The district attorney did not receive fair notice of what constitutes libel? Wasn't four years of law school sufficient notice? This is nothing more than lawyers protecting other lawyers here.
So Citizens United tells us that spending money is a form of speech. So not spending money is a form of silence. Is this judge saying that we don't have the right to not speak? More broadly, we see this all the time, where the right frequently insists that we spend our money in certain ways, which is now a form of compelling speech.
You may be right Thad, but just to respond to Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice masquerading as stupidity. Because there's a lot of that going around these days.
This article doesn't really attack forfeiture the way we'd like it to. Presumably these houses were bought at auctions which were advertised and to which the public was invited. So out of thousands of houses sold over the years, a handful going to policemen seems normal actually.
Verizon got what they wanted when they bought Tumblr: knowledge of each and every person's kinks. So now why would they need Tumblr anymore? Want to run for Congress? Better not cross Verizon! Oh, and the Russians probably got all that too when they hacked Yahoo.
Well, maybe not, but who knows? I'd sure rather it wasn't even a possibility.
This is really good and I eagerly await the other parts.
To individuals or small businesses, the industry behemoths might as well be the government because (1) they are orders of magnitude larger, (2) we can rarely say no, and (3) we have little to no direct influence over them.
From The Guardian: "Six4Three alleges the cache shows Facebook was not only aware of the implications of its privacy policy, but actively exploited them, intentionally creating and effectively flagging up the loophole that Cambridge Analytica used to collect data."
There's your tech dirt, and the reason I posted the link to the insider chat.
"It was reported here last week that, in 2012, Vance ordered his prosecutors to drop a promising criminal-fraud investigation against Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., who were suspected of misleading potential buyers of condos in the Trump SoHo building; the order came after their father’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, paid Vance a visit. Soon after Vance’s office dropped the investigation, Kasowitz donated and raised a combined total of more than fifty thousand dollars for Vance’s reëlection campaign."
Well, I'm assuming that because the investigation is sensitive that means there is an investigation. Of course, not by Trump but it's happening!
I guess when you are a whistle blower you just better know what you are talking about, like Snowden was. Even if you're right it will blow back hard on you, but if you are wrong, well, then you threw your life away for almost nothing.
How can you write an article about Pam Bondi, and even mention the Ethics Commission, and not mention how she called off her investigation into Trump University just as she received $25,000 from Trump? Set the stage with that, so people know the kind of person you are talking about. Bring the context! Then we'll understand better how much credence to lend her ideas.
(You're usually pretty good about the context actually, so good in fact that's what made this article stand out.)
In cases of prosecutorial misconduct, the most fitting penalty is for the prosecutors to receive a sentence equal to the sentence that the defendant would have received.
I actually think that embedding is not identical to linking. With linking, the user has to take an action to see the content, ie, click the link. They can decide not to follow the link. With embedding, they have taken no overt action and are seeing it as a result of the embedding website's action. The whole point of embedding is to make the content blend more seamlessly into the embedder's web page.
Embedding is also not a core technology of the internet and eliminating embedding won't destroy the net. It is just a convenience.
(untitled comment)
I don't know what UAE has to do with Jamal Khashoggi. It was Saudi Arabia's MBS ("Mohammed Bone Saw") who murdered Khashoggi.
Other than that, a fine article sir.
(untitled comment)
fair notice
The district attorney did not receive fair notice of what constitutes libel? Wasn't four years of law school sufficient notice? This is nothing more than lawyers protecting other lawyers here.
(untitled comment)
So Citizens United tells us that spending money is a form of speech. So not spending money is a form of silence. Is this judge saying that we don't have the right to not speak? More broadly, we see this all the time, where the right frequently insists that we spend our money in certain ways, which is now a form of compelling speech.
(untitled comment)
What a bunch of asos.
Re: Re:
You may be right Thad, but just to respond to Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice masquerading as stupidity.
Because there's a lot of that going around these days.
(untitled comment)
This article doesn't really attack forfeiture the way we'd like it to. Presumably these houses were bought at auctions which were advertised and to which the public was invited. So out of thousands of houses sold over the years, a handful going to policemen seems normal actually.
(untitled comment)
Verizon got what they wanted when they bought Tumblr: knowledge of each and every person's kinks. So now why would they need Tumblr anymore? Want to run for Congress? Better not cross Verizon! Oh, and the Russians probably got all that too when they hacked Yahoo.
Well, maybe not, but who knows? I'd sure rather it wasn't even a possibility.
Re: Dear Verizon...
Yeah! As I like to say, "Stay in your lane." But they never do.
(untitled comment)
Here's another one, with a better payload:
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1041168209074941952
(untitled comment)
This is really good and I eagerly await the other parts.
To individuals or small businesses, the industry behemoths might as well be the government because (1) they are orders of magnitude larger, (2) we can rarely say no, and (3) we have little to no direct influence over them.
(untitled comment)
From The Guardian: "Six4Three alleges the cache shows Facebook was not only aware of the implications of its privacy policy, but actively exploited them, intentionally creating and effectively flagging up the loophole that Cambridge Analytica used to collect data."
There's your tech dirt, and the reason I posted the link to the insider chat.
(untitled comment)
"It was reported here last week that, in 2012, Vance ordered his prosecutors to drop a promising criminal-fraud investigation against Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., who were suspected of misleading potential buyers of condos in the Trump SoHo building; the order came after their father’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, paid Vance a visit. Soon after Vance’s office dropped the investigation, Kasowitz donated and raised a combined total of more than fifty thousand dollars for Vance’s reëlection campaign."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecute-the- trumps-or-harvey-weinstein
(untitled comment)
"pathological liar and his oligarch cronies" applies to Trump and Greenwald.
Re: Re: Denials everywhere...
Came here to say this.
Re: Re:
Well, I'm assuming that because the investigation is sensitive that means there is an investigation. Of course, not by Trump but it's happening!
I guess when you are a whistle blower you just better know what you are talking about, like Snowden was. Even if you're right it will blow back hard on you, but if you are wrong, well, then you threw your life away for almost nothing.
(untitled comment)
How can you write an article about Pam Bondi, and even mention the Ethics Commission, and not mention how she called off her investigation into Trump University just as she received $25,000 from Trump? Set the stage with that, so people know the kind of person you are talking about. Bring the context! Then we'll understand better how much credence to lend her ideas.
(You're usually pretty good about the context actually, so good in fact that's what made this article stand out.)
Re:
There is an xkcd for everything.
(untitled comment)
In cases of prosecutorial misconduct, the most fitting penalty is for the prosecutors to receive a sentence equal to the sentence that the defendant would have received.
(untitled comment)
Yesterday: We must give this K9 officer a full police burial for being killed in the line of duty.
https://www.today.com/pets/police-dog-buried-full-honors-after-dying-line-duty-1D80117522
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2gDGQ2DaDw
https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/police-do g-funeral/
Tomorrow: We don't need these dogs anymore so we're just gonna kill them.
(untitled comment)
I actually think that embedding is not identical to linking. With linking, the user has to take an action to see the content, ie, click the link. They can decide not to follow the link. With embedding, they have taken no overt action and are seeing it as a result of the embedding website's action. The whole point of embedding is to make the content blend more seamlessly into the embedder's web page.
Embedding is also not a core technology of the internet and eliminating embedding won't destroy the net. It is just a convenience.