John Roddy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (162)

• On the post: Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2019 @ 10:44am

  Re:

  I think he was too busy writing about how badly written takedown laws cause mass censorship like this. Oh. How convenient...

• On the post: Platform Liability Doesn't — And Shouldn't — Depend On Content Moderation Practices

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2019 @ 08:10am

  Re:

  Actually, AOL was the very first successful defendant to be protected by CDA 230. Zehran v. AOL is the landmark case that decided Section 230 applies retroactively, and it does apply broadly.

• On the post: EU Tells Internet Archive That Much Of Its Site Is 'Terrorist Content'

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2019 @ 06:37am

  Re: European Parliament are democratically elected, not bureucra

  If they don't want to be called bureaucrats, they can stop acting like bureaucrats.

• On the post: Australian Prosecutors Trying To Throw Reporters In Jail For Accurately Reporting On Cardinal George Pell's Conviction

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2019 @ 04:29pm

  Re: Re:

  There, fixed it for you down under.

  If by "fixed" you mean "changed it to a completely different statement that has no relation to the original and a completely different meaning." Nobody's claiming that the media controls anything here.

• On the post: Australian Prosecutors Trying To Throw Reporters In Jail For Accurately Reporting On Cardinal George Pell's Conviction

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2019 @ 06:36pm

  Honestly, more than anything, I'm more concerned that said "other countries" have so much control over their media. That sounds quite alarming…

• On the post: Salesforce Sued For Sex Trafficking… Because Backpage Used Salesforce's CRM

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2019 @ 04:22pm

  Or another analogy, it'd be like holding Microsoft responsible for designing and selling their Excel app because the mob uses it to run their bookmaking operations.

  Sounds like Microsoft is involved in very organized crime.

• On the post: Texas Senator Who's Experienced Some Press Criticism Introduces Bill To Gut State's Anti-SLAPP Law

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2019 @ 02:22pm

  Correct. An overwhelming majority of the Texas politicians are in fact politicians from Texas.

• On the post: Clash Of EU's Poorly Thought Out Laws: German Data Protection Commissioner Warns That Article 13 Might Violate GDPR

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2019 @ 05:55pm

  Under one Perfect 10 decision, a payment processor who knowingly processes payments for pirated material is not liable for contributory or vicarious infringement.

  No such case exists.

• On the post: Clash Of EU's Poorly Thought Out Laws: German Data Protection Commissioner Warns That Article 13 Might Violate GDPR

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2019 @ 05:49pm

  You're a yodeling douche canoe.

• On the post: VP Of 'Students For Free Speech' Sues Critic For (Among Other Things) Calling Him A 'Free Speech Asshole'

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2019 @ 05:44pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Are you?

• On the post: The Tyranny Of Copyright: How A Once-Humble Legal Issue Has Tormented A Generation Of Speech

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2019 @ 05:47pm

  Re:

  9 out of 10 of my alternate personalities agree that you are probably the one who is crazy.

• On the post: Two Months Later, News Orgs Are Finally 'Allowed' To Report On Top Vatican Official's Child Molestation Conviction

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2019 @ 07:53pm

  it was to an attempt to preserve impartiality for the second trial.

  And it was a very bad attempt, as has been pointed out and explained in detail. It was also a very weak excuse, as has also been pointed out in detail.

  Jurors don't know . . .

  Newsflash: juries are complicated. And there are a LOT of procedures in place to deal with that. An overreaching gag order is completely redundant.

  It's also important to note the gag order was lifted as soon as practical.

  It is more important to note that the gag order was unnecessary in the first place. The court deserves exactly zero praise for lifting the order, as they shouldn't have issued it to begin with.

  And frankly, given the US's pre-emptive gag orders, FISC, NSLs and other facets of the US justice system (as you report on frequently), I don't think you're in a position to claim the US system "works just fine".

  Nobody is claiming that the US system "works just fine." But do notice how courts have been a lot more open to challenges of those gag orders in recent years. The Supreme Court was very clear in stating that they're only allowable in extreme situations. Anything less than imminent death and destruction, and the order absolutely violates the first amendment.

