JMT’s Techdirt Profile


About JMT

JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 6:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Seat-belt laws are nothing more than cash grab material. Sure it is stupid for people to not wear one, but that is their choice. If people want to risk their lives, that is their choice, government really has no right to proxy parent you."

    Just curious, who do you think pays for the millions of dollars worth of medical care required to treat the serious injuries of all those who survive unbelted crashes?

    And have you considered the net loss to society caused by serious injuries and deaths? If the government acting as a proxy parent upsets your conservative sensibilities so much, why don't you instead look at it as the government protecting it's financial investment and not wanting to lose your tax dollars.

  • Jun 15th, 2017 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email

    It amuses me that in the Ars article this pathological liar implies that this case is not financially supported by Thiel or anyone else. I find this very hard to believe. Given the financial risk to Techdirt, who have a very strong case, he must be very confident he can succeed the same way he did with Gawker, which means cost is not a problem. Just another lie of top of all his others.

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 5:51pm


    "It has become apparent? It has become apparent to whom?"

    Anyone with half a brain who's been watching Trump's actions for the last few years. Rocket science this ain't.

    "First, only Comey spoke to "pledging his allegiance", that does not make it a fact."

    Nobody has ever said it is anything other than Comey's claim, and has no independent corroboration. But seriously, out of the two of them, who's got a proven track record as a serial liar?

    "Second, it looks like Comey PLANNED to leak the memos FROM THE TIME HE CREATED THEM, and all bit admitted this under oath."

    Obviously they were planned to be his record of events, to be released if necessary to protect himself if Trump turned on him, which he did. Not sure why you think that's a damming revelation, it's the smart think to do any time you may need to rely on your recollection of events. Smart people do it all the time in all walks of life.

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 5:42pm

    Re: Did you see the memos?

    "Those memos, I think anyone would agree, are not COMEY memos, the are official government records created as part of his government official duties."

    No I doubt many will agree, because it's a desperately weak argument. Surely you realize that right?

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You mean those ridiculous claims that are backed up by plenty of corroborating evidence and independently reported by many others? Those crazy claims that not a single other person besides Shiva have refuted?

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The "Tech" in Techdirt is for "Technology", right, genius?"

    You should avoid sarcastically calling someone 'genius' while demonstrating your own far-from-genius abilities.

    " it now OK for all FBI employees to take government documents and secretly send them to the press to promote their own agendas?"

    A personal memo is not a government document, so that's a strawman argument.

    "Did Comey said that the reason he made his "memos" was because he knew IN ADVANCE that Trump would lie?"

    No he didn't. Perhaps watch the actual testimony instead of misquoting him to make yet another a strawman argument.

    "Is it EVEN POSSIBLE that Comey, that is, the same Comey who acted (completely inappropriately) as judge and jury and pardoner in chief for Hillary Clinton could LIE? Could he be LYING?"

    Whatever your opinion of Comey's past actions, there has never been any accusation of lying. Trump on the other hand has a long and well-documented history of outright and easily disproved lies. So it's pretty easy to take a punt of who's being the more honest here.

    "I hope he gets a jail cell next to Hillary, that would be poetic justice."

    Hey, whatever fantasies get you off I guess...

  • Jun 10th, 2017 @ 6:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm guessing you can't even see the irony of responding on Techdirt to people who have responded on Techdirt to your comments on Techdirt about how Techdirt censors you. Man Techdirt sucks at censorship!

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Flawed premises: A) Congress may be wrong in broad intent, B) obvious "everyone knows" limits to "free speech", C) maybe "platforms" are deeply flawed idea.

    *"You're basically defending anarchy where every yahoo will try to shout and shock, and that's not going to end well."*

    It takes a mix of a fiercely overactive imagination and gross ignorance to look at how Section 230 has been working for all these years and say it causes or is leading to anarchy. You seem to completely ignore, or just not be aware of, the massive amounts of completely innocuous user-generated content that exists on websites that are only possible because of the liability protections available. For all the highly publicised 'bad' content that generates these lawsuits and stories, the internet is still are far better place than it would be if everyone was too terrified of misguided lawsuits to allow any user-generated content.

    *"I can tell you that at least many of MY comments disappear from that public comment box."*

    Obvious liar is obvious.

