btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 3:45pm


    I routinely see people put "Retweets do not imply endorsement" in their Twitter profiles.

    I wonder if that would be enough to rebut a defamation claim under these circumstances.

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 3:41pm

    Re: More Interestingly...

    > If Doe had had child porn (or any of the other 10
    > occupants) this could lead to the evidence being tossed
    > out in court.

    Apparently not. The 8th Circuit says this kind of search is just fine, so the evidence would not be suppressed.

    However, if the CP was found on a 'community computer', i.e., a computer in a common area accessible to anyone, the prosecution would have a hell of a time proving beyond a reasonable doubt whose CP it was out of the eleven people in the home.

    The government has gotten around this annoying problem in drug cases by just presuming that everyone in a residence or vehicle where drugs are found are in possession of them. This shifts the burden of proof to each defendant who has to rebut the presumption with 'clear and convincing' evidence or the presumption stands and the drugs are legally his whether they actually were or not.

    Surprised they're not doing this with CP yet: "Well, you all live in a house where CP was found on a computer so everyone here is presumed to be in possession of it unless you can prove otherwise."

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > It may not be a legal obligation

    Then it's not a duty, since that's what a duty is.

  • May 27th, 2017 @ 10:25am


    > His duty is to make sure everyone else makes it home safe, even if it
    > costs him his life.

    That's simply wrong. There is no legal obligation (i.e., duty) for anyone to die to keep you safe, cop or not.

  • May 27th, 2017 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm

    > let's do more to attract and train the best and the brightest in the police

    Oh, we can't do that. That's racist.

    For example, used to be there was a requirement that Houston police officers had to have a college degree to qualify. The usual rabble rousers... ear, I mean community organizers, decried that requirement as racist because it kept minorities from qualifying to be police.

    So the city scrapped it. Now all you need is a high school diploma or a GED to be a cop.

    And guess what happened? Police shootings went up, community complaints against cops went up, and case dismissals due to poor arrest/evidence practices went up.

    But hey, at least we're 'diverse' now. That's priority number one, right?

  • May 16th, 2017 @ 12:05pm


    > Anyone who wants to lock information of any sort away
    > from the public is not needed in this world.

    So according to your standards, I have a right to know all the details of your finances. All your personal medical information. All the details of your private life-- who you have sex with, and how often, and in what positions-- because that's information and you don't want to be a hypocrite and lock it away from the public, right?

    And if you do want to keep that information private, then you're not needed in this world. Again, your standards.

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > They were used both before and since, becoming a
    > widespread practice during the Bush Jr.

    Only to the extend that the court challenges filed during the waning years of the Clinton term hadn't been fully adjudicated at that point. Once the courts ruled that free speech zones are unconstitutional, they were done away with.

    > Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit.

    As if it's any greater than the rest of the folks here. The only difference is that you agree with the bias of the majority of the commenters here. I sure don't see you calling them out for it the way you did me.

    > Enjoy your Two Minutes' Hate.

    Now whose bias is showing?

    Having a differing political viewpoint or disagreeing with someone's political position is not 'hate'. I said nothing hateful in my post. I merely took a political/philosophical position with which you disagree.

    I'm sorry if I triggered you, but labeling everything you don't like and don't want to hear as 'hate' makes your bias obvious and does you no credit.

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Plus, if an evacuation ingress and egress route is for
    > emergency use only, then why is the elected official
    > using it?

    The Secret Service keeps ingress and egress routes clear in case *they* have an emergency and need to quickly and safely evacuate the protectee. The emergency routes are set up *for* the protectee.

    (And neither of the protectees in this case were elected officials, so I don't even know why you brought that up.)

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Yeah, that excuse smells of desperation.

    For all definitions of 'desperation' equal to standard operating procedure, sure.

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > The incident is clearly described as having taken place
    > in a hallway, not an emergency exit doorway or staircase.

    And what leads to emergency exits and stairs?

    Yep, hallways.

  • May 12th, 2017 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re:

    > I wonder what has to happen for his actions to cross the
    > line into conspiracy at this point.

    Quite a bit, actually. In order for a conspiracy charge to apply, the underlying action about which people are conspiring has to be illegal, also. In this case, there's nothing illegal about negotiating the removal of a news article from a web archive. It's shitty and morally dubious behavior, but it's not illegal, so conspiring to do it isn't illegal, either.

    Just like it's not illegal for you and your spouse to conspire about which movie to see this weekend.

  • May 12th, 2017 @ 7:56am


    I agree with the article about how crappy this behavior is, but I've always wondered, how do people even notice when something like this happens?

    If a site alters or disappears a recently-published article about something that's currently in the news and is being paid attention to by a lot of people, I get it.

    But a 2-year-old article in a website archive about something that everyone has mostly forgotten about quietly disappears and someone other than the parties involved notices that? Do news organizations have automated systems that scan media sites alert when something like that happens? 'Cause it seems unlikely that anyone would notice by random chance.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 7:50pm


    > FB faces a very simple problem. If they want to offer service in every country in
    > the world then they must comply with the local laws.

    No, they don't. They only have to comply with local laws if they have a phyisical presence in that locality.

