Well some back story. Dolt over here was throwing everything he could think of to say that you have some kind of constiutional right to forcefully trhow someone off your property when you recind their invitation. I said no, in almost all states that is battery. Dolt started throwing every example he could think of until he made some stupid reference to a "public house." I'm like wow I haven't heard that term since I last read John Milton. Moron over hear goes 'ah got you a public house is a pub' he is that stupid. Im like "no its not, pubs evolved from public houses." But Dunning Kruger over here is too stupid to know he is stupid.
Well some back story. Dolt over here was throwing everything he could think of to say that you have some kind of constiutional right to forcefully trhow someone off your property when you recind their invitation.
I said no, in almost all states that is battery. Dolt started throwing every example he could think of until he made some stupid reference to a "public house." I'm like wow I haven't heard that term since I last read John Milton.
Moron over hear goes 'ah got you a public house is a pub' he is that stupid. Im like "no its not, pubs evolved from public houses." But Dunning Kruger over here is too stupid to know he is stupid.
My states passenger carry regulations which includes uber and lift is about 7 pages long and that is pretty standard for most states.
Again you are an ignorant petulant child. Just because you don't see the pages of regulation doesn't mean it isn't there.
My states passenger carry regulations which includes uber and lift is about 7 pages long and that is pretty standard for most states. Again you are an ignorant petulant child. Just because you don't see the pages of regulation doesn't mean it isn't there.
And if they wish to remove themselves from the public control they need only remove their property from the public interest. When an individual makes the conscious and willful decision to put their property to the public interest they submit their property to pubic control for the public good. I may own my truck. But the moment I make the willful decision to start driving for uber and lift I have submitted my property to the pubic interest and surrendered to public control. If I wish to regain full control I need only stop driving for uber or lift.
And if they wish to remove themselves from the public control they need only remove their property from the public interest. When an individual makes the conscious and willful decision to put their property to the public interest they submit their property to pubic control for the public good.
I may own my truck. But the moment I make the willful decision to start driving for uber and lift I have submitted my property to the pubic interest and surrendered to public control. If I wish to regain full control I need only stop driving for uber or lift.
It was ctrl+c and ctrl+v. "websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Mike flat out lied or is too legally ignorant to understand what he was reading.
It was ctrl+c and ctrl+v.
"websites are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."
Mike flat out lied or is too legally ignorant to understand what he was reading.
Mike you are simply lying. I read the act. The bill establishes a process for removing content and persons. The additiosn are attempts to create exceptions that let Big Tech ignore the process.
"Sec.A143A.006.AACONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
(1)AAthe social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law; (2)AAis the subject of a referral or request from an
organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual
exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse
from ongoing harassment; (3)AAdirectly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group
because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin
or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4)AAis unlawful expression. (b)AAThis chapter may not be construed to prohibit or
restrict a social media platform from authorizing or facilitating a
user?s ability to censor specific expression on the user?s platform
or page at the request of that user." Notice that these exceptions are only for criminal acts. Not this subjective bull. The site can take down whatever subjective bull it wants but it has to follow a process. "ec.A120.103.AAREMOVAL OF CONTENT; EXCEPTIONS. (a)AAExcept
as provided by Subsection (b), if a social media platform removes
content based on a violation of the platform?s acceptable use
policy under Section 120.052, the social media platform shall,
concurrently with the removal:
(1)AAnotify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed;
(2)AAallow the user to appeal the decision to remove the
content to the platform; and
(3)AAprovide written notice to the user who provided
the content of:
(A)AAthe determination regarding an appeal
requested under Subdivision (2); and
(B)AAin the case of a reversal of the social media
platform?s decision to remove the content, the reason for the
(b)AAA social media platform is not required to provide a
user with notice or an opportunity to appeal under Subsection (a) if
the social media platform:
(1)AAis unable to contact the user after taking
reasonable steps to make contact; or
(2)AAknows that the potentially policy-violating
content relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Sec.A120.104.AAAPPEAL PROCEDURES. If a social media H.B.ANo.A20
7 platform receives a user complaint on the social media platform?s removal from the platform of content provided by the user that the user believes was not potentially policy-violating content, the
social media platform shall, not later than the 14th day, excluding
Saturdays and Sundays, after the date the platform receives the
complaint: (1)AAreview the content;
(2)AAdetermine whether the content adheres to the
platform?s acceptable use policy;
(3)AAtake appropriate steps based on the determination
under Subdivision (2); and
(4)AAnotify the user regarding the determination made
under Subdivision (2) and the steps taken under Subdivision (3)." Your statement of "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Is nothing more than baldfaced lie. If the terms of service has a rule against vaccine misinformation that's fine. But there is a process they have to explain why and allow for a formal appeals process. Im sorry mike. Maybe if your BigTech overloads didn't make a joke of contract law but BigTech is so off the rails with how they enforce their terms of service this is needed.
