Christopher Weigel 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (137)

• On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains… With No Trial Or Notice

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 03:46pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  There's this concept called a "grey area". And you still don't quite seem to understand the idea of a Presumption of Innocence. As in, when a case falls in a grey area, you presume people innocent until such time as they're found guilty.
  
  Anyways, whether or not an individual is guilty, private organizations cannot and should not take the punishment thereof into their own hands. That's called "vigilantism" and (Gasp!) It's against the law.
  
  Also, for the record, I have not pirated anything. Nor will I ever. I've downloaded cracks for legally purchased, broken software. I do, however, believe in free speech and due process. Which, apparently, are concepts too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp.

• On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains… With No Trial Or Notice

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 02:36pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  (Citation Needed)

• On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains… With No Trial Or Notice

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 02:36pm

  Re: Re: Re:

• On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains… With No Trial Or Notice

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 02:35pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  In whose judgement?
  
  I can [b]say[/b] that you're breaking the law, at this moment, by harassing us. So, obviously, that means you're breaking it.
  
  That's why there's a such thing as a "trial" and a "presumption of innocence", you hypocritical prick.

• On the post: Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging Assange

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2010 @ 10:35am

  Re:

  So apparently you have no problem with me doing the following?
  
  1) Making statements to the effect that you enjoy conjugal visits with local livestock
  2) Walking into the local airport and yelling "I've got a bomb!" (not actually having a bomb, just claiming to have one)
  3) Inciting riots
  4) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building
  5) Telling you, in highly graphic terms, that I am going to kill you
  6) Blackmailing you with, say, an affair I claim to have seen you having (regardless of the truth of the statement)
  
  All of these, by the mindset your statement seems to be espousing, are free speech (at least insofar as they are actions that can be completed using speech alone). And yet all have been declared to be against the law, in the greater interests of society as a whole.
  
  That's the key - Certain types of speech are and can be restricted if doing so is in the interest of the citizenry as a whole. Without the ability to do so, I think "Anarchy" is the best way to describe the result.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:49pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  my point being...
  
  Apparently, that I'm trying to explain quantum physics to a 2-year old.
  
  Go back to your blissful ignorance, I'm done trying to penetrate your shell of stupidity.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:46pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  Considering we are having not a scientific but a historical discussion, for which all possible evidence can be found by yourself precisely as easily as myself, you're (again) barking up the wrong tree, finding analogues where they shouldn't exist, and being insulting because you're too lazy to do your own legwork.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:43pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  You continually say "analogy" as though it's refuting my point, though. IT'S FUCKING HYPERBOLE!

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:42pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  For clarification, a magnetometer is that fun little gate thing you walk through at american airports - the one that beeps when you carry metal through and has been in use since well before 1990.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:36pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  Do you know what a magnetometer is?
  
  'cause if you did, you'd realize that their "higher-security" line is in fact the baseline which existed before 9/11.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:34pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  The phrase "find your own fucking evidence" comes to mind when I read yours. I've provided what I believe to be a reasonable model towards improving airport security... Maybe you should put that undergrown lump of shit you call a brain to work?

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:33pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  The phrase "find your own fucking evidence" comes to mind when I read yours. I've provided what I believe to be a reasonable model towards improving airport security... Maybe you should put that undergrown lump of shit you call a brain to work?

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:19pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  Ever hear of adjectives?
  
  Example: A hyperbolic analogy.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 02:18pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Israel+Airport+Security

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 01:58pm

  Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

  1)
  
  Read up on the Israeli airport security measures. Simple, effective, non-invasive. I'm sorry for assuming you had enough intelligence to read between the lines there.
  
  2)
  
  So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy? I'd like to not work, but be given a check every 2 weeks. Wouldn't that be great!?
  
  Hyperbole
  
  Instead of just whining/bitching about TSA,
  
  Assholeism. Although your whole post is full of that.
  
  Again, apologies for assuming you were bright enough to not need the dots connected for you.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 01:33pm

  Re: Stop whining!

  Israel.
  
  Now shape up or piss off. 'cause claiming "I'm not trolling" but spending your entire post being a hyperbolic asshole is sorta like saying "I'm not drunk" as you wrap your car around a street light at 3 a.m.
  
  Prove it.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 01:17pm

  Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  Um... no.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 01:12pm

  Re:

  The standard is that they are "minimally invasive" and "effective". These are neither. I'm not sure how else to explain that.

• On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 01:09pm

  Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

  Y'know, I was just reading an article about people who have trouble differentiating between true and false conspiracies.
  
  Thanks for the case study.

• On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home

  

  Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2010 @ 07:06pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Yeah. Specifically, we believe they should actually count for something.

Next >>