  US courts are just as capable of gagging things arbitrarily.

  Yes, and the appeals court is usually quite vocal when they reverse that order. Or, more commonly, when the judge realizes they screwed up and rescinds it before it actually gets them in trouble.

  That companies in other nations were scared speaks more for the stupidity of the company than of the gag order.

  This is one of the most frightening sentences I have seen in a long time. Are you familiar with a "chilling effect?" The basics of censorship? And you're OK with your own country being the one to enact it? All just to hypothetically prevent a few hypothetical jurors from possibly hearing anything relating to a priest who was already convicted of molesting kids? Sort out your priorities.

• On the post: Two Months Later, News Orgs Are Finally 'Allowed' To Report On Top Vatican Official's Child Molestation Conviction

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2019 @ 07:36pm

  Re: Latest Zombie: "PapaFox", 5 comments in nearly 8 years!

  ODD and unique to Techdirt.

  Pot, meet kettle.

• On the post: Pissed Consumer Exposes New York Luxury Car Dealer's Use Of Bogus Notarized Letters To Remove Critical Reviews [UPDATE]

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2019 @ 05:05pm

  For those with an IQ below 60, who need it spelled out, Section 230 makes this self-evident, as do the number of fake-review scandals.

  Even "those with an IQ below 60" could tell that your claims are complete BS.

  Unaccountability is evidence of unreliability, though some might pretend it's not (no need for logic anymore to these folks).

  So, how long have you hated the first amendment? Every single thing you are complaining about it 100% a 1A issue. Section 230 just makes sure it stays a 1A issue.

• On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2019 @ 10:20am

  Re:

  Umm... yeah? In this context, that is the very definition of reckless.

  Since when is it reckless to not include information that you don't know you don't have?

• On the post: German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2019 @ 10:38am

  From the THAT'S HOW IT WORKS department.

  Narrator: That's not how it works.

• On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 01:03pm

  Re: Re: Copyrights for individuals...

  Copyrights were intended to prevent those who did not create something or buy the rights from profiting off the work (unless licensed).

  This is entirely false. Copyright, at its core, exists to provide incentive for the creation of new works. The idea of locking down everything holding a Copyright and forcing licensing fees for any type of access at all is very new.

• On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2019 @ 06:56pm

  Copyright isn't "legacy," the value of the mailing list

  What planet are you visiting from, and just how much time elapsed during your journey?

• On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 18 Jan, 2019 @ 07:53pm

  Re:

  If the "fatal flaws" with the law only become clear when you change the wording to say something completely different that has no relation to the original wording at all, perhaps the alleged flaws aren't quite as fatal as you're suggesting.
  
  But even then, child porn is a federal criminal offense, which is specifically exempted from Section 230 immunity. So no, if child porn gets involved, that blanket immunity almost immediately vaporizes.

• On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230

  

  John Roddy ( profile ), 18 Jan, 2019 @ 07:50pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  People can't sue search engines for loss of reputation, which causes search engines to be weaponized by those who wish to defame.

  Why is the search engine responsible for somebody else weaponizing it? And how do you prove that it was weaponized by that specific person in the first place? And what does Section 230 do to stop a lawsuit against the party actually responsible?

  The collateral damage is the individual, as with revenge porn.

  And why is the platform responsible for the shitty things other people do? Notice how most of the large "revenge porn" platforms ended up getting taken offline without even having to address the Section 230 protection. It's not even relevant.

  Supportrs of Section 230 view this collateral damage as necessary.

  No "supporter" has ever referred to that kind of hypothetical as "collateral damage" because it doesn't actually exist. So it's not even a Section 230 issue in the first place.

  The EU, with the RTBF, does not agree with us.

  You mean the law that was almost immediately used by bad actors to force "inconvenient" information offline? I don't think that was the EU's intention. They enacted a bad law, and they know it.

Next >>