Oh look its the idiot that doen'st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub. Also doesn't know the difference between a consitutional right and a legal privlage. I said in my very first post that it varies from state to state but the general rule is you cannot forcefully remove someone from your property if they have not used force against you. Your ass must have searched every single state codes to just find the exception Texas. Stupid stupid stupid!!! A leftists having to praise Texas law which is an exception not the rule. And inst a constitutional right its a legal privilege.
That's a lot to write for a simple concept. Rachel Maddow the Stanford and Oxford genius doesn't know how to correctly use the term word "literally." ?Maddow?s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow?s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.? That is all you needed to say. The court is saying that there is no circumstance when Maddow can every be taken as fact.
No you are the illiterate one. Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare. It means that the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint should new evidence arise. If you carefully read the decision it is not specific to this event. Even if an e-mail came up where Maddow admits the claim is false. That alone would not be enough fact to support the claim. The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
To dismiss with prejudice means that there is no fact pattern in which this could ever be considered a statement of fact. That basically means that nothing Rachell Maddow ever say can possibly be taken by a reasonable person as a statement of fact. Oh well at least now its a matter of law that Rachel Maddow can never be taken as true.
That's a big problem on a site called "TechDirt" because common carrier is maritime law. Google it genius. Maritime law as applied to telecom. Now people like Mike who work in social media don't want the same law applied to them so they argue that social media isn't' enough like telecom to warrant it. But social media is far closer to telecom than telecom is to maritime.
"But Democrats aren?t nearly as bad about it as the GOP??because the Dems would have control of more state legislatures and far more seats in the House of Representatives if they were." That isnt proof. Blue states are heavily gerrymandered with districts that look far worse than anything North Carolina did. Democrats control larger states which gives them greater opportunity to gerrymander. There isn't really that much of an opportunity to gerrymander when you are splitting all of Iowa's 4 electoral votes. "This does. Now explain why these maps, and not non-partisan factors such as county lines, should determine whether one party has a distinct (and often insurmountable) advantage over the other." Jesus its like talking to a wall. Plat maps are non-partisan. Many of those communities are hundreds of years old. You started thinking these communities are arbitrary, they are not. The legal address of your parents house, the basement which you live in, is most likely Community, Block #, Lot #. That you don't know any of this just proves you have no life. "Land doesn?t vote; people do. I?m all for giving those in suburbs and rural areas a voice and a vote, don?t get me wrong??I?d just like to know the reason why their concerns should get to at least nullify those of the people living in the areas where the most people live." People within land vote. We don't have a direct democracy. We have an representative republic. Our communities vote for who we want to represent us in government. Currently with the size of the House that's 711,000 people voting for a representative. The suburbs aren't canceling out the vote of the urban. Your entire frame of reference comes from political parties. We don't vote for political parties we vote for people. Okay district A's candidate won with 95% of the vote. Distinct B won with 55% of the vote. Now the people who live in district A want 44% of district As population wants to vote in district B's election instead. This is democrat gerrymandering. You flat out steal community representative by zoning your community into theirs because you have spare votes. Again Chicago has the population for 4 districts. But the city is zoned into 9, more than double the representation its population entitles it to. "Let?s assume that in a given district, more people live in the combined suburbs and rural areas than live in the ?urban center? of the district??and that same combined populace makes the district effectively lean Republican. Would that be fair to you because such an imbalance would cancel out the Democrats of the ?urban center??" Again they shouldn't be zoned together in the first place. "Then why do the Republicans, to a greater degree than Democrats, try to pick and choose which communities they get to serve by gerrymandering districts in ways that make them look completely illogical? Seriously, what makes Republican gerrymandering more acceptable to you?" You keep assuming facts not in evidence. Just because republicans control more state governments does not mean they have more gerrymandered districts. Its very hard to do much gerrymandering in Iowa, Montana, West Virginia etc. "Oh, and if you use ?man-child? one more time, I?m going to report you to the Feds for spreading NAMBLA propaganda." You don't even know what plat maps are. That means you have never owned your own property. You are a man-child!
