"Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing."
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.
Your whole comment makes no sense. Fee speech works perfectly well in the other direction, you don't even try to prove otherwise. And the press doesn't make you guilty, even if some choose to think you are.
"That's right Mike, defamation law is used when demonstrable lies have been foisted upon someone regardless of the medium."
True, now you need to demonstrate that they're actually lies. Go on, we'll watch.
"For example, there are some out there, you included, who will take some one else's words, like "when you're rich, they let you" (which refers to a set of instances in which consent is involved) and attempt to pass that off as "rape" or "sexual assault"."
Nobody with any credibility has claimed that making those comments is an act of rape or assault. You're conflating two completely different things, probably because it's hard for you to think about two complex issues at once.
"You're so immersed in sucking Clinton cunt to give a shit about the truth anymore."
I'm not sure you even realise how intellectually insignificant comments like this make you sound. If "sucking Clinton cunt" is the cleverest analogy you can come up with, you're only ever going to get laughed at.
Gun control laws are enacted to control people's access to guns and what people can do with guns. There are no laws specifially against manufacturing guns. So in fact it's exactly like Section 230, and your 'gotcha' fails miserably.
"...the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton)."
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you're ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you're critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What's your beef with that?
Your Truth won't Hurt much if you state falsehoods. Yahoo has neither broken the 4th Amendment nor committed treason. These things have actual definitions, you can't just make up your own you add drama to a legitimately concerning issue.
The fact that he's so impressed by what a 10yo is capable of doing on a computer, even if the kid does happen to be of above-average proficiency for a kid, just demonstrates his own utter incompetence. My 8yo can run rings around my mother on a computer or tablet, but that doesn't make her "unbelievable", it just makes my mother a typical nearly-70yo.
Actually Techdirt has frequently written about reducing piracy (stopping it is impossible), mostly by spending less time actively fighting piracy and instead putting those resources into giving customers what they actually want, which is the only method that has consistently proven to work.
"Waving another countries flag around on another countries soil in a protest is a legitimate act of war by the individuals that are doing it."
Poe's law not withstanding...
A flag is a piece of colored cloth with almost zero potential to cause bodily harm when being waved. War is at an act that typically results in hundreds, thousands or even million of deaths. That you can't seem to see a difference is quite extraordinary. You're either demonstrating profound ignorance or just having a laugh.
Great job repeating a bunch of points made perfectly clear in the argument, while completely missing the actual issue of truthful articles being disappeared due to legal threats, i.e. SLAPP. It may be smart if you're a shortsighted lawyer type, but not if you have any concern for journalism.