All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Importunate Tom

    When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

    Seems a good answer and could apply to all kinds of tools. I think the answer is absolutely no and congratulate you for correctly characterizing my view on that subject. I think a Klan march through a neighborhood filled with Holocaust survivors is pretty darn hateful and could easily result in violence. It's the price we pay, as the ACLU recognized.
  3. You make that sound like a bad thing......
  4. Importunate Tom

    New Jersey Going Nutz?

    But New Jersey has identified our fundamental problem: Poor people exercising their rights! They're working on changing it, as noted.
  5. Shootist Jeff

    When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

    Section 230 is relevant to our ability to post on forums like this one without creating liability for the forum owner. Even if we do hateful things like support those who defend KKK'ers. And in case the link doesn't make it clear, I absolutely do support the ACLU's defense of hate speech. Popular speech never needs defense. Tom, no one is disputing that. But read the thread title again. The question at hand is when does hate speech go from just being "objectionable" to actually becoming a real threat that enables violence? Its the whole, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater argument. I don't think the law is at all clear on where that line is, not has it kept up with modern technology. I don't think your beloved Sect 230 ruling goes anywhere near addressing the question posed in the OP or thread title. There is no doubt that forums such as this will have "objectionable" material that the Ed should not be held liable for. But where is the line to where he is held liable?? And more importantly, is there hate speech that needs to be censored because it promotes and enables actual violence? I think the answer is absolutely yes. You, Tom, seem to think there is no speech that meets that definition. If you do, please give us an example of what you would agree that FB should censor and be held Liable for if they do not?
  6. I've been listening to various lawyers argue about the Julian Assange case and what is plainly evident is that 'logic' or internal consistency isn't really an overriding concern. In my more pessimistic moods, I suspect it never really was.
  7. Horn Rock

    Larry's AC50 Circus

  8. Donnie thinks they are the best people his bank account says so. I do hope Jared at the very least does time for this, for he he is a motherfucker of the first order. He doesn’t give a rats about the US the GOP or the people, this is about how much can he make leveraging this deal. If this was the 1940’s somebody would have accidentally had a gun discharge into the back of his skull it would be considered thinning the herd .
  9. Shootist Jeff

    The Official "War with Iran" thread

    A voluntary conflict with Iran would be an exceedingly bad idea. This thread needs music:
  10. And why emergencies are so darn popular. I checked in on Free Republic this morning to see how the TeamR partisans are reacting. Much to my surprise, the usual unanimity in support was distinctly lacking. One guy seems convinced that we have to fund a proxy war or Iran will nuke us. The rest are not sold on the idea.
  11. Importunate Tom

    When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

    Section 230 is relevant to our ability to post on forums like this one without creating liability for the forum owner. Even if we do hateful things like support those who defend KKK'ers. And in case the link doesn't make it clear, I absolutely do support the ACLU's defense of hate speech. Popular speech never needs defense.
  12. Shootist Jeff

    When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

    What does this have to do with Social media hate speech??
  13. Importunate Tom

    Charles Darwin Gun Owners

    Another instance of gun control failing to prevent gun violence, huh?
  14. Shootist Jeff


    no disagreements with any of that, but how does even a single bullet point get accomplished? none of those worthless pols are going to cut off the head of their golden geese Agree with all of Lark's points above. And I'm not sure that some Pols aren't interested. McCain and Feingold at least tried. But This is why I firmly believe that Burning the Bitch down is the only way to get anything changed. As you say, entrenched interested are too strong to allow any change. Sometimes you gotta do a controlled burn to save the forest. A couple of points I would add to the above: TERM LIMITS! This is the #1 thing that would change the dynamics for the better in DC, IMHO. 2 Terms ONLY for both house and Senate House seats 4-6 years Senate Seats 8-10 years These longer limits will allow a critter to settle in without the constant need to be in an election cycle. It also allows for seniority to build up within the body. No Money from outside a congressional district or state is allowed for campaigning unless the person or "corporate" person donating the $$ has a physical residence established in that district or state for at least 2-3 years prior to the election. Someone or something from NY should not be allowed to contribute to a campaign for a candidate in Georgia. Politicians should be elected ONLY by those they will represent. I would limit the campaign season to 6-9 months for POTUS elections. Maybe a year max. 120 days is too short for the size of this country. Maybe 6 months max for House and Senate seats. However, in the case of a POTUS election, primary vote is on a single day at the end of the primary season. This method of having certain states (IA, NH, SC for example) pretty much determining the outcome from the start is BS. By the end, several states are not even worth bothering with, as the outcome is usually a done deal by the mid way point. Make the candidates campaign all across the country for 6-12 months and then have ALL the primary votes cast at once. Winner take all. Regulations that limit the revolving door of congress critters and their staffers from entering lucrative lobbying jobs. Have at least a 2 year moratorium on those folks being able to go work on K street as well as prevent them (staffers in particular) from being able to lobby for things they worked directly with while on the critter's staffs or in office. There's probably lots more.
  15. LeoV

