John Roddy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (162) comment rss

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

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2018 @ 04:42pm

    Re: Perhaps Mike should read more of the page he linked to....

    And perhaps you should read more of the article you're commenting on? That's kind of the point.

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

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2018 @ 01:07pm

    Is there any actual point in that rambling somewhere? It'd be one thing if you had a bad take, but I don't think there's even a "take" in here to be bad in the first place.

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

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2018 @ 01:05pm

    Re: Quite simple

    but you're not free to be an asshole (about religion or anything else).
    In that case, I'm afraid we're going to need to place you under citizens' arrest.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Georgia's Laws (Including Annotations) Are Not Protected By Copyright And Free To Share

    John Roddy ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2018 @ 01:33pm

    Copyright law cannot be used to copyright law. There's certainly an argument for what counts as "law", but this is a scenario that benefited nobody. Yeah, LexisNexis gets paid, but was it worth it?

    Really glad to see such a thorough analysis like this, and I expect it to be quoted quite a bit in the upcoming years.

  • On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?

    John Roddy ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 06:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    In the meantime, I'll be over here putting more effort into conjugating more effectively.

  • On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?

    John Roddy ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 06:21pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm assuming Batman. And I'm going to be very disappointing if it's not.

  • On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?

    John Roddy ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 03:47pm

    "If you're gonna be the bitch, be the whole bitch. Ain't no room for a half bitch here." - Louis Rossmann (YouTube Video 2016)

  • On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?

    John Roddy ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 03:45pm

    Because, under New York law, this California court determined that the Texas law was proper to defend the resident of DC.

    It does actually make sense if you read the document (thought it may take one or two extra passes to understand...), but good grief, jurisdiction is a bastard.

  • On the post: Washington Post Gives 'Three Pinocchios' To Rep. Ann Wagner For Falsely Claiming FOSTA Stopped 90% Of Sex Trafficking Ads

    John Roddy ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2018 @ 11:10am

    Re: Wash Post reported Saddam Hussein had Weapons Mass Destruction

    I knew that was FALSE in 2002.
    You can always tell how credible someone's argument is by looking at how far back then need to stretch to back it up. Not that a more recent example would help the argument in the first place…

  • On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn

    John Roddy ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 11:40am

    I have so many problems with this ridiculous post that I would like to carefully address all of them.

    "protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn't wise.
    And? Pissing people off isn't a good idea, true. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to ever say anything ever.
    Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence.
    Back up a moment. Let's take a look at the "imminent violence" claim that didn't exist until you came along. Were there armed thugs on the property ready to shed blood if the cops didn't immediately step in and take action? No? Because established law--in fact, it literally IS common law--makes it pretty clear that anything short of a situation like that is not grounds for police intervention. Or any level of government intervention. (foreshadowing)
    It's too bad that even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign.
    The obvious way to...what? To prevent people being offended? To stop hypothetical violence that nobody has any reason to believe is imminent? Well, I've got news for you.
    The First Amendment -- which foreigners don't even have written down anywhere -- still isn't absolute.
    That middle part seems to be a total non-sequitur, but I'll agree with you on the rest of it. Yes, the First Amendment is still open to interpretation. We learn more about its reach with every major court decision. For example, this decision from last year, which affirms that Texas governor Greg Abbott did indeed violate the first amendment by removing a state-approved "nativity scene" parody. Note how it goes to great lengths to cite Matal v Tam, a supreme court decision that's barely a year old now. In fact, if it had been on the books just a little bit earlier, there would be no ambiguity about Abbott's personal liability in this situation (the court found he is liable regardless, but he's still appealing that decision because of course he is). Anyway, that is a practical example of exactly what happens when the government steps in to try controlling "offensive" speech. Quite a bit different from the picture you seem to be painting.

  • On the post: Facebook, Whose Support Made FOSTA Law, Now Sued For Facilitating Sex Trafficking Under FOSTA

    John Roddy ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 10:36am

    More strawman ad hom against "those", accusing of cowardice, cynicism, and inability.
    Can you say "projection?"

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 30th – October 6th

    John Roddy ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2018 @ 07:38pm

    And Celebrate American Patriots. We are learning who they really are.
    Does this include the multiple people currently in or on their way to federal prison for blatantly breaking the law and/or lying openly about it in the process?

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 30th – October 6th

    John Roddy ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2018 @ 06:00am

    Your definition of "censorship" needs about as much work as your definition of "smearing." Sounds like a refresher on some basic facts couldn't hurt either. Shitty Ayyamadumbass is a shameless liar who retroactively decided he invented something, and moved to weaponize the legal system to rewrite history to support it. He failed, and continues to fail after refusing to learn from his arrogance (ahem), to the point where some of his more vocal "supporters" on Facebook were revealed to be fake accounts. When confronted about this, what "sage" words did he have?

