Let’s please not get ahead of ourselves here. While I agree with the overall premise and conclusion that the tone of this letter is far more human and palatable and therefore vastly preferable when compared to the standard administrative and authoritarian legalese ... it is only by those incredibly low standards that this letter could be considered “funny” or “witty”.
Mair is a political operative and a digital terrorist for-hire. Her job on behalf of >her benefactors is to target the opposition, carry out smear campaigns in >coordination with third-parties in Virginia and elsewhere in the United States, >and, in the process, to create extreme negative publicity for the targets, in this >case Plaintiff. Mair is conscious that Twitter is an echo-chamber. She >intentionally changed her identity on Twitter to exploit Plaintiff’s name solely to >obtain more followers and to maliciously increase the audience, scope and >breadth of her false and defamatory statements.
I'm not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong here - but isn't this far closer to actual, you know, defamation ... than any behavior of Mair's referenced?
Would Mair have any justification or standing in a countersuit to ask on what basis they are calling her a "digital terrorist-for-hire"?
> Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
*I'm* no lawyer, but if *you* are a lawyer, and your client is being charged with this law, and you **can't** make the argument that this law itself is in violation of the First Amendment, well, you might want to petition your law school for a refund.
People accuse the FCC of collusion with the industry, and specifically Verizon, based on the former relationships of the new chair, and the cozy policy decisions made in their favor
the FCC makes a tone deaf video, in consultation with Verizon, making fun of these accusations
people request the communications regarding the making of the video
The FCC claims these documents are subject to an FOIA exemption based on the idea that they meet the requirements of being ...
"documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated"
... am I crazy, or did they just completely make the case that they are colluding with Verizon to set government policy?
*********************************** "There is no general right of protection to a social association," [Justice Department attorney Amy Powell] said, referring to First Amendment violations argued by Insane Clown Posse and its fans. ***********************************
Uhhhhhhh ... I had always thought that the First Amendment included something about Congress not making laws that would abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
While you could certainly argue that the ICP does violence to good taste, and what the fuck is the deal with Fanta ... it seems pretty clear to me that enjoying the output of a particular artistic collaborative falls squarely in the first amendment, and if people are going to be deprived of basic freedoms of movement and liberty based on their association with same, the onus is on the government to prove that the association is not peaceable, or the assembly is not peaceful, or, you know, some fucking thing that isn't clearly delineated as protected behavior by the fucking First Amendment, you government stooge lawyer you.
"There is no general right of protection to a social association..."
A lawyer for the US gov't actually said this. I mean, am I misunderstanding something here, or is that ridiculous?
I mean, the guy's job is to exercise judgment, and this is evidence of spectacularly bad and self-serving judgment. I understand that the standards for removal are pretty damn high, but doesn't this warrant some type of investigation and censure?
"Sarcasm is fake commenting, someone gets "misunderstood" using it, it's their own damn fault, not the fault of the audience."
While it is wholly possible to engage in sarcasm on the interbridge that is so subtle that it gets missed ... this is not even close to that case.
Also, sarcasm is not "fake" commenting. It is the use of a rhetorical tool. Fake commenting would be to come on here and claim to have evidence that the President of the United States had illegally ordered electronic surveillance his potential successor, when, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist. Sarcastic commenting would be to say that that is a brilliant strategery, designed and implemented to distract people from the real problem ... that our current President is a delusional paranoid nutball.
Not only that, but they added provisions to make legal fees recoverable if the anti-SLAPP claim is dismissed: "If the court determines that the defendant filed the special motion to dismiss in bad faith, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing the special motion to dismiss."
How does something like this pass with no public commentary? Unanimously? Something is really rotten in the state of Denmark.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by schnick.
Uhhhhhhh...
Let’s please not get ahead of ourselves here. While I agree with the overall premise and conclusion that the tone of this letter is far more human and palatable and therefore vastly preferable when compared to the standard administrative and authoritarian legalese ... it is only by those incredibly low standards that this letter could be considered “funny” or “witty”.
Celebrity news ...
" ...the plaintiff, Robert Zimmerman."
Talk about burying the lede. Bob Dylan is suing facebook?
... bummer. I would think that defamation suit might could have got somewhere.
I'm not a lawyer, so I could very well be wrong here - but isn't this far closer to actual, you know, defamation ... than any behavior of Mair's referenced?
Would Mair have any justification or standing in a countersuit to ask on what basis they are calling her a "digital terrorist-for-hire"?
redress
> Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
*I'm* no lawyer, but if *you* are a lawyer, and your client is being charged with this law, and you **can't** make the argument that this law itself is in violation of the First Amendment, well, you might want to petition your law school for a refund.
catch 23
So ...
... am I crazy, or did they just completely make the case that they are colluding with Verizon to set government policy?
And if not, how so?
social association
***********************************
"There is no general right of protection to a social association," [Justice Department attorney Amy Powell] said, referring to First Amendment violations argued by Insane Clown Posse and its fans.
***********************************
Uhhhhhhh ... I had always thought that the First Amendment included something about Congress not making laws that would abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
While you could certainly argue that the ICP does violence to good taste, and what the fuck is the deal with Fanta ... it seems pretty clear to me that enjoying the output of a particular artistic collaborative falls squarely in the first amendment, and if people are going to be deprived of basic freedoms of movement and liberty based on their association with same, the onus is on the government to prove that the association is not peaceable, or the assembly is not peaceful, or, you know, some fucking thing that isn't clearly delineated as protected behavior by the fucking First Amendment, you government stooge lawyer you.
"There is no general right of protection to a social association..."
A lawyer for the US gov't actually said this. I mean, am I misunderstanding something here, or is that ridiculous?
judgement
I mean, the guy's job is to exercise judgment, and this is evidence of spectacularly bad and self-serving judgment. I understand that the standards for removal are pretty damn high, but doesn't this warrant some type of investigation and censure?
Re:
I wish this wasn't even a little funny.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Learning to Love Copyright
"Sarcasm is fake commenting, someone gets "misunderstood" using it, it's their own damn fault, not the fault of the audience."
While it is wholly possible to engage in sarcasm on the interbridge that is so subtle that it gets missed ... this is not even close to that case.
Also, sarcasm is not "fake" commenting. It is the use of a rhetorical tool. Fake commenting would be to come on here and claim to have evidence that the President of the United States had illegally ordered electronic surveillance his potential successor, when, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist. Sarcastic commenting would be to say that that is a brilliant strategery, designed and implemented to distract people from the real problem ... that our current President is a delusional paranoid nutball.
Isis over the border schmorder
They are right here, training!
Jihadi Training Camps
Re:
Not sure if your response was snarky, but ... Spencer Ackerman is the journalist who wrote about the wacky professor Bradford.
Not only that, but they added provisions to make legal fees recoverable if the anti-SLAPP claim is dismissed:
"If the court determines that the defendant filed the special motion to dismiss in bad faith, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing the special motion to dismiss."
How does something like this pass with no public commentary? Unanimously? Something is really rotten in the state of Denmark.