. So Justice Thomas being against slavery is wholly consistent with his jusrisprudence, not against it.
Disagree with Justice Thomas all you want. But to say that he should be a slave if he wants to be consistent in his thinking is disgusting and reprehensible. That TD would express this as an “editor’s choice” is beyond disappointing, Mike.
Maybe Mr. Dasilva will start going after those evil websites that post copyright notices in tiny font at the bottom of the page and include "Terms of Service" like this:
ALL CONTENT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SERVICE, SUCH AS TEXT, GRAPHICS, LOGOS, IMAGES, AS WELL AS THE COMPILATION THEREOF, AND ANY SOFTWARE USED ON THE SITE, IS THE PROPERTY OF VANCE SOFTWARES OR ITS SUPPLIERS AND PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND OTHER LAWS THAT PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. YOU AGREE TO OBSERVE AND ABIDE BY ALL COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPRIETARY NOTICES, LEGENDS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN ANY SUCH CONTENT AND WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES THERETO.
But be careful. That particular website specifically states that it reserves the right to change the terms:
CHANGES TO TERMS
VANCE SOFTWARES RESERVES THE RIGHT, IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION, TO CHANGE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH HTTP://ECOMDUDES.COM AND ANY VANCE SOFTWARES, LLC (DAN DASILVA) OWNED WEBSITE IS OFFERED.
Who knew there were people like this in the world?
TechDirt should have an annual "Streisand Effect" ceremony, complete with categories for "Best Animation" (for cases with fake defamation plaintiffs), "Best Effects" (for cases involving photoshopped court orders), and "Best Lawyer" (for the, er, "best").
The [injunction] order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
(A) the parties;
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
On page 12, the magistrate uses that exact language. However, everything after the phrase "in addition" is outside the scope of the Court's authority to grant an injunction and should be rejected by the District Court.
What would you say is the distinction between a poor ruling and...oh, look, squirrel!
Don't change the subject. Your first comment is hilarious:
I don't mean to imply that the ruling involved is correct, or a good thing. But in regards to the function of the court, it is they who dictate our understanding of what a law means, not what we want them to understand it means.
We want them to dictate our understanding but we don't want them to understand it in the first place? As I wrote above, that's hilarious.
And the AC is right. Bad rulings are entirely the court's fault. But to go ahead and chase your squirrel anyway, bad laws are the legislature's fault. But they're not mutually exclusive. A court can issue a bad ruling on a bad law.
Kmart also should expect a lawsuit from Michael Jackson's estate, what with the one glove and all. And PETA/Naruto (relationship status: it's complicated) because all your bananas are belong to us.
Aside from the video of the traffic stop, the reporter’s voluminous FOIA request included requests on all past contacts we had with Mr. Martell; past contacts we had with the driver of the car from which the original traffic stop initiated and that Mr. Martell had run from; and other detailed information on witnesses or other parties in the case.
The request only is "voluminous" if the cops have had lots of past contacts, making this even more newsworthy. You mean you've had so many interactions, Chief, that it would be "voluminous" to compile them all? Is that what you trying to say?
Having fixed competition America's wireless industry with the stroke of a pen, Ajit Pal soon will be transferred to the Department of Defense, where he will topple the North Korean military with a press release. From there, Pai anticipates writing an op-ed that will bring peace to the Middle East by the end of the day. Finally, Pai plans to improve instantly the world economy through the deft use of a Hallmark card.
Backstreet's Back?
And if you're feeling really nostalgic...
Biting? Ignorant.
Stephen T. Stone’s comment is not “biting.” It is ignorant. And it’s not funny. That so much of the TD community would think either is shocking.
Justice Thomas is an originalist. The original constitution provided for amendments. The constitution was amended to abolish slavery. So Justice Thomas being against slavery is wholly consistent with his jusrisprudence, not against it.
Disagree with Justice Thomas all you want. But to say that he should be a slave if he wants to be consistent in his thinking is disgusting and reprehensible. That TD would express this as an “editor’s choice” is beyond disappointing, Mike.
It's a scary world out there
Maybe Mr. Dasilva will start going after those evil websites that post copyright notices in tiny font at the bottom of the page and include "Terms of Service" like this:
But be careful. That particular website specifically states that it reserves the right to change the terms:
Who knew there were people like this in the world?
So all of Georgia's politicians weren't elected and have to go home?
So it …
Really
Matter?
Re: Re: Re: I don't know about the other claims, but...
Can't know that till we know who the winners are, right?
Thanks for clarifying your original comment. I hadn't clicked through to the article and therefore hadn't read the quote. Just doing my part.
Re: I don't know about the other claims, but...
You do realize that these books are fiction, right?
Who could have foreseen that AT&T's downfall would be...
The Streizzies?
Quit Horsing Around
Don't you mean "highest unicorn"?
Re:
SOPA Box
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) states:
On page 12, the magistrate uses that exact language. However, everything after the phrase "in addition" is outside the scope of the Court's authority to grant an injunction and should be rejected by the District Court.
To-ma-to, to-mah-to
Re: Re: Department of Redundancy Dept.
Department of Redundancy Dept.
This is repetitive, redundant, and repeats itself.
Re: Re: Re: Who's misunderstanding?
Don't change the subject. Your first comment is hilarious:
We want them to dictate our understanding but we don't want them to understand it in the first place? As I wrote above, that's hilarious.
And the AC is right. Bad rulings are entirely the court's fault. But to go ahead and chase your squirrel anyway, bad laws are the legislature's fault. But they're not mutually exclusive. A court can issue a bad ruling on a bad law.
Imposta v. Imposter
You keep using that word …
The request only is "voluminous" if the cops have had lots of past contacts, making this even more newsworthy. You mean you've had so many interactions, Chief, that it would be "voluminous" to compile them all? Is that what you trying to say?
Ajit Pai Always Keeps His Promises
Easy as Pai
More comments from TechDescartes >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TechDescartes.
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