    “You’re doing a racist interview right now because you’re a racist. You are."
    He's a sore loser who shamelessly pulls the race card when things don't go his way. I think it's perfectly just that he gets his name dragged through the mud. He's already wallowing in it. I'm also unaware of any instance where Masnick himself personally censored you, or anyone else here. Blame him all you want, but the one who hit the report button was me, as did many others. You're not being censored. You're being buried because that's where your bullshit commentary belongs. If that's too hard for you to believe, you're welcome to try suing me to make reality conform to you. It works for "the email guy," right?

  • On the post: Now Twitter's 'Report' Function Being Used To Disappear Complaint About GDPR Being Used To Disappear Public Court Document

    John Roddy ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2018 @ 12:51pm

    Re: So you're saying "Report" buttons shouldn't be weaponized?

    You keep getting flagged because you regularly openly lie about everything, make excuses when you're proven wrong, and hurl baseless insults every time you get called out on it. You are welcome to start participating if you can prove that you're able to behave.

  • On the post: Thanks To Streaming Fragmentation, Bittorrent Traffic Is Suddenly Rising In Traffic Share

    John Roddy ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2018 @ 08:07pm

    Re: Streaming is being TORN TO SHREDS by ACE lawyers.

    Haven't multiple TorrentFreak writers jumped into the comments here on multiple occasions specifically to call you out on your blatant misreading of both sites' content?

  • On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy

    John Roddy ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2018 @ 09:50am

    It's already clear that you have no clue what Section 230 is, but the casual mention of "SLAPP" makes me question if you have any clue what anything is. You're throwing baseless accusations left and right just because you know you can get away with it.

    Fortunately for you, Techdirt makes it easy for your comment to be buried and ignored forever, otherwise you might genuinely have a potential libel case against you to worry about. Perhaps you should try understanding what the laws actually are before continuously insulting others over their superior understanding of them?

  • On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket

    John Roddy ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2018 @ 01:06pm

    Re: Re: ISP

    Abuse of Section 230 will destroy it.
    You need to stop lying. Section 230 has nothing to do with any of this, and I know you know that. You just hate it and like to blame anything you can on it.
    There is no First Amendment violation because the ISPs here have to adhere to the GDPR if they want to do business in the EU. these companies have the FREEDOM to abandon that market but most seem to put speech over profit.
    Censorship is OK because you can always just move somewhere else? How about no? That's idiotic.
    Masnick has a hidden agenda and ties to some really fucking evil people who just fucked with the wrong person at the wrong time, and in the wrong place.
    Prove it. You keep making these baseless claims without a single shred of evidence to back it up. And you're outright lying about everything around it. What makes you think anyone is going to believe the part that's even more ridiculous?

  • On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet

    John Roddy ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2018 @ 07:28pm

    Section 230 is a law protecting against intermediary liability. That is all. And your defamation example is entirely nonsensical. What are you trying to imply at all? That people can be misled into believing things that are blindingly untrue? Given how passionate you are in your complete failure to understand anything about Section 230 at all, I guess that's believable. It's just not illegal.

  • On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet

    John Roddy ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2018 @ 07:24pm

    Re:

    Mike's being disingenuous. The First Amendment isn't being violated, and American law already protects foreign judgments from being enforced in America if they don't comply with American law.
    The one being disingenuous is you. The First Amendment is indeed not being violated here, and there certainly is American law barring non-compliant foreign judgements from being enforceable under certain conditions. For once, you have actually managed to state what the law really does actually mean. Congratulations!
    This is FRANCE setting conditions on doing business in FRANCE. All Google has to do is abandon the EU market, though they apparently are working on a censored search engine in China, so don't hold your breath.
    And here's the part where that previous praise gets taken right back, as it was completely irrelevant to anything here. You want Google to abandon all of the EU over one stupid ruling in France? And it's disingenuous to not immediately jump to that conclusion?
    Section 230 is on the way out. This si the first step, and a welcome one.
    Again, American law has nothing to do with this. You have a grudge against Section 230 because you don't care to understand it.
    Until then, I remain, JOHN SMITH. Google THAT.
    Keep up these idiotic non-sequitur posts, and Googling the name "John Smith" will just lead to massive brick walls of ignorance.

  • On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet

    John Roddy ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2018 @ 07:16pm

    You're making things up. I don't think I've ever seen a single post from you about Section 230 that didn't completely misinterpret it. And at this point, I can't really pin it on ignorance or stupidity anymore.

    So there's a "small cadre of lawyers" profiting off of this law that you don't understand? And you have evidence that it's true? But you won't share it or even reference any kind of specifics? Of course not, because you're blatantly lying. The burden is on you to give some kind of evidence that this isn't just a bogus conspiracy theory.

Next >>