This is really quite an amazing comment. First you assume that the committee that commissioned the investigation didn't bother reading it, then you assume that it's both incorrect and motivated entirely by partisan politics, then you take your first assumption as a given and moralize about how much worse than Cheney not reading the report Feinstein not having read the report is.
(And, uh, why would a "political hackjob" about Bush reveal that the CIA lied to Bush about both the scope and the effectiveness of their torture? Why would the CIA hack into, lie about hacking into, and then eventually admit to hacking into the computers of the investigatory committee if the investigation was without merit and transparently political hackery?)
Looking through the torture report, there's an interesting euphemism for lying: "This statement is incongruent with internal CIA documents." Forty-two statements are said to be incongruent with internal CIA documents.
He stole intellectual property? You mean, the people who produced the movie don't have copies or masters of it anymore, and now they can't distribute it anywhere because their copies of it are gone? Because otherwise, "stole" is a word that doesn't seem like it could possibly apply to intellectual property.
It is remarkable how wrong you are. Public schools are not allowed to restrict the first amendment activities of their students, except for very narrowly tailored time and place restrictions. Many schools have been sued and lost over less than this curtailment of students' right to petition their government and to peaceably assemble.
Then you lack reading comprehension skills. The letter is from a FOIA denial officer to the tweeter, denying her request... and the letter notes, in its signature block, that the denial itself may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
My character appeared in my book The 0th Dimension, written in 2003 and published in 2007 by FurNation, and published again by Double Dragon Publishing in 2012. ... There appears to be a copyright notice dated year 2000
So he's suing for infringement on something published seven years before his own book?
It is not censorship when a private party removes posts on his own website. You have no inalienable right to be heard on a particular person's website, just as you have no right to shout anything you want in someone's living room, and they have every right to ask you (or force you) to leave.
Which is to say: Steam's policy is (maybe has always been; I'm not sure) that even if they ban your account you will still have access to all of the games you owned under it; you just won't be able to add new games you purchase to the account.
"Still, he apparently believes that using Adbblock is very, very naughty, you should feel horrible, and if you want to get back on the right side of morality you should send him toys (he provides a handy link to his Amazon wishlist)."
That is a complete misrepresentation of the video and not supported by video itself.
In the video Jim says that yeah, he's fine with adblock, and he understands why people use it. He says he personally would appreciate users whitelisting the site, but he knows that what he's asking -- them sacrificing their own experience for his gain, with no tangible benefit to them -- is quite a lot, and that he blames nobody and casts no judgement on those who have adblock.
For the people who use adblock because the ads on the Escapist are so horrible and obnoxious, but who for some reason /do/ feel guilty about it, he mentions alternate ways of supporting him without making your browsing experience worse.
There is no shaming, no calling of naughtiness, and the only people he seems angry towards are those who demand he modify his show to their needs while they brag about adblocking his site. One such conversation prompted him to make the video.
I'm not big on calling people sensationalist, but you were pretty damn dishonest.
[T]hat whole freedom of speech thing protects such asshattery. But it's a good thing it also protects the creative reviewers of Gary's establishment.
He's saying there is no problem here, except the restaurant owner is an asshole, he delights at the creative responses some people have made to the restaurant owner's assholery, and he disapproves of the restaurant owner, which is also protected speech.