It takes a few lines of code, at most, to validate input, Mazda. That's programming 101. Embarrassing.
The deaths and injustice you mention is indeed tragic, and is not something that should be supported.
"But history shows that disproportionately Black and Brown bodies get sacrificed in the name of boundless white speech."
There is no such thing as "white speech." Do all people who are white say the same things? Clearly not. So, that's racist. Indeed, if you are talking about "white" anything, you are a racist. And no, that is not ok because black people have historically been oppressed and marginalized.
The solution to racism is not racism, and the solution to violence is not censorship. I don't know what all the answers are, but I know those aren't among them.
I, for one, much prefer fake looking artificial crowds to an empty stadium. There is something wrong about just seeing seats.
There's literally no argument against these laws, other than corruption, as 99.9% of legitimate lawsuits would be able to survive a motion to dismiss.
Sorry, but "Cancel Culture" obviously does exist, and to pretend otherwise significantly hurts your credibility. A scientist who did an analysis looking at whether nonviolent protests are more or less effective than violent protests at achieving the goals of protesters was called a racist and lost his job.
It is an objective fact that such analysis is NOT racist, period, and if you think it is you are insane. Saying something that does not fit the desired political goals of someone who is a minority is not racist. Once again, this is not my opinion, it is a fact. Discriminating on the basis of race is racist, and nothing else.
You can't just hand-wave this away, there is a significant current of the modern progressive left that openly does not support the concept of freedom of speech, and that is bad, and should be criticized. Just because lots of people who got "cancelled" were racist doesn't mean that they all were.
The NY Times publishes partisan-spectrum-defying trollish nonsense all the time, including notions about IP that Techdirt regularly comments on. Maybe they should fire the people responsible for that.
Are construction companies liable for criminals using roads to drive to their targets, or to transport contraband? What about the auto manufacturers who build the cars that the criminals use on said roads? What about the gas stations that provide fuel for said vehicles? What about the oil companies that sell gas to the various stations? What about the geologists who sell their services to help the oil companies locate resources to extract? What about the colleges that educate the geologists? What about, literally everyone else on Earth, who in some way indirectly affect all of these processes?
"that the DMCA actually requires internet access providers to completely kick users off upon the receipt of multiple (unproven) claims of copyright infringement."
If this is correct, then it is another part of the DMCA that is unconstitutional. The government mandating punishment without judicial determination of guilt blatantly violates the guarantee of due process.
Look, Disney and the rights organizations suck, no question about it.
But 'There was an initiative passed in 1979 called Proposition 13 which casts the property tax on all land, and so Disney's property tax rates are at 1978 values which translates into millions upon millions of dollars a year that Disney is not paying," Droste told CNN.' is a lie. They are not stuck at 1978 values, they in fact can increase up to 2% a year.
So uh, yeah, think about that next time you hear someone on CNN talking about "Fake News."
"It's a position Nintendo must maintain if it wants to protect its IP from more nefarious types of infringement, but we do hope we get to try this out one day."
This is NOT true. They don't have to shut down fan-made games to retain control of their IP.
It is bothersome that this canard continues to be out there, I am sure encouraged by lawyers for companies like Nintendo.
"In order to answer that question, it must be observed that, as is apparent, notably from Article 18(1), Directive 2000/31 does not make provision in that regard for any limitation, including a territorial limitation, on the scope of the measures which Member States are entitled to adopt in accordance with that directive.
Consequently, and also with reference to paragraphs 29 and 30 above, Directive 2000/31 does not preclude those injunction measures from producing effects worldwide."
Uh, no. Why is no one pointing out the obvious, which is that claiming that you have jurisdiction over the entire world is essentially an act of war?
Claiming extraterritorial rights without a corresponding treaty has been the cause of many wars throughout history.
So regardless of the reasoning offered in the quoted paragraphs, absent the consent of the United States, an EU court does not have the authority to order an American entity to do anything outside of the borders of Europe.
Saying "But, the internet" is not a source of legal authority.
Once again, you are wrong, and Mike is correct. Certain categories of expression are not considered protected by the First Amendment such as libel or child porn, and those can be restricted. And general laws which incidentally burden speech are allowed, but not laws which specifically target speech. Your trade secret claim is a perfect example of this. There is no balancing test. The Supreme Court has rejected such a claim every time it has come up in a case.
You are wrong, and Mike is correct. Certain categories of expression are not considered protected by the First Amendment such as libel or child porn, and those can be restricted. And general laws which incidentally burden speech are allowed, but not laws which specifically target speech. There is no balancing test. The Supreme Court has rejected such a claim every time it has come up in a case.
It won't stop hate at all, actually. Pretending no one is a Nazi doesn't stop anyone from being a Nazi. Government and media claims about "radicalization" are not based on facts, there is no evidence that media "hate speech" causes people to hate, or to engage in violence they otherwise would not engage in. That isn't to say that those platforms can't do that if they want, but the only thing it will do is make people like you feel better. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with you advocating for it, but the idea that it will in any way end racist violence has no support in fact. If someone becomes racist out of nowhere from reading a message or seeing a video on an app, that points to a problem with schools not teaching critical thinking skills, and that is a much better area to focus on.
Your point is true to an extent, but in general, when someone who has ethical fiber pejoratively uses the term Social Justice Warrior, they aren't criticizing the concept of advocating for equality, but opposing people who think that because certain classes of people have been or are being oppressed means that concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process of law, objective truth, etc, cease to exist. Such people call themselves "liberal" but are actually the exact opposite of liberal.
" I think making it so that the content of the websites of literal Nazis is never discovered is a good outcome."
Why? Why is pretending that Nazis don't exist a good idea? Are the ideas of tolerance and humanism so weak that they can't even counter the idiocy of nazism? That is either laziness or cowardice.
The best thing is to point out their errors, right there in public view.
"Businesses are not persons, don't have Rights."
So then newspapers can have their content edited by the government, since they are businesses?
"If claim otherwise, then you advocate blacks being denied service at lunch counters"
Some awesome logic on display right there.
Have you heard of this thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Google manually de-listing sites from their search engine results is their right. The only thing manually editing the list matters is for Section 230 liability, which only matters as to the immunization against legal causes-of-action, but there is no legal right to have your site listed by the search engine of a private company, so that is irrelevant.
Lots o' trollin'
Seriously stop giving the British government ideas.