Khym Chanur 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (694)

• On the post: NTIA Follows Trump's Unconstitutional Order To Request The FCC Review Section 230

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2020 @ 01:54pm

  Re:

  Then whose bailiwick is it?

• On the post: Nick Sandmann's Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For 'Speculating' On Washington Post's Settlement With Sandmann

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2020 @ 01:15pm

  Re: smh

  What, exactly, about this particular article is argued in bad faith? And how do you know it was argued in bad faith?

• On the post: Nick Sandmann's Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For 'Speculating' On Washington Post's Settlement With Sandmann

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2020 @ 12:58pm

  Huh, Wood seems to have deleted all of those tweets. Guess after he came down off his rage he realized he was talking out of his ass.

• On the post: Nick Sandmann's Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For 'Speculating' On Washington Post's Settlement With Sandmann

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2020 @ 12:49pm

  At best, Wood might be able to argue that there's some sort of total gag order that came with the settlements saying that CNN/WaPo and staff won't ever discuss anything having to do with Nick Sandmann and his sketchy lawsuits.

  If there was such a gag order, wouldn't CNN have told everyone working for them to not say anything, thus making disobeying that order a fireable offense?

• On the post: DHS's Anti-Protest Gestapo Tactics Headed To Other Major Cities, Starting With Chicago

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2020 @ 08:53am

  Detainment for questioning requires probable cause

  Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)

  The treatment of petitioner, whether or not technically characterized as an arrest, was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest, and must be supported by probable cause. Detention for custodial interrogation -- regardless of its label -- intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest.

  Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 815 (1984):

  None of our later cases have undercut the holding in Davis that transportation to and investigative detention at the station house without probable cause or judicial authorization together violate the Fourth Amendment.

• On the post: DHS's Anti-Protest Gestapo Tactics Headed To Other Major Cities, Starting With Chicago

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2020 @ 07:15am

  Re: Re: Well, it tells you a lot...

  You can't make omelettes without breaking a few laws.

  Okay, you have to be being satirical. ... Please tell me that you're being satirical.

• On the post: If Twitter Shuts Down Trump's Account For Repeat Infringement Then Will Trump Fans Finally Realize That Copyright Is The Problem?

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2020 @ 10:10am

  Once again, though, rather than recognize that the structure of DMCA 512 that effectively creates massive incentives to pull down content is the issue, clueless Trump fans, like Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton, wanted to blame Twitter.

  Maybe he thinks that a sitting President is immune to DMCA takedown notices? Or that political campaign ads are immune?

• On the post: DHS's Anti-Protest Gestapo Tactics Headed To Other Major Cities, Starting With Chicago

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2020 @ 07:14am

  Detainees are being released without any paperwork, suggesting a lot of this federal intervention is off-the-books:

  If there's no documentation then it's much harder to sue for violations of rights.

  "We move to dismiss based on the fact that the plaintiff has no evidence that he was ever hauled off the streets by federal agents, nor any evidence that he was ever detained".

• On the post: Pompeo Says US May Ban TikTok; It's Not Clear That It Can

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2020 @ 06:13pm

  Re:

  GLENDOWER: I can summon spirits from the deep ocean. HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man, But will they come when you do call for them?

• On the post: That Was Quick: Appellate Court Says Simon & Schuster Not Subject To Prior Restraint Order Over Mary Trump's Book; But Fight's Not Over Yet

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2020 @ 10:33pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Clariity

  Will the Biden supporters get their wish of a Trojan horse president,

  "Trojan horse president"????

• On the post: That Was Quick: Appellate Court Says Simon & Schuster Not Subject To Prior Restraint Order Over Mary Trump's Book; But Fight's Not Over Yet

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2020 @ 07:16pm

  Re: Clariity

  1. Some people are arguing that the NDA shouldn't apply to the publisher and bookstores because they didn't sign the NDA.
  2. Some argue that prior restraint is unconstitutional, and thus if someone decides to break an NDA the most the aggrieved party can do is sue the one violating the NDA, rather than getting an injunction to shut the other party up.
  3. I've seen the argument that this NDA is too broad. The NDA was part of a private settlement of a dispute over inheritance, but the NDA didn't prohibit discussing the settlement and the dispute, but also discussing anything about family relationships. Judges have invalidated overly broad NDAs before, but from what I know the precedent on that has to do with employer/employee NDAs, so I don't know how that would apply here.
  4. Some argue this particular NDA is against the public interest. Judges have invalidated NDAs where enforcing it would be against the public interest.

