Techdirt is on holiday this Thursday and Friday. We'll be back with our regular posts on the weekend!Hide

btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 20th, 2015 @ 11:28pm


    > If local agencies are sporting body cams, so can the feds. There's no reason
    > they should be excepted from this tool of accountability.

    You really think it's a great idea for Secret Service agents to be wearing FOIA-able body cameras while working protective details? Leaving aside the personal privacy of those they are protecting-- in some cases minors-- it would publicize in great detail the protective procedures and countermeasures used to keep USSS protectees safe.

    I know you pooh-pooh that as irrelevant, but it's anything but.

  • Nov 17th, 2015 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy

    > > What was retweeted in this case were threats of
    > > violence and death against specific individuals.

    > Which is different from "ISIS propaganda."

    They are not mutually exclusive. The threats were also propaganda.

  • Nov 15th, 2015 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Easy

    > How do you feel about the 1st Amendment? Because it's not there to protect popular speech.

    What was retweeted in this case were threats of violence and death against specific individuals. That has *never* been protected speech in this country or any other and that doesn't suddenly change just because one uses social media to do it.

    If McNeil or any other keyboard jihadi wants to throw in with these psychopathic ISIS barbarians and disseminate their death threats for them, then they should rightly end up in a deep, dark hole if they get caught.

  • Nov 15th, 2015 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: advocacy vs trolling

    > Absolutely! I'm with you, btr1701. In fact let's just
    > fucking kill anyone who expresses "wrongness".

    It's not 'wrongness'. What was retweeted were threats of violence against specific individuals. That has *never* been protected speech in this country or any other and it doesn't suddenly change because you use social media to do it.

    And who said anything about killing? I said "end up in a cell". You morphed that into a call for execution and pretended I said it. That's what's commonly referred to as "being a complete douchebag".

    Well done!

  • Nov 13th, 2015 @ 4:04pm

    Re: advocacy vs trolling

    > If I were to take up trolling, and, like most any
    > troll, wanted to upset the most people to the maximum
    > degree possible, I'd probably play devil's-advocate for
    > terrorism and pedophilia

    Then you'd get what you had coming to you if you ended up in a cell somewhere.

  • Nov 13th, 2015 @ 4:03pm


    > James Comey hasn't exactly made it clear what sort
    > of reposting/retweeting will more likely result in
    > federal charges.

    There's a real easy way to make sure you never get arrested for reposting ISIS propaganda:

    Don't fucking repost ISIS propaganda.

    I have no sympathy for these assholes.

  • Nov 6th, 2015 @ 1:34pm

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

    > Furthermore the NRA has got it covered.

    Even if you want to hand-wave away the ACLU's lack of attention to the 2nd Amendment as due to the NRA's occupation of that space, you still have no explanation for the ACLU's lack of attention to the 10th Amendment, which is also a part of the Bill of Rights.

    There's no behemoth analogous to the NRA that's fighting 10th Amendment cases such that the ACLU is free to ignore them. And it's not like there's no shortage of 10th Amendment cases to press. The federal government is like that plant in LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS-- eating up everything in sight and growing larger and larger by the minute. There are 10th Amendment issues in just about everything the federal government does these days, but once again, crickets from the ACLU, because, as a generally leftist/progressive organization, they like the idea of a strong central government running things for everyone. The idea of telling the feds, "No, this bit doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the states and some of the states may not share your agenda" is anathema to the folks who work at the ACLU.

  • Nov 5th, 2015 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Read the proposal if you can, but this snippet might help

    > Well, unless they offered to force the BBC to kill off
    > Clara on Doctor Who. Then I might consider it...

    What?!? Clara the Impossibly Cute?

    She needs to stay forever. It's the horrible new Doctor that needs to go.

  • Nov 5th, 2015 @ 10:59am

    Re: Interesting arguments but doomed to fail

    > I'm also not comfortable with the idea that the US
    > government can be impelled to endorse or display speech
    > which has been deemed vulgar and offensive

    For god's sake, people keep saying this but a trademark is *not* an endorsement.

    A trademark isn't a government endorsement of that product or its name/logo any more than a adult video shop's business license means the city that issued it endorses pornography.