    Merely putting up a website doesn't subject one to the laws of every country on earth merely because people in those countries can see one's website.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 7:47pm

    Re: Re:

    > While Facebook certainly could leave Austria, If there is nothing in the EU
    > laws that would prevent it, I can't think of anything that would stop Austria
    > from saying "companies operating a platform in Austria cannot host content
    > illegal in Austria, including what we define as hate Speech" other than
    > countries should properly limit their laws from having such an effect.

    I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that Austria has some kind of legal authority over anyone whose website is accessible in Austria?

    'Cause that's simply not the case. Unless a person or company has a physical presence in Austria (offices, servers, etc.), Austria has no legal authority over them whatsoever. So if Facebook shut down whatever offices it has there, they don't have to obey any Austrian laws or court rulings. The only recourse Austria would have would be to block access to Facebook by anyone inside Austria-- a move that would probably be *very* unpopular among the Austrian people.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re:

    > That would raise the question of *why* the hallway would
    > be closed to public and press.

    That's pretty routine. Backstage areas, ingress and egress routes, are all kept clear and sterile in case of the need for evacuation.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 10:51am


    Facebook needs to shut down its physical presence in Austria and leave immediately, then refuse to comply with this nonsense. Let the Austrian government block access to Facebook within its borders if it thinks it can politically survive that kind of move.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re:

    (Oops, hit 'send' to soon.)

    Haven't been used since - except on college campuses where it's actually the supposed 'progressives'-- the leftists-- who insist on trying to relegate free speech to specific zones and areas on campus.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re:

    > Its nice we have free speech zones & laws they can use to
    > silence critics.

    We actually don't have those. Free speech zones were implemented under the Clinton/Gore administration, specifically at the DNC in Los Angeles, and were found unconstitutional by the court. Haven't been used since.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 8:53am

    (untitled comment)

    > ...that he was "aggressively breaching the Secret Service
    > agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond
    > ordinary questioning happened:

    > Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for
    > the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's
    > group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was
    > racing after them.

    But was the hallway closed to public and press? If the USSS closed down that area as part of the secure perimeter and this guy decided to ignore it, then he breached security, which is a violation of 18 USC 1752.

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: No Hidden Agenda here!

    The entire premise of this case is among the most absurd lawsuits ever brought in court for a number of reasons:

    1. For decades upon decades, the courts have been clear that the right to exclude is plenary and entirely the political branches' prerogative. The courts have no power to second-guess any decision-- and that is settled law.

    2. No less than seven federal statutes grant the president full power to bar entry to aliens, even those who have already received visas. In fact, one of the laws, 8 U.S. Code §1201(h)(i), which passed the Senate 96-2 in 2004, explicitly stripped the courts of any jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation of visas for anyone seeking entry into the country.

    3. A foreign national has no legitimate standing to challenge federal immigration laws or national sovereignty.

    4. Shockingly, the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the travel ban are refugee resettlement contractors who were given standing to sue on the grounds that they are supposedly entitled to taxpayer funding and that a refugee moratorium would hurt their business!

    5. Even if foreign nationals could obtain standing through U.S. relatives, this case is not ripe because it assails the president's policies on *future* immigration. Thus there is no valid case or controversy with injury-in-fact.

    6. The notion that a district judge could issue a nationwide injunction outside the specific case before him/her which sets a national immigration policy is bonkers.

    7. The district judge used political statements as the foundation of his legal argument, which should scare anyone who thinks upholding jurisprudential standards, where judicial decisions are based in law, is important.

    8. The entire premise that the Establishment Clause grants foreign nationals a religious liberty right to immigrate (but it supposedly doesn't grant conscience and property rights to actual Americans citizens of faith) is preposterous. Nor is there any Equal Protection or Due Process right. As the Supreme Court said in Ju Toy v. United States (1905):

    "That Congress may exclude aliens of a particular race
    from the United States, prescribe the terms and
    conditions upon which certain classes of aliens may
    come to this country, establish regulations for sending
    out of the country such aliens as come here in
    violation of law, and commit the enforcement of such
    provisions, conditions, and regulations exclusively to
    executive officers, without judicial intervention are
    principles firmly established by the decisions of this

    Two years prior, in the "Japanese Immigrant Case", the court used the exact same language and declared that, based on an uninterrupted stream of near-unanimous decisions, the constitutionality of such an exclusion "is no longer open to discussion in this Court."

    9. Even if we agreed to this absurd and dangerous premise that there are anti-discrimination limitations on national sovereignty, a premise these current district courts have apparently accepted as gospel, there is no discrimination here. The moratorium on refugees is applied equally to every nation, and the six countries targeted for suspension of visas are enemy or failed states. The largest Muslim nations are not even on the list.

    10. In addition to being covered and even mandated by statute, the right to exclude is inherent in the president’s Article II powers. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court (Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950):

    "When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the
    admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a
    legislative power. It is implementing an inherent
    executive power.

    Thus, the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may
    be lawfully placed with the president, who may, in
    turn, delegate the carrying out of this function to a
    responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as
    the Attorney General. The action of the executive
    officer under such authority is final and conclusive.
    Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of
    persons who have already gained entry into the United
    States, it is not within the province of any court,
    unless expressly authorized by law, to review the
    determination of the political branch of the Government
    to exclude a given alien."

More comments from btr1701 >>