"Please provide proof that Democrats gerrymander to a worse degree than Republicans. A court case saying an explicitly Democratic gerrymander was done for nakedly partisan powergrabbing would be an ideal start" Benisek v. Lamone, Maryland is one of the worst gerrymandered states in the country. Nothing North Carolina did comes anywhere close to Maryland ridiculous districts. You are trying to make a you did it too argument because you aren't a smart person. You you are just linking to a single court decision thinking that this is the only such case ever. It isn't and its not even the most recent. "Please define ?local community boundaries? You are clearly a man-child. You have no experience in the real world what so ever. Somewhere on your city and state websites there are these things called plat maps. I suggest you look at one. You counties, cities, and communities actually exist, are named and have defined boundaries. People who have actual lives have looked at these at some point in their life. "I mean, it?s like you said: ?If we proportioned districts by local community boundaries republicans wound never lose the House.? Because that is just the way it is. You choose to be the urban party. That doesn't mean the urban centers get more representation. It is not fair when 2.7M person Chicago has 9 representatives representing the city in the House of Representatives when its population entitles it to 4. "By this logic, the suburban soccer mom can?t represent the artist in the city. Your plan for ?community boundaries? districting would likely give her that power anyway. Hell, that?s exactly how gerrymandering works." She doesn't live in the city and the artist doesn't' live in the suburbs that is the point. They should not be zoned together because too many democrats live in the city. Its not the House of the Parties. Its the House of Representatives they represent their local community. Those communities with boundaries found on any city and state plat map that you had no idea existed because you are a man-child.
Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995), is just basic libel law. If you curate content that is your speech. Publishers rights come from free speech. You cant claim publishers rights be free from libel at the same time absent some legally granted immunity.
"I expect Techdirt would counter that recent apeallete and SCOTUS rulings (including the red flag knowledge case google vs viacom) would suggest that Facebook, who has the money to appeal as far as necessary, would eventually litigate the issue to a court which would rule that just because moderation happens, Facebook is not on notice of and cannot review the content of every post. Facebook is not and cannot be liable for content it did not create. The only thing section 230 did was to shortcut that whole debate and get to that result." But then you go right back to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995) that is the law absent section 230 immunity.
That exactly is how it works. It gets harder and there is more randomness the more judges there are in a given district. But as many on the left like to complain about Republicans had a very good batting average in drawing Judge Hanen and the Southern District of Texas has 55 judges. Both sides engage in that targeted judge shopping and republicans were very active and successful during the Obama administration in drawing their target judges. Look at your own complaining about patent cases. Between Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas (11 Judges) and Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas (17 Judges) the two of them "randomly" preside over approximately 50-80% of all US patent cases. In districts of 11 and 17 judges you can draw your favorite judge with near certainty and you complain about this vigorously. And you are right BTW. But when its ruling you like you are arguing that the 4 judge Northern District of Florida is random? lol
Its a well known and understood irony with "L"ibertarians. They claim to be libertarians but they try to run their own world as authoritarians. Mike is a "L"ibertarian who in his own life acts as an authoritarian. Sadly this isn't uncommon. We can get into a big psychological debate about this. Libertarianism is a very good excuse for people who are natural authoritarians to avoid accountability. Many manipulative coping mechanisms can be classified as guilt avoidance. An authoritarian adopting libertarianism is actually a very effective guilt avoidance mechanism. 'I do what I want!'