btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 11:39am

    Good News

    Well, the good news is that this fraud and the commission's determination to push forward and ignore it will serve as more than adequate grounds to challenge the vote and for a court to issue an injunction on its enforcement.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: whataboutism: role reversal

    > especially if it's filmed on private property

    Screw the post-raid releases. What right to do private, non-governmental entities have to be on the property in the first place?

    This is something I've always wondered about shows like COPS, where the cameras follow the officers in real time as they enter people's homes. The cops may have the legal right to be there given the circumstances, but there is no set of circumstances that gives employees of a TV company the right to enter my home without my permission, nor does the government have the legal authority to give other private parties the right to enter my home without my permission.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 11:24am

    Re: It isn't

    > There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make a
    > gun safe able to connect to any kind of device, anywhere
    > for any reason.

    I agree. I don't even like my own gun safe's electronic lock. Every time I go to open it, the battery is dead and needs to be replaced, so in terms of quick access, I don't recommend anything electronic. Good old fashioned lock and key or combination is the way to go.

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 3:24pm


    SILICON VALLEY is to the tech industry what ENTOURAGE was to the entertainment industry.

  • Dec 7th, 2017 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Civil Lawsuit

    Seems like this would implicate the 1st Amendment as well as the 4th Amendment. Masturbation is a sexual act and many people have religious beliefs about when and where it's appropriate to perform a sexual act. Requiring the kid to do this may violate his religious beliefs, which is a 1st Amendment issue as well.

  • Dec 6th, 2017 @ 3:41pm

    Re: I can see it

    > I mean what possible reason could a prosecutor, three
    > judges and the police involved possibly have had to think
    > that forcing a teen masturbate on camera, something that
    > would be blatantly illegal if anyone without a badge had
    > done it and would have gotten the perpetrator a guilty
    > verdict in record time, would be wrong?

    What possible reason did any of them have to think it would even work? Leaving aside all the legal and moral problems, who the hell outside of a professional porn actor could get it up under those circumstances?

    And honestly, if you're subject to one of these orders, it's not like you can be charged with contempt for failure to become sexually aroused, so to hell with them all.

  • Oct 25th, 2017 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Timely subject

    I do a lot of work with music notation software and I can't begin to imagine how annoying it would be to try and do that work on an iPad or other tablet. And a smartphone? Practically impossible.

    I suppose you might be able to hook your portable device up to a keyboard, a mouse, a giant landscape monitor and a MIDI keyboard through a series of adapters and Bluetooth tech or other wireless tech, but why bother when a desktop computer will do all that nicely and much more efficiently right out of the box?

  • Oct 21st, 2017 @ 9:11am


    Dax Shepherd joked on the ELLEN Show yesterday with regard to his kids that "we have a 2013 model and a 2015 model with low mileage, for anyone looking for a deal".

    How much you wanna bet no case worker shows up to interview him and Kristen Bell?

    Not only is this crap ridiculous, it's also unevenly applied only to people who can't fight back.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: 1st Amendment

    > News flash... you don't have free speech. Go and say
    > something the government has said you are not allowed to
    > say, especially something from a classified document.

    News flash... the NY Times did exactly that in the Pentagon Papers case and won.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 2:15pm


    Sounds like all they need to do to make this legal is get cuffs with a longer chain between the bracelets.

    Sometimes physically violent kids *do* need to be cuffed, and if their wrists and hands are too small, above the elbows seems valid, so long as the chain is extended to prevent hyperextension of the arms.

    Or they could use two sets of cuffs, hooking one bracelet of each set to each arm and looping the other empty bracelets together.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 12:33pm

    1st Amendment

    > it's clear that the type of speech that SESTA will carve
    > out from Section 230's protection will go far beyond the
    > situations the bill originally contemplated. Platforms
    > will either have to presumptively censor all such online
    > speech, or risk prosecution by any government or state
    > entity with different views on immigration policy.

    Just because it's carved out of 230 doesn't mean it's carved out of the 1st Amendment. Any prosecution for merely discussing sanctuary cities or being pro-illegal immigrant would clearly violate about 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence and would fail miserably. It's not even a close call. So the "But censorship!" hand-wringing is a bit premature and overblown.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 12:17pm


    > Justice dropped its request for the names of an estimated
    > 6,000 people who “liked” a Facebook page about an
    > Inauguration Day protest

    Also, the government (and everyone else) needs to get past this idea that "liking" something on these social media platforms actually means you like or support it.

    Just because Facebook or Twitter calls the feature "like" doesn't mean that's how people are using it. I use the Twitter feature like a bookmark. If it's something I anticipate I might want to find again, or if it links to article I don't have time to read now but want to come back to later, I hit the little "like" button, which tags it so that it's easily findable again. It doesn't mean I actually like or support whatever was in that posting.

    But even if it did mean like or support, that's still no business of the government's since the 1st Amendment gives me the right to like whatever I want and the right to publicize it to the world.

  • Oct 14th, 2017 @ 1:55pm

    Re: No Joke, Serious Question

    Rather than type out a lengthy treatise on U.S. defamation law here, I'll refer you to the following, which describes defamation law, how it intersects with free speech, and what the specific legal requirements are in the U.S.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 2:40pm

    Two Courts Said the Exact Same Thing?

    Masnick first quotes Posner's ruling in the case, then later in the article he quotes from the Molinari case, and both quotes are word-for-word duplicates of each other.

    Did both courts in different circuits not only reach the exact same conclusion, but also, against all odds, do so by writing the exact same opinion, verbatim?

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 2:32pm

    Re: NBC is not a "private person",



    I can say the earth is flat or that the moon landing was faked in a Hollywood soundstage and it doesn't matter how false those statements are. They are protected speech.

  • Oct 11th, 2017 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: A Government of the Criminal for the Criminal by the Criminal

    > Wait, if we end the Fed, where do you expect them to get
    > the money for the wall?

    This country managed to function just fine for many years before the Federal Reserve was created.

  • Oct 11th, 2017 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Pick and Choose

    It's not just the president who gets the double-standard treatment.

    Conservative commentators like Dana Loesch routinely receive the most vile of death and rape threats, which when reported to Twitter, are met with "Meh. Not a violation of our community standards". Yet those same conservatives often find themselves suspended/muted over far more innocuous (but anti-left) remarks or over nonsense like "failing to use someone's preferred pronouns".

  • Sep 29th, 2017 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re: Screening

    > If you're going to be pedantic, "American" refers to the
    > inhabitants of two continents

    I'm not being pedantic, I'm being accurate, especially in a time when it seems to have become de rigeur to treat anyone with even a passing brush with the United States as entitled to all rights and benefits of citizenship.

    "American" in this context refers to the United States. In that context, permanent residents, visa applicants, and visitors are not Americans.

  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re:

    > Why should I feed 60 minutes and other shows ratings that
    > I don't watch just because CBS is too incompetent to stop
    > sports from screwing up their schedule every Sunday night?

    Unless you have a Nielsen box on top of your TV, you're not affecting the ratings one way or the other regardless of what you do.

  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 1:13pm


    > (and that was with the first two episodes being aired on
    > broadcast before the real exclusivity period kicks in)

    No, they only aired the first episode. The second and third were streaming-only.

More comments from btr1701 >>