btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:30pm

    Re: hmmm

    UPDATE: 11/5/18

    The Tanzanian government says it does not back Regional Commissioner Paul Makonda's massive crackdown on gay citizens. Stating that it "does not represent" government policy, reports BBC Africa.

    "Mr Makonda was only airing his personal opinion," rather than government policy, said the government in a statement. Adding that the government would "continue to respect and uphold all human rights as provided for in the country's constitution."

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Alleged is not Guilt

    > How can a crime be a crime if there hasn't been a court
    > case? Crimes require a person be charged, tried, and
    > convicted.

    So according to your criteria, the assassination of President Kennedy was not a crime.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:17pm

    Re:

    > Accusations are not proof of guilt.

    Judge Kavanaugh, is that you?

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re:

    > Fess up, you did not want to pay a third time, and you
    > are complaining you got caught.

    Why the fuck should he pay a *third* time for the same goddam thing?

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: from the be-consistent dept

    > One is the specific place you are speaking, one is an
    > entire method of speaking.

    "Method of speaking" has nothing to do with 1st Amendment analysis. It's not a consideration under 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

    Is the censor a government actor?

    Yes--> 1st Amendment applies

    No--> 1st Amendment doesn't apply

    > If a person gets kicked off AT&T and no longer had access
    > anywhere online, that's infringing.

    No, it's not.

    Is AT&T a government actor?

    No--> 1st Amendment doesn't apply

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Not an essential service.

    > The UN declared internet access a human right in 2011.

    The UN has no authority to regulate or direct how things work in U.S. society.

    Thank god.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: from the be-consistent dept

    > I can live without FB & Twitter. These are optional.
    > Internet service is not anymore.

    "Optionality" has nothing to do with 1st Amendment analysis. It's not a consideration under 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

    Is the censor a government actor?

    Yes--> 1st Amendment applies

    No--> 1st Amendment doesn't apply

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: from the be-consistent dept

    > "Banned from Twitter" is banned from a specific portion
    > of the internet. Since you can still go onto IG,
    > Facebook, etc. etc., it's not as big a deal as "banned
    > from the internet itself."

    "How big a deal it is" has nothing to do with 1st Amendment analysis. It's not a consideration under 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

    Is the censor a government actor?

    Yes--> 1st Amendment applies

    No--> 1st Amendment doesn't apply

    > In the case of ISP internet cut-off with the reason for
    > it occurring stemming from copyright _law_, that can,
    > yes, run up against 1st amendment violations because the
    > ultimate source of the ban stems from government.

    A position which is supported nowhere in 1st Amendment SCOTUS precedent or U.S. statutory law.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re: from the be-consistent dept

    > Twitter/Facebook are easily replaceable, ISPs in the US
    > are not.

    "Ease of replaceability" has nothing to do with 1st Amendment analysis. It's not a consideration under 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

  • Nov 8th, 2018 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!

    > Police are required to take a test once a year to prove
    > they can use a gun properly

    I'm required to qualify four times a year.

    > but the difficulty level is set so low that it's not
    > unusual for cops to hit with only one bullet out of
    > TWENTY when actually using their guns outside of a target
    > range.

    Our minimum passing score is 290 out of 300. It's a 60-round course of fire out to 25 yards, so that means 50 of them have to hit the 10-ring.

    > And they're allowed to keep trying the test over and over
    > at taxpayer expense until they pass.

    The taxpayer expense is hardly significant here. What's the going rate for 60 bullets? And no, we don't get to keep trying over and over. We get two tries. If you don't qualify on the second try, you're administratively benched until you complete remedial training.

    > Police are exempted from almost every state gun control
    > law, from assault weapon bans to magazine limits to being
    > allowed to carry guns in places any non-cop is prohibited
    > from doing so.

    Makes sense. It would be kinda stupid, for example, to keep the Secret Service from carrying their weapons in the White House just because non-cops are prohibited from doing so.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 12:31pm

    Re:

    > Prior restraint, Fire in a crowded theater, civil rights
    > violations, retaliatory litigation to silence a critic.

