John Roddy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (162) comment rss

  • On the post: New York Times Moves To Dismiss Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit By Pointing Out It's Impossible To Defame Him

    John Roddy ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2019 @ 01:41pm

    How is this piece of trash not in prison?
    He was. And then he was pardoned.

  • On the post: Announcing The Public Domain Game Jam: Gaming Like It's 1923

    John Roddy ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2019 @ 08:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Many works from 1923 are unavailable due to the fact that the media storing them was crap and did not hold up to modern times.
    Boy is that an understatement. We've lost the overwhelming majority of silent films because the prints had a tendency to spontaneously combust. The film stock itself was so dangerous that theatres actually started imposing strict safety rules on the projection booths, like insulation in the form of asbestos... I'm genuinely not sure how humanity is still around.

  • On the post: County Pays $90,000 Settlement To Man After Seizing $80,000 Judgment From Him Using 24 Deputies And An Armored Vehicle

    John Roddy ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2018 @ 08:49pm

    Sheriff Greg Bean is a certified weenie

    Hoeppner had been known to be "argumentative" in the past.

    If you need a small military unit and armored vehicle to deal with a 75-year-old man described as "argumentative," you're either on the wrong side of a Clint Eastwood film, or your police force is an innovative new type of pathetic.

  • On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer

    John Roddy ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2018 @ 05:55pm

    Re: Re:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/ How convenient. Section 223 just so happens to be where the content-specific restrictions of the Communications Decency were codified. The government was almost immediately banned from enforcing it, and SCOTUS unanimously struck it as unconstitutional in the above case. The parts that remain are ridiculously specific. If you think you've read it in a way that covers "anonymous" "hecklers" "online," you read it wrong.

  • On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer

    John Roddy ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2018 @ 05:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Linehan's comments are less "criticism" and more ad-hominem attacks, hate-speech, and such.
    You launched an ad-hominem attack in response to the reply to a post where you condemned someone for using ad-hominem attacks. What are you doing with your life?

  • On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2018 @ 03:58pm

    Re: Re: The amount of wrong…

    Ah yes, that's right. "Defamatory" content often does get "taken down" after a proper court order, but not necessarily because the law requires it. If they refuse, they won't lose their overall immunity, after all. Once again, it's a point that has nothing to do with Section 230 in the first place.

  • On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2018 @ 02:19pm

    The amount of wrong…

    Section 230 is also at the root of false advertising, hate marketing, cyberbullying, etc.
    No, no it is not. That would be caused by shitty people being shitty people. Specifically, shitty people who are absolutely liable for their own shitty actions. Section 230 does nothing to stop anyone from going after them.
    People have won large judgments in Australia and the UK over what ppears in search results.
    Which makes no sense at all. Why on earth would the platform need to be liable for that?
    Section 230 literally immunizes those who inflict the harm of defamation (search engines), to the point where even if one "sues the original publisher" the engine still doen't have to remove what was posted.
    Section 230 does not immunize anyone who defames. Search engines are also not the ones doing the defamation in whatever example you're thinking of. That would be like suing the company that made the megaphone when someone yells a lie through it. Oh, and as an added bonus, your note about the engine not having to remove the offending content is flat out wrong. This has happened many times before. They can refuse to remove it in some cases involving default judgements, but that's an exception.
    This is unique to the US. it is not the law globally, for a reason. ONe judge in NY wondered why he couldn't sue ebay when someone put him up for sale btw.
    I believe it was also a judge in NY who posited that prior restraint was the answer to all problems of "Internet" as well. People say stupid things, and judges are no exception. Neither are you.

  • On the post: Slack Banning Random Iranian Ex-Pats Shows Why Making Tech Companies Police The Internet Is Crazy Stupid

    John Roddy ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2018 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Are you for sanctions on Iran?

    Not only is this irrelevant to the issue at hand, it's a self-fueling ad hom attack (ad hom-nom-nominem, as I prefer to call it) that goes nowhere and doesn't even attack anything. Even by your standards, this is grabbing at strings.

  • On the post: Why Is Congress Trying To Pass An Obviously Unconstitutional Bill That Would Criminalize Boycotts Of Israel?

    John Roddy ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2018 @ 07:16pm

    BDS is clearly hate speech.
    Really? Which court determined that? And which doctrine did they imply?
    We have laws against hate speech in America.
    This is news to me. Would you like to share an example or two with the class?
    And no, hate speech is not covered under the first amendment.
    Yes, yes it is. The government is not allowed to even try defining what counts as "offensive" speech, let alone hateful. Look up the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam. Decided 2017, 8-0 in favor of banning the government from making those decisions.

  • On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive… While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying

    John Roddy ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2018 @ 07:48pm

    To be fair, it is still valid. They put the "brakes" on it back in July, but they've been "breaking" it pretty hard ever since.