    Brexit, WTF

    Did read the Conservative sites, and there are nuggets there. It seems that (not hard statistics) of Tory MP's 70 % are willing to take the risk of a No Deal for all kinds of reasons. And 30 % are in the No Deal never camp. It only take 3 MP"s to leave the party to collapse the majority of the government. Which still can go on, till the opposition calls for a vote of no confidence. They have then 14 days to find a new majority somewhere, and the opposition can do the same. Or it is time for a general election. But according to some to solve the problem is still easy, for example the vice chairman of the 1922 and MP for Cotswold published an opinion; Interestingly he thinks the EU parliament does have the ultimate say in the EU negotiations. Nope, the Council of head of States does. And thinks the will of Brussels bureaucracy is less sympathetic. So he must mean the EU Commission (the EU civil service), they do not decide either. So he pretends to not know that, interesting... Another nugget to see, the UK talks about the EU superstate since 1976, we are now 4 decades later and ample proof of this. Why the hurry to get out... it will take decades more if it happens et all. In his talk about political parties in foreign countries he misses the point totally for the Dutch party (VVD). So far for credibility. Oh, and his easy solution which is the point of the article is this, and nothing more; In the coming weeks, the Party will decide who our next leader will be: a new leader who will have the vision, toughness, flexibility and ability to find a solution to package the deal in a way that it might be agreed upon by Parliament. This is not as difficult as it seems. The European Parliament will be different if increased numbers of centre-right populist party MEPs are elected in the European elections. They will be much more sympathetic to the nation state rather than the will of the Brussels bureaucracy. Therefore, there may be greater willingness by Brussels to negotiate to resolve the Brexit problem. So his easy fix is hoping the EU parliament (that does not decide on it) shows more willingness, that is all, that is easy. Really... this is a way to find a solution for the HOC. Just say you want a No Deal. Instead of this poor idea. If this is the state after 3 years looking for the strong points of the UK in the negotiations... It is begging for mercy. So they count him in the 70% for a No Deal. Would it not be great if all MP's must write down their idea of how to fix Brexit...
  16. Importunate Tom

    When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

    Another article on the Wisconsin Armslist case This is powerful stuff. The court reinforces that scienter is irrelevant to Section 230(c)(1). As a result, a defendant can win a motion to dismiss even when a plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew about–or intended–the allegedly illegal content. To emphasize this point, the court cites Doe v. Backpage: “the allegation of intent is ‘a distinction without a difference’ and does not affect CDA immunity…allowing plaintiffs to escape the CDA by arguing that an interactive computer service provider intended its neutral tools to be used for unlawful purposes would significantly diminish the protections offered by § 230(c)(1).” As I note in my paper, Why Section 230 is Better Than the First Amendment, this statutory mooting of scienter allegations distinguishes Section 230 from First Amendment constitutional doctrines. ... Very few tools should satisfy that standard indeed.
  17. Importunate Tom

    Assange has been arrested

    I'm more concerned about what it means to those who engage in or abet acts of journalism. So are a few others. As usual, I'm in agreement with the ACLU's take on the first amendment. The NY Times and Sen Wyden too. Well, and Eugene Volokh Volokh notes that nothing in this count turns on Assange's having helped or solicited Manning's leaks. Rather, it relies simply on Assange having published…material that he knew was improperly leaked and was related to the national defense within the meaning of the statute. To convict on these counts, a jury wouldn't have to find any complicity by Assange in the initial leak. And reporters do routinely publish information that they know was illegally leaked by someone. As for the argument that he's not part of the pre$$ and did not have his pink flag flying The bolded part was the BIG ISSUE in the Citizens United case. Freedom of the pre$$ belongs to us all, not just paid writers that get recognition by government.
  18. JALhazmat

    Larry's AC50 Circus

    It’s La Ferrari. So when he comes home telling you about the Le Ferrari he has been out to see... it’s probably the mistress.
  19. Importunate Tom

    Trump vs Property Rights

    I suppose.
  20. Today
  21. Importunate Tom

    Nappy at length on Trump the criminal

    I'm not sure why you think that's what I'm doing. Having a little fun with the fact that several of our lefties are now targets of those last three posts is just entertaining to me. It's funny that Dylan, who fancies himself informed about Americans, thinks "always Trumpers" go around equating Hillary and Donald and then praising Rand Paul. If you don't see why that's funny, I'm not going to ruin the joke by explanation. In addition to Reason, I'm all for rigorously scrutinizing the views of corporations like the ACLU and of Senators like DiFi.
  22. Shootist Jeff


    if by 'burn this bitch down" we mean a ctrl/alt/dlt on the whole motherfucking thing, both parties, all branches, count me in. this way of governing has gone past asinine to fucking recockulous and i'm sick and tired of my taxes paying for what essentially equates to a college football rivalry (only less mature and intelligent) and nothing else See, I'm gaining converts by the day
  23. Shootist Jeff


    I don't think that's entirely true. Maybe for the full congress to see it..... but certain Senate and House Select committees see unredacted, highly classified stuff all the time. What I don't get is why Congress isn't using these select committees to see the full report rather than trying to use subpoenas to force it to be released to the full congress. These select committees could easily review the full report and then decide if there are either grounds for impeachment or if more stuff can be un-redacted ("dacted"??) for public release.
  24. Importunate Tom

    The Tom Ray Thread

    Your failure to recall doesn't mean it did not happen. There are 42 threads you started. Every active thread is about guns.
  25. Importunate Tom

    Authorizing Unitary Military Forever!

    A blank check without a sunset provision only if people buy into the idea that it remains "specific" to any conflict that any President wants to enter. Which does seem to be the Duopoly view of how that applied to Libya many years after passage. What else unites you and Marco Rubio besides your taste in foreign policy porn? Of course, he did include the "Before" pic that you omitted. Marco Rubio included the "before" pic. Seems to me you're both down with the Duopoly interpretation that this was "Smart Power" and was specifically authorized.
  26. Shootist Jeff


    Dog, who is the Goose and who is the Gander in your analogy? I'm not understanding or seeing it.
  1. Load more activity