    You forgot RICO.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > They are also likely both purveyors of similar places
    > like Walmart.

    That's silly. Shopping at the same department store doesn't give one of them authority over the other.

    The judge being a member of the city attorney's stake does give the city attorney substantial influence over the judge. In the LDS religion going against one's stake president is seen as an affront to god.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:57am

    Re: Another failing

    Or what happens if you already have a gun, then go on a racist rant on Twitter?

    Does that mean the cops can come confiscate?

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:53am

    Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!

    > Would potential gun buyers be forced to relinquish
    > account info and passwords to ensure law enforcement is
    > able to see everything purchasers have posted?

    And what if you don't use social media? Not everyone does. Is the government going to believe you when you put N/A on the form under "List all your social media accounts"?

    Or is not participating in social going to be automatically deemed a red flag? Almost everyone does participate, so if you don't there must either be something mentally or socially wrong with you, or you're avoiding using social media (or closed your accounts) in anticipation of buying a gun, so you're trying to hide something from the authorities.

    > One of the main aims is to identify any hate speech
    > shared by the users

    Just wanted to reiterate that what is commonly referred to as 'hate speech' is in reality constitutionally protected speech, and there's no f'n way any court will allow the government to justify denying 2nd Amendment rights to someone for exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re:

    Oh, look! Europe has gone back to blasphemy laws. How very 12th century of them.

    One immediately wonders, however, if this is a universal law that will hold Muslims accountable for defaming the Christian and Jewish religions also.

    I have a sneaking suspicion not; this'll be another of those "it only works one way" type of things.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 2:20pm

    Re: The real problem

    > No one seems to have addressed why our government is
    > sticking their nose in this in the first place by funding
    > these sting operations be it speed, or what ever?

    I agree. Traffic enforcement is a state and local concern. The federal government has no business butting into it, even if only in the form of a grant.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Perverse incentives.

    > A fine that cannot be evaded is a tax or a toll

    Ummm... you can avoid this fine easily enough by not futzing around on your phone while driving.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    I drive an unmarked official car. Looks like a normal black Ford Explorer but has hidden grill and window lights and a siren.

    One of the ways I entertain myself on my commute is to watch for people on their cell phones while stopped at intersections and if they don't put them down when the light turns green, I bloop the siren and lights and point at them. It's hilarious watching their panicked reactions as they drop their phones like a hot potato.

    Unfortunately I don't have jurisdiction to enforce the state traffic code, so I can't pull them over and cite them or anything. Still, they don't know that and it teaches them a lesson that you never know who is watching when you're committing your crime.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Frankly, I think the signs might have added to the
    > distracted driving thingy.

    If a roadside sign counts as a distraction with regard to driving, then billboards and every kind of business signage would be illegal.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Look and Learn

    This reminds me of a case in Austin back in the late 80's when I was going to college there.

    Cops had set up a speed trap on the freeway behind some trees. Guy drives past, sees the cops set up, and exits the freeway, goes back the other way and essentially does what the guy in this story did-- made himself a sign that warned approaching motorists of a SPEED TRAP AHEAD - THEY'RE BEHIND THE TREES.

    It wasn't long before the cops realized what was going on and arrested the guy for obstruction of justice. (This was long before cell phones, so there was no filming of the arrest.)

    Unlike this case, the prosecutor went with it but the judge was hopping mad and dismissed the charge instantly. He told the cops and the D.A. that it's legally impossible to obstruct justice by merely encouraging people to obey the law. That's promoting justice, not obstructing it. Plus, you know, 1st Amendment and all. He threatened to report the D.A. to the state bar for bringing a case that any lawyer ought to know was legally insufficient on its face.

    Don't know if the dude ended up suing anyone civilly over it, but it sounds like he had a decent case for it.

More comments from btr1701 >>