James Burkhardt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2642) comment rss

  • On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 01:22pm

    Re: We have already been to that dance.

    >Obama "rules with his pen" and the Democrats rejoice about how great a job he is doing and the Republicans lose their minds.

    [citation needed]

    I've had issues with specific trump executive orders, but in my mind (and in the mind of the coverage I've seen) his number of orders is questionable only because of his own stated stance on the use of executive orders. Ive also noted how it suggests he continues to operate the Government like one of his top down businesses. But I don't argue his use of executive orders in the abstract is wrong. Im not flipping on that position based on who is in power. I'd like to see the coverage which is.

  • On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 01:12pm

    Re: How is this not biased against Trump?

    I am going to assume you are a bad satirist, rather than stupid. Either way, have a flag.

  • On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 11:16am

    Re: What?

    So, I recommend the Podcast "LRC Presents: All the President's Lawyers" for last week. It gets an actual lawyer involved. But the logic goes like this:

    The White House issued a press Pass to Jim Acosta. This pass is a means of pre-clearing him as an obvious security risk and limiting the number of people present. The pass is issued to HIM, on behalf of CNN. When the White house has a press briefing, he is one of the few entitled to be present in the public forum the white house is creating.

    When the White house revokes his pass, once granted, There are 1st amendment concerns that the removal might chill questions the white house doesn't want, or unflattering coverage. So the courts have noted that while the White House can revoke that pass, it must allow for due process to show the removal was not based in first amendment protected activity.

    So, weird thing, he was asked to "sit down and be quiet" (not censorous at all), because he was asking a question the president didn't want to answer. He was repeatedly interrupted every time he asked that question. But strangely, rudeness is kinda part of the content of his speech. His actions can conceivably be seen as protesting the president's own rudeness and refusal to answer a pertinent, timely question. The first amendment also covers the rights to protest and petition the government in the public forum of the press pool. Its a mess. The complex interactions of the forum and space and security are complicated, which is why this judge is ruling on the fifth amendment due process grounds. The idea that the president is looking to dodge due process as expressed in the article should suggest how well they think their claims will play out.

  • On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 11:00am

    Re: Blah... blah... TechDirt Leftist drivel...

    I'm gonna assume you are a White Male Christian who owns at least an acre of land. If not, you probably shouldn't be trying to employ an 'original construction' argument. If you are, this is a weak argument. The journalists still have first amendment rights, even if you choose to ignore modern evolution of the 1st. Like the right to speak, or protest that the president did not answer his question, which is what he got booted over.

    In fact, one of the major issues in addressing the first amendment complaints will involve the significant dissonance between the press pass process and the public forum the white house has created.

    We recognize press passes as a way to pre-clear journalists into public forums with limited capacity and potential security issues (like face time with the president). The courts have repeatedly found that removing a press pass, once granted, is a violation of the right of access to the public forum, that can only be remedied by providing due process.

    I mean, sure we can throw out judicial jurisprudence involving the 1st amendment entirely, but this judge did his job, which is to apply precedential decisions to the facts at hand. IT was a clean and easy decision with binding precedent behind it. Don't blame this judge for following the system you claim he doesn't understand.

  • On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 02:43pm

    Re: but who do you sue?

    The strange mixture of public yet private property that is retail kinda notes the error in your second question.

    Parking in a handicap space can get you a parking ticket despite that the space is likely on 'private' property. The Parking lot of Planned Parenthood is not 'private property' to the extent you imagine.

  • On the post: Not Even Hiding It Any More: EU Council Explicitly Pushing For Mandatory Upload Filters

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 01:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: !!! YouTube CEO is Now Lobbying FOR Upload Filters

    You have built a false dichotomy, that if you oppose google in any fashion you must call for its destruction.

    You assume not calling for Google to be broken up (and you assume that could be done in a manner which actually does something) and not pushing for regulation means Mike supports anti-consumer and anti-market moves by google.

    However, Everytime Regulating google comes up he notes the same thing - the regulation destroys the first amendment and legal principles of liability, and/or that the regulations in question will only serve to entrench Google, while failing to resolve the underlying concerns.