  Anyone arguing anyone of these might just be doing so because they hate Trump, but to know for sure you'd have to compare what they've said about other NDA breaches.

• On the post: NY Judge Apparently Unaware Of The Supreme Court's Ban On Prior Restraint: Puts Temporary Restraining Order On Trump's Niece's Book

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2020 @ 06:54pm

  Re: I find it highly unlikely…

  that a confidentiality agreement over the fight around
  a will and it's eventual settlement could be stretched to
  cover all or even most of what happened in the many
  decades since it was signed.

  Apparently the NDA also included a term saying the Mary Trump wouldn't discuss her relationships with any of the people on the other side of the dispute.

• On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2020 @ 03:56pm

  Re: Re: Reasons

  They also banned the Devin Nunes' Cow person. I mean, that's technically a violation, since the he's obviously not really a cow, much less one belonging to Nunes, but that's kind of a petty reason to ban him/her.

• On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2020 @ 12:38pm

  Defendants (sites) don't get awarded fees if they win.

  Under the proposal, if the plaintiff wins the defendant has to pay for attorney fees and such, but if the defendant wins each side has to pay for their own costs. So if a site enforces their ToS with complete fairness but some users think that it's being enforced unfairly the site has to eat the cost of each resulting lawsuit. In the face of that, how many sites would rather just forgo any moderation? (Even forgoing moderation wouldn't provide complete protection, since sites could still sued if some users believe the site to engage in shadow banning)

• On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2020 @ 11:15am

  Re: Re: Re: Contracting

  Just yesterday there was a Techdirt article about Google and The Federalist: 1) The exact same thing happened to Techdirt last year, and thus looks more like a stupid Google policy rather than bias on Google's part. 2) It had to do with the comments to an article, not the content of the article itself. 3) It would be just that one page that was demonetized, not the entire site.

• On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2020 @ 10:40am

  Damn it...

  That was meant as a reply to Koby's comment.

• On the post: No, Google Didn't Demonetize The Federalist & It's Not An Example Of Anti-Conservative Bias

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2020 @ 08:23am

  Re: Really?

  Techdirt/Masnick didn't say that Google's action was correct/good/smart, merely that it wasn't anti-conservative bias, since the exact same thing has happened to Techdirt in the past.

• On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2020 @ 10:39am

  I see two big differences:

  1) For things like rental agreements, credit cards, etc, people stand to lose money or a place to stay. With online services and CDA 230, people stand to lose comments they made (usually for free) on someone else's platform.

  2) If someone contemplates rules-lawyering a rental agreement (or whatever) the consequences of them being on the losing (montary, losing their housing, etc) end serve as a strong deterrent. If a troll decides to do some rules-lawyering regarding the ToS of a social platform, the consequence is merely getting banned, which they can often get around by creating a new account. Currently the lack of consequences for the trolls is balanced by the platforms being able to easily ban the trolls.

• On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2020 @ 09:29pm

  Re: Consistency of Thought

  AntiFa is a violent group that has been filmed repeatedly applying violence to peaceful citizens and should be condemned as a terrorist group

  AntiFa is a political movement/ideology, not a singular organization or group. There are many small organizations which declare themselves in favor of AntiFa, and for particular organizations it might make sense to declare them terrorist, but that shouldn't apply to all other groups or individuals that declare themselves in favor of AntiFa.

  National news itself ... are pushing obviously bullshit propaganda ... the "peaceful" protesters, documented with shots of building that rioters burned down as they comment that the protests are "mostly peaceful"

  The protestors and the rioters aren't identical sets of people. Unless there's some evidence that the majority of people marching around with signs later go on to riot, I think it's accurate to call the protestors peaceful.

• On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2020 @ 12:16pm

  Re: Re: Defamatory Polls

  Even if poll results were a straight up lie, would it legally be defamation? It wouldn't be a lie about anything that the subjects of the poll did (or didn't) do.

Next >>