Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
The idea of clicking to block a comment not because it's spam but because you don't like it (don't agree) is a form of censorship.
It's not censorship. It's just the community showing you they don't necessarily agree with you.
The comment is still there, just subject to a form of tamping down similar to a Trump crowd beating up a Hillary supporter.
Not even close. Your rights are not being violated whatsoever. Nobody is required to provide you an equal platform for your speech.
It stops or limits a form of free speech, that of expressing an opinion people don't like.
It does neither. Your speech is still there. And to be honest, I believe it actually promotes your comment to some degree. I always click on hidden comments just to see why they were hidden.
My comment (number 45 or so in this discussion) was posted on Friday the 18th, but only made visible on the 21st.
Your comment was caught in the spam filter and was released on the first day following a three day weekend. Nothing nefarious there.
My comments are stopped or delayed because those that are in charge don't like them.*
I have to call bullshit on this claim unless to can show some proof, Sparky. If you really want to have less comments get caught, create an account. You can still be as anonymous as you want. But of course, you probably won't do this because your comment history would be available to anyone wanting to point out any hypocrisy between comments you make.
Using the report flag to hide a comment because you don't like it is abusive, stupid, and it really tramps on the free speech of others.*
I will agree that flagging comments just because you disagree with them is a bit childish, but I do not agree it tramps on anyone's free speech at all. The comments are still there and you are still provided a platform to voice your dissenting opinions. Now if Techdirt didn't allow or removed dissenting comments, like say, The Trichodist does, you'd have a valid point.
On that point, the DOJ's argument is more solid: they were using computers hosted in the US. IF (big if) there was a crime committed, the jurisdictional claim in the US makes sense.
Perhaps a little more solid, but still on shaky ground. As Larry Lessig pointed out in his affidavit:
The Superseding Indictment does discuss the existence of Megaupload servers in the United States.... But the mere presence of data servers in Virginia does not establish that direct infringement took place there. See, e.g., CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 549-50 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that direct infringement under the civil standard requires more than “mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies” and that there “must be actual infringing conduct[.]”); Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2008) (direct civil infringement requires “volitional conduct,” not mere ownership of device used by others to infringe).
The Superseding Indictment never states that any specific user, much less any of the criminal defendants, chose to upload or download any specific infringing work from within the United States.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
I think that sites should be in some ways responsible for what appears in their publication. Accepting outside comments and publishing them without review should create some peril.
I, for one, am glad that Congress and the courts don't share your view.
Without protection against liability for third-party comments you would have very few places to share that view and even fewer places to actually have a discussion about it. Comment sections, like this one, would not exist because it wouldn't be worth the risk.
Firstly as Erdogan said- there is no "radical Islam there is only Islam"
Yes, I realize that there is some controversy surrounding the term "radical Islam". I was using it in the colloquial sense of "extremism", not necessarily in the sense of "fundamentalism".
Personally, I am the product of a Catholic father and a Methodist mother and was raised as neither, but was encouraged to explore any and all religions on my own. Having done so in my younger days, I realized that my personal belief system has absolutely nothing to do with groups of people, ornate buildings or ancient texts, but is internal and private. The teachings of Buddha come the closest to my personal beliefs.
I really wish people would quit asking this, like it's some sort of "gotcha" moment. Techdirt writes about a lot of things, most of them related to tech, but not always. If it's a problem for you, find something else to read.
Seriously, do you people post comments at PopeHat.com and ask them what their articles have to do with the Catholic leader's headgear too?
Re: You seem to have forgotten something important...
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons,
Citizens United did no such thing and I wish people would quit repeating this. Corporations have always enjoyed some of the same rights that individuals do, for example the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts. Some individual rights, like the right to vote or the right to marry, corporations will never have.
All Citizens did was to reinforce that groups of like-minded people have First Amendment rights as a group.
Here is how the Brennen Center for Justice puts it:
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations. Source
What he did get a copyright on was the computer code for a program named "EMAIL".
Microsoft holds copyrights and registered trademarks on a lot of software named "Windows", but that doesn't mean Microsoft invented the windows-style GUI at all. Microsoft borrowed the concept from other existing operating systems at the time.
I quickly read through the complaint. I still don't understand what you are referring to as "childish personal attacks" myself, but whatever.
I did find this bit amusing though:
These statements also resulted in a wave of efforts by others to discredit Dr. Ayyadurai and erase him from the history of electronic communications, attacks on Wikipedia that remove reference to his contribution,...
So Techdirt's articles created a "wave of efforts by others to discredit Dr. Ayyadurai". Of course, none of that was caused by Ayyadurai's own actions, right? Techdirt's influence on the greater internet is simply amazing!
And this part: "attacks on Wikipedia that remove reference to his contribution" is really good too. Techdirt has somehow brainwashed all the independent editors at Wikipedia, instead of them simply fact-checking entries like they always do. Funny stuff.
The same constitutional rights that protect techdirt's first amendment claim are also the same constitutional rights that can penalize sites like techdirt from running articles without backing up its information.
What the heck are you talking about here? The Constitution doesn't penalize, it enumerates the unalienable rights of the people and defines how the government is to be kept from infringing those rights.
Far too often I see techdirt running articles that are first posted by other sites, quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from.
This is why I have policies set in place on my site that prevent registered members from posting messages without any sources or research.
Umm, yeah. This isn't a news site, it's an opinion blog. Kind of hard to give an opinion on something without giving background first.
Unfortunately, techdirt could lose just from the attrition of this lawsuit.
Well yeah. As Mike stated in the article, this lawsuit might bankrupt them. What is your point?