    He blames you, because you have unceasingly called for stricter copyright enforcement, despite his worries that greater copyright enforcement will entrench the richest players, IE google. Your rhetoric around copyright is the same rhetoric that has given us Article 13.

    The vast difference between you and Mike? You assume big is bad. Mike does not.

    Also, I never realized there was a reverse psychology form of shilling. Learn things every day.

  • On the post: Not Even Hiding It Any More: EU Council Explicitly Pushing For Mandatory Upload Filters

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 09:52am

    Re: Re: !!! YouTube CEO is Now Lobbying FOR Upload Filters

    I think Mike only mentions it in every article 13 peice he does.

  • On the post: Not Even Hiding It Any More: EU Council Explicitly Pushing For Mandatory Upload Filters

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 09:51am

    Re: !!! YouTube CEO is Now Lobbying FOR Upload Filters

    Yeah. As mike has been saying, Google has been moving in an anti-competitive direction for years now. They are in favor of these filters because it already does upload filters. It costs google (Youtube) very little to maintain or develop its filters further, compared to a competitor which will have to spend that $100 million from scratch. Or do you just ignore all the times Mike has warned that these kinds of regulations will only entrench google as the monopoly player?

  • On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 02:15pm

    Honestly, I don't understand how the court can even get to the question of time to determine qualified immunity. When the officer came back he started a fight. If the victim was a threat, it was because the officer instigated a fight with someone he couldn't handle. Any other ruling than a stripping of qualified immunity means a cop could instigate a fight to provide the justification to shoot them. Qualififed immunity is supposedly to protect officers doing police work, which the court already established the officer was not doing when he returned and started the fight.

  • On the post: Rights Groups Demand Facebook Set Up Real Due Process Around Content Moderation

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 02:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: The point being missed here is...

    So first off, we are largely talking about content moderation, not user account moderation, which suggests a misunderstanding of the base premises.

    Your strain of thought is a reason for why they should do moderation, pruning off content that would drive away advertisers. But 'should we do moderation' is not in debate. The debate is around how that moderation occurs, because of clear and obvious variance. Your assertion seems to be that the variance happens because they are this nebulous business entity that is just pumping short term metrics i guess? EFF, Techdirt, and people who understand that a business is a collection of people, believe this variance is occurring due to the need for individuals to make snap value judgments often without the context to understand the content at issue. This forces personal biases to the forefront. The EFF is proposing a system that requires transparency so that appeals can occur, or corrective action taken.

  • On the post: Rights Groups Demand Facebook Set Up Real Due Process Around Content Moderation

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 11:35am

    Re: The point being missed here is...

    How does facebook's unwillingness to kick people off the platform have anything to do with Facebook's unwillingness to be transparent about why they removed content, potentially leading to loss of members, and the EFF proposing a solution?

  • On the post: Rights Groups Demand Facebook Set Up Real Due Process Around Content Moderation

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 11:11am

    Re: Contradicting own statement Section 230 gives arbitrary power.

    As others point out, you are conflating Facebook's legal rights with moral and ethical arguments about how Facebook should exercise its rights. They are two separate but linked issues.

    Your failure to address this, combined with your combative tone, is why you get a flag.

  • On the post: Rights Groups Demand Facebook Set Up Real Due Process Around Content Moderation

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 11:07am

    Re: Let's have some details on your own alleged "voting system".

    What, do you want a list of IP addresses that flagged you? Should I have to list why I flagged you in addition? Facebook moderation has nothing to do, functionally, with how the report button operates.

  • On the post: Alabama Voters Say At Least One Sheriff Won't Be Enriching Himself With Federal Inmate Food Funds

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A response to concur should make clear that attempt. Its lack of connection to my words is just as serious in a concurrence. You responded to me with a negative tone and no clear connection to the tread of my discussion. Your points were not seemingly connected to the comments of the OC either.

    Your words made no sense as an extension of my commentary or the original commentary, and So I saw the negative, combative tone and assumed it must be a rebuttal of my commentary.