  • May 28th, 2017 @ 5:45pm

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

    "Defamation: The act of damaging the good reputation of someone."

    Thanks for proving me right.

  • May 27th, 2017 @ 3:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I see a lot of defamation, it seems to be the point of each and every article."

    That simply proves you have no idea what defamation actually is.

  • May 24th, 2017 @ 5:00pm

    Re: Assumptions

    "I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it."

    I doubt he's very concerned about it, but there's zero reason to believe Pai had anything to do with it. It's a stupidly hamfisted approach that everyone can see right through, and whatever you think of him he's nowhere near that dumb.

    You're making a wild conspiracy claim here so you'll need to actually provide some of those reasons and some evidence to back them up.

  • May 23rd, 2017 @ 6:28pm


    "Again, Tim Cushing continues to criticize law enforcement based on nothing more but his short-sighted perspectives."

    Actually Tim was criticizing the police based on three examples that are described in the article that you clearly didn't read. And how exactly is that short sighted?

    "Here at Techdirt, criminals are regularly cheered when they use technology and red tape to mask their activities. Is it any surprise that the police would decide to take shortcuts after being thwarted and trolled at every turn?"

    First, can you actually provide any examples of this "cheering"? And second, it takes a massive leap of logic to conflate using technology and red tape to mask activities and the examples of police incompetence above. They have literally nothing to do with each other. Nobody was thwarted or trolled. But no I'm not surprised the police take illegal shortcuts, because that seems to be pretty typical these day.

    "Also, fuck you Leigh. I know you're going to hold this comment for moderation. Nobody is going to engage me in conversation, thanks to you."

    Allow me to engage you in conversation to point out what a whiny little snowflake you are. And note that for an actual conversation to occur you need to reply.

  • May 14th, 2017 @ 11:16pm


    So in your simplistic worldview blame can only be attributed to one party? Plenty of blame to go around here, and a big chunk of it goes to the NSA for the reasons clearly explained in the article.

  • May 11th, 2017 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't understand the ongoing confusion really. The term 'fake news' first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn't occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don't agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn't changed. Words still mean things. I hope...

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

    Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting"...

    1. Nobody said this was "reporting", it's an opinion blog.
    2. Insults are perfectly legal.
    3. If it's true (and you know it is) it's not defamation.

    Three mistakes in only six words. Amazing.

    If you're so sure of your position... just go to trial!

    It's almost like you're deliberately trying to demonstrate your complete ignorance of the legal trial system. Nobody 'just goes to trail' if there's a chance of dismissal. Clown.

  • May 4th, 2017 @ 5:49pm

    Re: net neutrality

    "I am never surprised at how fast people give up their freedoms."

    Can you explain how rules that do nothing other than prevent companies from acting in anti-consumers ways is "people giving up their freedom".

    "Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content."

    How does this braindead, anti-reality claim still get made? NN laws provide exactly zero control of either the internet or the content on it. They specifically restrict ISP behavior that would affect content delivery, but still not the actual net.

    You sound just like an industry sockpuppet. I hope you are getting paid to parrot this nonsense because if you're not it means you're just profoundly ignorant.

  • Apr 19th, 2017 @ 5:50pm

    Don't they keep telling us...

    If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide right?

  • Apr 19th, 2017 @ 3:12pm

    Re: Re: A few things needs to change...

    Given the level of intelligence and maturity on display here, I'm not sure they'd even know who Neil Armstrong is...

  • Apr 17th, 2017 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Crimes broadcast, propaganda, alt news

    "If a broadcast news company were to let a rape occur live the gubernment would be there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines... but because it's a website and the company doesn't consider itself a media company they should get a pass? Not in my book!"

    Your hypothetical is shot down by an example mentioned in this very article, the 1974 on-air suicide of news anchor Christine Chubbuck on live TV. Was the government "there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines"? No of course not, because nobody thought the station should be held responsible for something they could not practically prevent.

    You should stop reading your book and find some new ones.

  • Mar 31st, 2017 @ 4:44am

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

    Asking you to back up your claims with verifiable facts is a pretty common part of debating in the real world. Odd you don't know that.

More comments from JMT >>