"In many cases, people in stressful situations DO misremember the events, even right as they're happening."
He "misremembered" some very specific details (charged towards the patrol vehicle, approached with closed fists) that are way too far from the actual events to have even a shred of plausibility.
Even if they don't read it (which is still unconscionable), you'd think lawmakers would run this shit past actual lawyers first. Ones that actually know the law.
"Blame the Democrats for this crap in the first place for their insistence that tech companies can manage themselves."
This is almost comical ignorance of the history of the Internet and S230.
"People are starting to wake up to the fact that politicians don't have their best interests at heart and only look out for their own interests."
You can't seriously think that people are only just starting to feel that way.
"Section 230 should never have been a part of the CDA where "tech companies can do whatever they want and use Section 230 as an all encompanying shield"."
Again, this is just a complete lack of understanding of what S230 does. It protects ALL WEBSITES with user generated content, not 'tech companies'. It does not allow anybody to do whatever they want or provide an all encompassing shield, it's allows exactly what the 1st Amendment allows and does not protect against illegal acts.
Anybody spending five minutes on Wikipedia, or maybe even reading anything written about it by the bipartisan authors, would have a pretty decent understanding of S230. If fact this stuff is so simple to understand that I have given up thinking most anti-S230 people really don't understand this, and are in fact just making self-serving, bad-faith arguments.
Destroying evidence is a crime that can be charged on top of the suspected crime itself. So even if you are completely innocent, there's a non-trivial chance you'll end up with even more legal trouble, particularly with less restrained law enforcement groups.
"The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment."
You may be right with regards to that silly document and the wingnuts that wrote it, but that doesn't make it law, or ever likely to be law. It's just a fever swamp fantasy.
"The term "SJW" is probably now being considered for Facebook's banned word list."
At the very least it's on the "used in weak arguments" list.
"Evidently not AWS. They stood to lose nothing, yet voluntarily engaged in banning instead of making more $$$."
Even if you dismiss the possibility that they were showing a little civic responsibility, they obviously decided that having Parler as a customer was more likely to lose them money than make it. You don't keep that sort. Business 101.
Unless you have a large, purpose-built cinema in your home, no, it's simply not. A big LCD TV in your lounge with a nice surround system is simply not in the same league.
"You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law in order to create the necessary conditions for a free and fair presidential election..."
Yeah coz that's totally what happens after a coup, they just give it back...
"...one that does not suffer from such fatal deficiencies as the current one..."
Over 50 court losses including the SC say you're wrong. But you know better than all them right?
"...that ended up handing probably the worst candidate in American history the victory..."
Come back and see us when Biden has his own Wikipedia category page like Trump's.
Re: Re: Re: Now, that followup...?
"In many cases, people in stressful situations DO misremember the events, even right as they're happening."
He "misremembered" some very specific details (charged towards the patrol vehicle, approached with closed fists) that are way too far from the actual events to have even a shred of plausibility.
Re: You got one thing wrong:
Perhaps cops should be recruited and trained with a higher expectation than "rabid crocodile".
Re: Whaaa???
Even if they don't read it (which is still unconscionable), you'd think lawmakers would run this shit past actual lawyers first. Ones that actually know the law.
Re:
"Blame the Democrats for this crap in the first place for their insistence that tech companies can manage themselves."
This is almost comical ignorance of the history of the Internet and S230.
"People are starting to wake up to the fact that politicians don't have their best interests at heart and only look out for their own interests."
You can't seriously think that people are only just starting to feel that way.
"Section 230 should never have been a part of the CDA where "tech companies can do whatever they want and use Section 230 as an all encompanying shield"."
Again, this is just a complete lack of understanding of what S230 does. It protects ALL WEBSITES with user generated content, not 'tech companies'. It does not allow anybody to do whatever they want or provide an all encompassing shield, it's allows exactly what the 1st Amendment allows and does not protect against illegal acts.
Anybody spending five minutes on Wikipedia, or maybe even reading anything written about it by the bipartisan authors, would have a pretty decent understanding of S230. If fact this stuff is so simple to understand that I have given up thinking most anti-S230 people really don't understand this, and are in fact just making self-serving, bad-faith arguments.
Re: Re: Re:
Destroying evidence is a crime that can be charged on top of the suspected crime itself. So even if you are completely innocent, there's a non-trivial chance you'll end up with even more legal trouble, particularly with less restrained law enforcement groups.
Re: Re: Malik should know better
That's a very different scenario.
Re:
"The lawyer-hacker mafia..."
Please please please entertain us us with your explanation of this amazing sounding group. I need a good laugh today.
Re: Re: Re: You're just reaching here...
And the 1st Amendment.
Re:
If you're legally obliged to do it then you're not a Good Samaritan, you're just a citizen.
Re: Very Simple
"The core principle is that if a private company builds a public square, then they are also subject to the First Amendment."
You may be right with regards to that silly document and the wingnuts that wrote it, but that doesn't make it law, or ever likely to be law. It's just a fever swamp fantasy.
Re: Re:
"...public / private corruption is just an inherent component of capitalism."
Bingo! Tell him what he's won...
Re: Re: Re: Freedom is Feared
"The term "SJW" is probably now being considered for Facebook's banned word list."
At the very least it's on the "used in weak arguments" list.
"Evidently not AWS. They stood to lose nothing, yet voluntarily engaged in banning instead of making more $$$."
Even if you dismiss the possibility that they were showing a little civic responsibility, they obviously decided that having Parler as a customer was more likely to lose them money than make it. You don't keep that sort. Business 101.
Re:
I suspect the number of people that actually asked them to block Twitter and Facebook was a lot smaller than they're suggesting.
Re: Re: Ah corruption and cowardice
Thad's right, you got this.
Re: Re:
Unless you have a large, purpose-built cinema in your home, no, it's simply not. A big LCD TV in your lounge with a nice surround system is simply not in the same league.
Re:
And I don't like this Trump era style of dumb commenting. Why the hell would you come to an opinion blog and whine about reading opinions?
(j/k, dumb commenting well preceded Trump)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: just goes to show you the far left is closer
Most of that list is fiction, not 'far left'.
Re: Re: Maybe you missed the subject line!
So you've finally admitted you want the government to control what people can and can't say. Good to know.
Re: Re: So your key assertion of "First Amendment rights&qu
"Masnick asserts the above in connection with his wish that corporations have the power to control ALL speech on the Internet..."
No, just their own websites.
How are you so bad at this?
Re: Re:
"You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law in order to create the necessary conditions for a free and fair presidential election..."
Yeah coz that's totally what happens after a coup, they just give it back...
"...one that does not suffer from such fatal deficiencies as the current one..."
Over 50 court losses including the SC say you're wrong. But you know better than all them right?
"...that ended up handing probably the worst candidate in American history the victory..."
Come back and see us when Biden has his own Wikipedia category page like Trump's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trump_administration_controversies
More comments from JMT >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JMT.
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