Gwiz 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4547) comment rss

  • On the post: New Study Says The Removal Of Craigslist Erotic Services Pages May Be Linked To An Increase In Murdered Females

    Gwiz ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 09:06am

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

    weird, in the preview it worked.
    Yeah, I agree that it would be nice if the preview rendered the comment exactly same as the regular pages do. I guess they haven't gotten around to updating the preview page code yet.

  • On the post: NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps

    Gwiz ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 11:12am

    Streisand Effect

    Makes me wonder how many more people are now aware that Google Maps/Waze has this feature than before NYPD sent their letter. A quick Google search comes back with tons of news outlets covering this story right now.

  • On the post: NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps

    Gwiz ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 10:27am

    Individuals who post the location of DWI checkpoints may be engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws.

    I have no clue about New York and my own state has made DUI checkpoints a violation of the state constitution, but I thought the purpose of announcing DUI checkpoints in advance was to alleviate some of the legal problems associated with the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

  • On the post: New Study Says The Removal Of Craigslist Erotic Services Pages May Be Linked To An Increase In Murdered Females

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2019 @ 12:12pm

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

    Hey Ninja. I noticed you were asking on the Insider Chat about putting double line spaces in comments. You can use a HTML nonbreakable linespace for that: (& n b s p ;) (no spaces or parenthesis) This will give you blank two lines: <enter key> nonbreakable linespace <enter key> Like this:   ▲ Two blank lines ▲ Hope this helps.

  • On the post: Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2019 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their

    What I say applies to many creators, not just me.
    You do realize that with automatic copyright virtually EVERYONE is a creator and a copyright holder, right?  
    My side is also winning this war.
    Which side would that be? If your talking about creators and/or copyright holders, than that would be all of us. The only other side I can think of would be the legacy gatekeepers. Is that the side you identify with?

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 01:49pm

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

    Fair enough. I should have stated that your "facts" have absolutely no relevance to your final conclusion that SPLC should be liable for the actions of other people. I used "I disagree" as shorthand for "I disagree that these facts are relevant to this discussion". My apologies.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 01:32pm

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

    I hope these simple points are clear enough that no one will find a reason to disagree with them:
    I have to disagree with ALL of them.  
    The SPLC "stating their opinion" has caused real harm to others as a direct result of people accepting and acting on that opinion.
    Unless their opinion is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" their speech is protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't really matter what other peoples actions are.  
    In most of these cases the SPLC knew--or at least they had no valid excuse not to know--that people would act upon their words in the same general way as what actually ended up happening. (In other words, the harmful effects that occurred were very easily predictable before the opinions were given.)
    Same answer as above.  
    The SPLC freely acknowledges that their "opinion" being "stated" is not in line with the common understanding of the matters they are opining upon.
    Not sure how that matters at all. Morons and idiots are allowed to express their opinions and it's still protected speech.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 01:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]

    Why is this comment flagged? I simply asked this AC to clarify his/her position and his/her response was well thought out and polite. We even came to understanding of each other's position by the end of the thread, which ended being more of vernacular variation than anything else.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As an aside: How many other people besides me had to Google the definition of "diktat" when reading this thread?

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]

    Yes, exactly. Thank you for skillfully wording what I was having trouble expressing coherently myself.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]

    So in this case, the court is rejecting that idea, “Opinion is not defamation. That's literally all there is to it.”
    That's not my take on reading Milkovich. My opinion (lol) is that the court was saying this: "Opinion is not defamation and the presentation of untrue facts is defamation, but the presentation of untrue facts couched within opinion can also be defamation."  
    Instead, as you yourself had to do in summarizing the extracts I provided earlier, the court has said there's a bit more than that to the test.
    I'm not sure I would word it that way myself. There isn't really "a bit more than that to the test" because the "test" itself determines if the statement is truly opinion or not. Once it's determined the statement is truly opinion, the defamation claim is denied.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 08:28am

    Re: Opinion is not defamation [was Re: Re: ]

    So, it's not “literally all there is to it”, and not only should you know better, but you ought to make sure that your readers are not misled on this point in this discussion.
    I'm a little confused. Your quotations basically say that opinions are not defamation as long as those opinions are actually opinions and not presentations of untrue facts. So where, exactly, is the "more" that isn't part of the "literally all there is to it"?

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2019 @ 12:14pm

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

    Lol again, Blue. Reread my quote, fool. I never claimed to be 65 at all. I was implying that unless you are 20 years or so my senior (you know, the age between fathers and SONS) the label "Sonny" doesn't really fit the situation, but go ahead and enjoy your conspiracy delusions all the same.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2019 @ 07:28am

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

    Lol Blue. I've never said I was 60-something (which is why you can't find it). And yes, I assumed that I was older than you due to the fact that you express yourself like a petulant child most times. I have nothing to settle with you. I purposely leave my private information somewhat vague online to protect my anonymity because there are creeps out there building dossiers on other people for unknown reasons.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 08:38pm

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

    You are an idiot, Blue. I was in my late teens/early twenties when I waited tables in the early eighties. It was how I paid for my college tuition for the two years I attended before landing the corporate position I held and advanced in for 16 years.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 08:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.

    You types ALWAYS project.
    Not projecting, the preceding sentences provided evidence to the claim, Sherlock.  
    And ad hom.
    And "pirate-fanboy-trolls" should be considered a compliment, Einstein?

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 08:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.

    Why didn't and doesn't "ignorant motherfucker" (in case at link not even part of ongoing exchange) offend "the community" standard?
    Are you really that dense? There is a huge difference between being an obtuse asshole, day in and day out and some swear words.  
    Because you pirate-fanboy-trolls actually can't stand my DISSENTING VIEWPOINT, nothing else.
    Bullshit. I've had thousand word discussions with AJ (like the one you linked to) who's viewpoints I absolutely detested. We disagreed, but were still able to remain mostly cordial. Pretty sure the problem is on your end, Sparky.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 07:28pm

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

    First, here's you giving a PRIOR to common law notion of "natural law":
    And this proves what, exactly? I was in a discussion and was talking about the basic, ingrained human instincts of imitation and dissemination of information that have existed forever and used the term "natural rights" (not "natural law") for lack of a better term.  
    Common law is as up-to-date...blah..blah...blah....
    Crazy word salad. Response not required.  
    You can point, but are wrong / lying as usual, and are definitely not on-topic yourself.
    Oh, I've never complained about being off-topic, nor do I aspire to stay on-topic myself. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. Intelligent conversations are fluid and the tangents can be more interesting than the original topics. Some of the best discussions I've had here have had absolutely nothing to do with the article they were on.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 02:24pm

    Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.

    ...let's go to physical where unquestioned that YOU have a right to walk around on a business property that invites you (that's a Right to private property which the business has ceded to The Public in hopes of gain), until give CAUSE to be thrown out.
      Blue, you have already given plenty of cause to be thrown out. If you don't believe me, go into any restaurant an behave like you do here at Techdirt. Criticize and insult the owner making sure to tell him how to run his restaurant, insult the patrons (fanboys!) and scream out random words during your conversation (CAPS!) and see how long before you are asked to leave.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 02:06pm

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

    WHY THE HIDING OF COMMENTS HERE WHICH ARE ON-TOPIC AND WELL WITHIN COMMON LAW?
      First, I would like to point out that YOUR comment is not on-topic. Secondly, knowing that you use the ancient, outdated definition of "common law", I have to point out that village idiots in the times that your definition was in use were often physically abused and sometimes killed for spouting nonsense. You should be happy that all this village does is hide your nonsense behind an extra mouse click.

Next >>