  • On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive… While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying

    John Roddy ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2018 @ 05:28pm

    Copyright is a valuable tool that can protect and empower creators. At least, that's what it could be. Instead, its' something viewed with contempt by authors and consumers alike. I actually spoke with someone not too long ago who wanted to self-publish a book, but was afraid of restricting it too much with copyright. Fortunately, we have complimentary tools like Creative Commons to help, but that speaks volumes on copyright's effectiveness on its own. I would love to be in a world where copyright can truly empower creators. But if directives like this keep happening, we'll never see a time where copyright can be respected again.

  • On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive… While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying

    John Roddy ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2018 @ 10:28am

    Overreaching copyright laws have bred an entire generation of consumers who see no reason to respect copyright anymore. It is used to shake down innocent people for settlements in literal criminal rackets (see: Prenda), retroactively take away content you paid for (Apple, Amazon, etc.), and lock down your own property because you aren't allowed to own anything anymore.

    Why on earth would you believe that making the laws even more draconian will improve anything?

  • On the post: CDA 230 Doesn't Support Habeus Petition by 'Revenge Pornographer'

    John Roddy ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2018 @ 04:31pm

    Section 230 does not make anyone immune to false-advertisement lawsuits. It never has, and never will. Please find a different law to complain about. This is just getting old.

  • On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: How 34 Patents Worth $1 Led To Hundreds Of Lawsuits

    John Roddy ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2018 @ 07:20am

    No, patent holders cannot use shell companies to hide their money. No, pirate sites cannot steal millions from authors. Police are not currently involved with anything here, unless you're hiding information. Or rather, just making it up.

  • On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: How 34 Patents Worth $1 Led To Hundreds Of Lawsuits

    John Roddy ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2018 @ 07:15am

    a) Masnick didn't write that; Daniel Nazer did.
    b) It's actual provable fact. The article itself references several of them.
    c) Since when do the police ever get involved in taking down an alleged "smear campaign?" (unless it involves criticism of the police force itself)

    At least try to put the effort into reading the article before you blindly comment on it.

  • On the post: Pharrell Is Not At All Happy About Trump Using 'Happy' At His Rally… And He Might Actually Have A Case

    John Roddy ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2018 @ 12:15pm

    AC is LOL.

  • On the post: The 'Men Of Notre Dame' Demand A Porn Filter That Won't Work To Keep Them From Watching Porn

    John Roddy ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2018 @ 04:51pm

    Yeah, pretty sure.

    So much wrong. Where to begin…

    First, prostitution spreads diseases which I then end up paying for out of my taxes....
    Who said anything about prostitution? Access to porn has no correlation to prostitution at all, but feel free to share any data suggesting otherwise. And I think you're overestimating the allocation of public funds on that last part. I see no way that the treatment of any kind of STD spread via prostitution would directly pull from your own taxes unless your local politician is caught up in a related scandal. And even then, it would be entirely beside the point.
    Second, if I give the idiot who needs that prostitute some porn, he might just not go see that gal....
    Again, zero correlation. This is a completely nonsensical claim.
    Third, porn might give people the wrong idea...everyone fucks with a broomstick until someone screams, right??? And all girls/guys look like this???.
    I have no idea what kind of porn you are watching, but this point does have me convinced. You should probably step away from it for a while. Just be sure that you don't switch to…well, you know…that claim from above? Getting into politics.
    So the analysis is complicated...even for child porn...what if its all CGI/photoshop off the huggies box??? And what if the viewer leaves kids alone as a result of using it???
    The analysis is actually not complicated at all. Child porn is illegal. CGI/PhotoShop from an existing source? That's a different area of law entirely. And again, it has nothing to do with anything here.

  • On the post: The 'Men Of Notre Dame' Demand A Porn Filter That Won't Work To Keep Them From Watching Porn

    John Roddy ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2018 @ 09:52am

    Protip: any time a group that goes out of its way to identify as "men" calls for action in a way that they insist will benefit women, they're almost guaranteed full of shit.

  • On the post: Texas E-Voting Machines Switching Votes For Non-Nefarious But Still Stupid Reasons

    John Roddy ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2018 @ 08:42am

    Life-long Texas resident here, and an eligible active voter for over a decade. I'm quite familiar with these machines, and the punchline really is that they're just slow.

    And in Texas, under our reconstruction-era constitution that was passed in response to decades of corruption and paranoia, just about every government position you can think of is elected. Every single ballot has at least a few dozen different positions on it, and it gets so overcrowded that you can easily expect a few hundred different names to choose from in their respective positions. It's a ginormic freaking mess in about every way imaginable.

  • On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2018 @ 08:13pm

    Re: So you're denying the basis of Judaism and nation of Israel?

    This is not how logic works.

Next >>