Re: Re: Trump made this same point in the debate last night...
As for regulatory burden - trump has listed a few problems he has with regulation. Like Farm Health and safety standards, the lack of which lead to several major health crisis in his restraunts. Or Food Preperation standards like not serving meat 6 months after its prime - again something trump restraunts have a problem with. Or not contaminating streams that feed into larger water sources with toxic chemicals? He has a problem with that, i guess thinking that small streams are independent from bigger sources.
Perfectly good logic there, I mean the biggest indicator that a regulation is bad is when it impacts the profits of a company, and if those regulations have done so it's obvious they need to go.
No need to worry, after all the violation of the regulations and the resulting health issues stem entirely from the regulations themselves, I've no doubt whatsoever that without the regulations to get in the way companies that were violating them before will immediately step up and demonstrate even more care for public health and safety... so long as doing so doesn't negatively impact their profits of course.
Well obviously DDOS attacks are just another kind of piracy, where you steal the right of someone to use their system without being under digital-war. So, our statement still stands, and if anything we underestimated the numbers.
See? How is anyone supposed to parody that? They're already a walking definition of parody, claiming to be concerned about 'protecting all constitutional freedoms and enforcing the law impartially' while cracking down on those freedoms and abusing their power and authority for personal reasons.
They don't get a choice in the matter, the ruling is against the author and NOT the website in question.
Like hell it isn't. It may not technically be against the site, but for all intents and purposes they are being held accountable for the actions of one of their users. They're being told 'take down this comment posted by a user of your site or face legal consequences', something that wouldn't fly if they were sued directly which is why the one who filed the lawsuit didn't name them as a defendant and tried to bypass the law granting them protections against that very thing.
If the ruling really isn't against them then they could ignore it entirely without consequence, just like I could safely ignore a ruling made against someone else because I wasn't involved, yet I rather doubt that's the case here.
If the ruling is against the author and not the website then go after the author, not the website. Can't get ahold of them? Then look harder. They refuse to show? Have the judge issue a bench warrant and/or contempt of court against them.
At no point do you get to say 'well, finding the actual author and making them take down their post is too difficult, so we'll just skip that step'.
You don't get to bypass the protections in the law just because you're too lazy to do it right, and if at the end of the day you still can't get ahold of the person? Tough luck, you're welcome to try your case against the site directly, have fun getting around the law when the site actually has a chance to defend themselves.
Hopefully the CA supreme court reverses or nullifies the earlier ruling, as otherwise they might as well toss out 230 entirely, at least as far as CA is concerned. If you can bypass the protections services have against being held accountable for the posts of their users simply by only involving them at the very end, after any chances for them to object have passed then those protections become completely meaningless and trivial to bypass, to the point that they may as well not exist for all the good they do.
While I'm sure there would be many a lawyer and prosecutor just salivating at the massive opportunities that would open up for them the massive chilling effects such a ruling would have on speech far outweighs their interests in personal gain.
The Police: Join because you want to play god over the lives of those around you, stay because those that want to hold you accountable don't have the power to do so, and those that have the power to hold you accountable don't want to.
1. Studios unfairly discriminate against 'old' actors. 2. Site lists age of actor. 3. Actor complains that having their age listed cost them one or more roles in films. 4. Idiot politicians make it a crime to list the age of the actor, completely ignoring the actual problem.
'Something has been done' without actually addressing the core problem, politics wins again!
Suing the studio that turned her down has a good chance to cause others to avoid her entirely to limit legal problems, whereas suing the site allows her to feel like she's accomplished something without burning any bridges by those that might (be stupid enough to) hire her.
"Let me help you with that. No no, no need to watch what I'm doing..."
Beyond trying to look like they're 'doing something' by 'helping', my second (perhaps tin-foilish) thought was that they're looking for exploits that they themselves can use or pass on to another agency to use.
At this point the gross incompetence the various government agencies have displayed in all things security would have me hesitating to trust them to secure a freakin' lemonade stand, I imagine any company would(or should) be extremely hesitant to let the DHS or any other government anywhere near their code/products.
That person acknowledged the error shortly afterward, they said. But the NSA did not inform the companies of the danger when it first discovered the exposure of the tools, the sources said.
And yet somehow it's the fault of the tech industry that the relationship between it and the government isn't as cozy as the government would like it to be. That the tech companies are to blame for not trusting the government and granting their every request, requests which would of course serve only to benefit them, the government, and especially the public, and could never have any unfortunate downsides or ulterior motives.
Unless the tone when they said it was positively dripping with sarcasm I wonder if whoever said that has any idea that they outed themselves as not only accepting of murdering an innocent person but downright in favor of doing so?
Even more worrying is given they were willing to say it how widespread is that murderous mindset in their area...
Yet another reason to stay far, far away from texas I guess.
Re: Re: Re: The justice system doesn't even use forensics to detect culprits.
Bad enough that he lied, but to make such an ass of himself in front of a 100+ people was hard to believe.
And who exactly is going to call a judge out on a lie, baldfaced or not, in their own courtroom?
When everyone at your 'job' has to suck up to you then I imagine the ego gets just a wee bit swollen, and blatantly lying doesn't seem like much of a problem because even if everyone knows you lied none of them dare say anything about it.
'Should not be' is notably different than 'won't be', and if they felt the need to say it I'd say that's a good indicator that that's not currently the case.
Whether someone intentionally breaks a law or not matters only so far as the judge and/or prosecutor want it to. If they're bound and determined to add another notch to their 'successful prosecutions/plea deals' tally then clearly the person 'should have known'.
"Criminals like that get what they deserve, but that would never happen to me..."
But there will always be people who want to believe that the police keep them safe and are virtuous above reproach.
... right until they're on the receiving end of police abuse of power/lawbreaking, and they look around proclaiming their innocence and wondering why no-one believes them, instead brushing aside their claims of innocence as baseless attempts by a criminal, attempting to tar the good name of the paragons of virtue that are law enforcement.