    Your response leading with "there is still plenty of incentive..." is a potential critique of the reform, but has nothing to do with why prisons are capable of having excess budget, unless you are saying it is budgeted that way to create excess, in which case you are in fact rebutting me, but that point is lost in your commentary.

  • On the post: The Wonky Donkey: How Infringement Helped Create A Best Seller… Which Would Be Impossible Under Article 13

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 10:13am

    Re: "That video is almost certainly copyright infringement."

    >No one is required to enforce copyright.
    Article 13 requires proactive efforts to ensure copyright is not infringed. Article 13 requires Websites to enforce copyright, despite not knowing if content is infringing. You lie.

  • On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 09:53am

    Re: Required Reading

    >The Palestinians are banned from the United States by the Anti-terrorism Act of 1987.
    The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is banned from recieving government funds or assistance. Not "the Palestinians".

    >> The Palestinians are a Nazi hate group. They are literal Nazis who advocated for the Final Solution and were armed by Adolph Hitler.

    I mean, we are friends with Germany and Japan and Italy now, because 70 Years is a long time. It was the policy of the US Military to deny land, life and culture to native Americans through violence and we don't consider the United States a terrorist organization. I do not see why these facts free us from needing to think critically about modern Palestine.

    >>However, universities like to take "donations" from the Middle Eastern oil powers who are at war with Israel.

    I'm not sure largely what this article seems to "prove". You certainly believe nefarious intent, but aside from preaching tolerance, I am unsure how the center is involved in a "war" with Israel, or how this center has anything to do with the article.

  • On the post: Alabama Voters Say At Least One Sheriff Won't Be Enriching Himself With Federal Inmate Food Funds

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 09:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Non sequitor much? I am unsure why you are responding about the reform's failure to successfully address poor incentives to my commentary on the budgetary process. The start of your commentary does not follow from mine, and while the end somewhat relates to my procedural discussion, feels a bit out of left field targeted at me, as I did not state that this reform would result in better prisoner treatment. I in fact noted that the incentives are still skewed, but that I had hopes that transparency would provide a corrective effect over the next few elections, if not in so many words.

  • On the post: Alabama Voters Say At Least One Sheriff Won't Be Enriching Himself With Federal Inmate Food Funds

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 07:58am

    Re:

    You really don't understand the process.

    The budget is set in advance of the year. You can't get a perfect understanding of how many people will be in prison in DEC in NOV of the previous year. So you have to estimate. And because of how government budgets work, they can't budget $X/head, they budget a lump sum. But the budget doesn't specify exactly what is purchased, nor does it specify how much to be purchased for. The law allowed the sheriff to make meal plans or purchasing agreements that did not spend the entire budget. Or, there might be excess because prison population is lower than expected. Or prison population was high, the sheriff developed a plan and got a supplier to keep food within budget, but now population is going down and the plan is still in place.

    You almost never can budget to the penny. The preference would be for you to be under budget when your revenue matches your budget.

    The issue of course, is what happened to the remaining budget. The law incentivized skimping on the meal plan to line your own pockets. The incentives still aren't great, but transparency will help.

  • On the post: Facebook Allowing French Censors To Embed With The Company, And Maybe That's A Good Thing?

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2018 @ 01:01pm

    Re: Back in time...

    I was unaware Facebook was part of the French Military. I learn things everyday.

    Your attempted comparison only works on the most surface levels, and the actual concerns presented by french regulators being present at Facebook are in fact referenced in the article.

  • On the post: New Acting Attorney General Part Of A Patent Scam Company Recently Shut Down By The FTC And Fined Millions

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2018 @ 11:35am

    Re: Krav Maga?

    Krav Maga is the Martial Art Du Jour. It was Karate, then Judo, then Akido, now Krav Maga. If you follow popular media its hillarious how every character is suddenly studying the new martial art when it hits popular consiousness.

    I think its because Krav Maga can seem flashy, but its believable that smaller opponents can take on bigger ones (judo and akido), and is easier to learn, so its easier to fight train actors. Also its a non-Japanese art so its new and everyone didn't throw a punch the same way. Until they did.

Next >>