  • Nov 5th, 2015 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > I appreciate the ACLU organization, and support them,
    > but I would rather see them focus on the less defended
    > areas. We got the 2nd covered for now :)

    That might be fine if they just left 2nd Amendment cases alone altogether, but in some instances they actually take the pro-government side-- submitting amicus briefs in *favor* of government restriction on 2nd Amendment rights.

  • Nov 5th, 2015 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Perhaps they have correctly deduced that the gun lobby
    > is handling that just fine, whereas there is no powerful
    > wealthy lobbying organization fighting to protect the 1st
    > amendment.

    There are all sorts of pro-1st Amendment legal defense funds and law school clinics out there.

    FIRE comes to mind just off the top of my head.

    No, the real reason is that the ACLU just doesn't like the 2nd Amendment, so it doesn't bother fighting to uphold it.

  • Nov 5th, 2015 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Why should the ACLU get interested in the second
    > amendment?

    Because in their charter-- you know, that thing that provides the basis for an organization's existence?-- they claim their entire reason for existing is to maintain the Bill of Rights against government encroachment.

    The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

    Can you see the logic here?

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 10:36am

    Shut down

    > Being liable for others' content would almost certainly
    > force us to shut down. And that's the real concern that
    > Bartow doesn't seem to acknowledge.

    Sure, she does. It's what she and other like her *want*. They want to be able to shut you down for hurting their feelz. They won't come out and say so directly, but that's their holy grail-- the ability to wipe out any contrary opinions or speech. They're right and they know it, and so you shouldn't be allowed to contradict them.

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 10:31am


    > Furthermore, if your site is nothing but harassment and
    > flame wars, good advertisers stay the hell away. No one
    > wants to be seen advertising on a site that is associated > with harassment.

    The problem is that more and more, "harassment" is being ridiculously defined as "you disagreed with me", or "you challenged my ideas", or "you proved me wrong".

    Basically, these social justice warriors want the ability to sling as much shit as they like for their cause, then claim they're being harassed by anyone who fights back or challenges them in any way.

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 10:12am

    Re: Read the proposal if you can, but this snippet might help

    > (8) An obligation specified in regulations under this
    > section may be imposed on, and a technical capability
    > notice given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and
    > may require things to be done, or not to be done, outside
    > the United Kingdom).

    Good luck with that. If I'm a telecom company in the U.S. and the UK tries to impose one of these "obligations" on me, they're gonna get the big middle finger.

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re:

    > There was a suggestion made by the UK gov. not long ago
    > to put CCTV cameras inside council houses

    What's a council house?

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 9:45am


    > What I've been reading has been saying that this only
    > applies to UK companies.

    Even if it applies to all companies doing business in the UK, it doesn't even really address the problem.

    The "bad guys" who are savvy enough to conduct major terrorist operations are also savvy enough to use 3rd-party encryption software that's already on the market and is every bit as strong as the built-in OS encryption, and no UK law can stop that.

    The only people who are left vulnerable with a backdoored encryption system are the ones who *aren't* criminals, and who now have to worry about being affected by data breaches and Orwellian government surveillance.

  • Nov 4th, 2015 @ 9:40am

    Re: Pick ONE

    > The UK government has issued it's challenge,
    > now to see how many companies are willing to
    > call their bluff and stand firm

    I foresee a huge black market springing up for American sourced iPhones, however this shakes out.

    If Apple stands firm and stops selling in the UK, people will be buying iPhones over here and sneaking them into Britain to sell at high profit.

    If they don't stand firm and start making "UK-specific" iPhones with broken encryption, the same thing will happen-- the demand for non-broken American iPhones will skyrocket.

  • Nov 2nd, 2015 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Under my understanding, everything that happens
    > in a business; good, bad, or indifferent is the
    > manager’s fault whether they are there or not.

    Yes, as I said, that works with civil liability, but with criminal liability, the statutes and the Constitution's due process requirement would forbid sending someone to prison for actions they had nothing to do with.

  • Oct 30th, 2015 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re:

    > The story goes that the manager (who was at home in
    > bed), the bartender, and the server all went to
    > jail, even though they only served one drink

    I would be very interested in knowing how they managed to impose criminal liability-- i.e., prison time-- on someone who wasn't even present when the drink was served.

    I can see the manager possibly being held civilly liable under the theory of respondeat superior, but to put someone in prison based on something over which they had zero knowledge and control is not only absurd, but it doesn't even meet the intent element in the statute itself.

More comments from btr1701 >>