btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How in the world did the pilgrims survive without all the wondrous up your bum surveillance bullshit?

    Not really the best analogy. Most of those early settlers were heavily religious communities in which everyone knew everyone else's business and behavior was tightly controlled.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:03am

    (untitled comment)

    This technology also allows people to be tracked without consent.

    And yet CA is proceeding apace to turn every freeway and major thoroughfare into an Orwellian fantasyland where every car is tracked, logged, and photographed everywhere you go in the state.

    Seems like a rather schizophrenic approach to personal privacy and concerns about tracking people without consent.

  • Sep 19th, 2019 @ 12:28am

    Re: Re: "Our Cops are for Sucking, Dammit!"

    One could ask you to repeat that in English instead of Klingon or whatever you're speaking.

  • Sep 18th, 2019 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If it's civil, they can bring it themselves. Criminal charges can only be brought by the district attorney.

  • Sep 18th, 2019 @ 12:33pm

    "Our Sidewalks are for Vagrants, Dammit!"

    Apt or not, the stencils, created using a spray-paint-like chalk, are illegal, according to Rachel Gordon, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Works.

    “That’s not the use of the sidewalks,” she said.

    No, of course not! The proper use for sidewalks in San Francisco is for vagrants to block them completely with tents and mountains of garbage, lounge around on them injecting heroin and spreading medieval diseases, and pooping and peeing all over them.

    Sweet Jeezus, for the city to collectively clutch its pearls over some chalk-paint which will wash or fade away within a week or so when they routinely tolerate behavior that's both far more disgusting and an actual threat to public health has got to win the Internet Irony Award of the week.

  • Sep 16th, 2019 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They had the federal civil case for violation of the Constitution tossed. They can still sue under state law. There's no qualified immunity for police violation of the grand larceny statute in my state.

  • Sep 16th, 2019 @ 3:37pm

    Re:

    The way the article is written makes it sound like the plaintiff/victims are just shot out of luck, but the victims of the theft can still press felony criminal charges against the cops for violation of the penal code prohibiting grand larceny and sue them civilly under state law.

    Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's not illegal.

  • Sep 11th, 2019 @ 2:29pm

    Re:

    The distinction for me is the constituency part. I don't expect a representative from another state to listen to me since they don't represent me.

    Since every member of Congress has a hand in passing legislation and policies that affect everyone nationwide, we all have a right to express our views to all of them, collectively or individually.

    To say the 1st Amendment applies only to your own member(s) of Congress is a non-starter. The government is the government and I have a right to redress any government official with my grievances.

    To rule otherwise would be equivalent to saying a guy from California has no 1st Amendment right to picket outside the governor's mansion in Texas because the government of Texas doesn't represent him.

  • Sep 11th, 2019 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    If a politician is giving a speech for the West Maryland Firefighter Invitational Poker Tournament, and you didn't have an invitation, you can't demand your presence.

    And if the politician is giving that speech on private property-- a hotel ballroom, for example-- and the hotel staff kicks a disruptive person out, it's perfectly legal, even if they're kicking the person out based on their views and ideology. It's their property. Just like Facebook, they get to decide who's allowed in and who isn't and the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. The presence of a politician giving a speech doesn't strip them of their property rights.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 1:02pm

    Re:

    The Secret Service should have the final word on this, that is their job.

    No, it's not. Not even a little bit.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 12:50pm

    (untitled comment)

    Since the PD is also sort of getting a free camera -- what with Ring's online portal that allows cops to locate any Ring owner and ask them directly for footage sans warrant.

    Why on earth would the police need a warrant to ask for voluntarily consent?

    You italicize the word "sans", like it's some circumvention of law or constitutional principle, but that has never been the case. Since the Republic was founded two-plus centuries ago, the police have always been allowed to ask for and receive consent and when they do, the 4th Amendment and its warrant requirement don't even enter into it.

    a decent percentage of those probably aren't willing to go so far as to get on the stand during a trial.

    If you don't want to be involved in this, then just don't take the damn camera. Just decline the offer. This is hardly rocket science and hardly worthy of the what seems to be an unending series of articles on this site bemoaning the idea that people might be helping the cops catch assholes with their home security tech instead of telling the cops to fuck off as Cushing apparently thinks any good citizen ought to do.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 3:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    The White House can't just cook up reasons to remove someone if the real reason is they don't like his reporting.

    Conversely, a reporter can't act like a complete asshole and flout the rules of conduct, then claim any punishment that follows is because "they just don't like what I write".

  • Aug 7th, 2019 @ 9:44pm

    Re: Well! I never knew!

    And here I was sure that the First Amendment was a part of the constitution, not a law.

    The Constitution is a law-- the supreme law of the United States.

  • Aug 7th, 2019 @ 9:42pm

    Re:

    Conversely, who would want someone like a potential President Warren or President Sanders deciding what is and isn't 'hate speech'?

    Don't agree with their views on global warming? You're a 'denier' and can be censored and imprisoned.

    Refuse to use made up words to reinforce someone's mental delusion? Hate speech. Censorship and reeducation for you.

    Call someone who jumps the border and illegal alien? Hate speech. Censorship and fines.

  • Aug 7th, 2019 @ 9:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    Third, should there be a global standard and global enforcement?

    Not sure how that would even work. No global or U.N.-style body has the right to limit the free speech and 1st Amendment rights of American citizens. No extra-territorial ruling is superior to the U.S. Constitution in America.

  • Aug 5th, 2019 @ 1:34pm

    Re:

    other than the ones that are some form of “don’t be an asshole”?

    You're doing the same thing. You're defining 'being an asshole' as refusing to tow the leftist line. Anyone who doesn't line up with the latest in 'progressive' thought is definitionally an 'asshole'. Clever trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.

    If I don't accede to the language police demands of some guy on Twitter who dresses up like a giant kitten and calls himself a "furry otherkin" and says his preferred pronouns are "zhe/zheir", that's not me being an asshole. It's just me not letting some random stranger define the parameters of the English language for me. But Twitter writing that into its TOS as a bannable offense, is indeed making posting while conservative (on certain subjects, anyway) a punishable offense.

  • Aug 5th, 2019 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable

    Ah, so that's the excuse you're going to make for the hypocrisy, is it?

    Then why was I vilified last week for calling the leader of the Congressional Teen Girl Squad "Occasional-Cortex"?

    I mean, that would seem to fall under your category of acceptable "political commentary", no? Yet for some reason I caught all manner of shit for using a derogatory nickname for a politician when, as you ably note, derogatory names for politicians are used in this forum with a high degree of frequency and acceptability.

    I can't think of any difference that might make the ones you cited acceptable and the one I used unacceptable. I mean, they're all politicians. One's a president, one's a senator, one's member of the House... hmm... what could it be... oh, wait... the ones you cited are Republicans and mine is a 'progressive' Democrat. That can't be it, can it? 'Cause that would mean you and the rest of the crowd that leapt on me for 'disrespecting' poor Collectivist Barbie would be a bunch of hypocritical douchebags that can dish it out but can't take it. And I sure wouldn't want to think that's the case.

  • Aug 5th, 2019 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex

    Wow, you managed to copy/paste my comment and repost it.

    Well done!

  • Aug 5th, 2019 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable

    > yet it's still an offense on Twitter to refer to them by their actual legal name

    In your own example, Bruce is no longer said Jenner's "actual legal name".

    I wasn't talking about Jenner in the context of legal names. I referred to Jenner to rebut a different point being made.

    When I said, " yet it's still an offense on Twitter to refer to them by their actual legal name", I was referring to people who HAVE NOT changed their name, which makes using their factual legal name an offense on Twitter.

    Whether you agree with their ToS is immaterial. If you violate the ToS you can be banned.

    Sure, but that doesn't mean 'progressive' leftist ideology hasn't been incorporated into the TOS. Punishing someone for using a person's factual legal name just because that person doesn't like it anymore is a hallmark of leftist ideology. If it's in the TOS, it's been incorporated.

    That is not in and of itself an anti-conservative bias. It's an anti-asshole bias.

    Yep, that's a tactic right of Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS. Define your position as being de facto right, true, compassionate, ethical, etc. so that you can condemn any deviation from your ideology as definitionally 'assholish'.

  • Aug 5th, 2019 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you have examples of people doing that?

    Of course not. That's why I said "And when... you'll have..."

    That's a conditional which indicates Twitter HASN'T yet done that, and which means he DOESN'T have a point and won't have one until they do.

More comments from btr1701 >>