Tanner Andrews 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1400) comment rss

  • On the post: Elon’s Promise Not To Ban Account Tracking His Jet Didn’t Last Very Long At All; Also Bans Guy’s Personal Account

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2022 @ 04:38am

    other than still being borken

    I think flagging them is fine
    Still seems broken on new platform. Worked fine on old platform. May be that they forgot to test with javascript turned off.

  • On the post: Elon’s Promise Not To Ban Account Tracking His Jet Didn’t Last Very Long At All; Also Bans Guy’s Personal Account

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2022 @ 04:30am

    coersion

    A corporation, even global, can’t coerce you.
    Of course it can. That was the main function of the Pinkerton agency. Of course it can. That was the main function of credit reporting agencies.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2022 @ 04:01am

    compelled speech redux

    lawyers that advertise to the general public, have a place of business that is open to and frequented by the general public and sell their services to the general public.
    That is probably most lawyers. Admittedly there are some who have unlisted phone numbers and do not advertise. Unlisted numbers do not help as much as they should because the phone number is required to appear in enough places that it cannot be viewed as secret. Web scraping services pick it up and flog it about. An attorney ought not discriminate against clients based on protected class. And, as you say, one who does discriminate probably claims there is another basis for turning away the business. The point remains that an attorney can turn away business. Indeed, he is obligated under the ethics rules to turn away some business. Someone who wants to sue the government for making his kids go to school with ``those people'', for instance, presents a meritless case which the attorney ought to turn away. The ``very fine person'' of Virginia, who wants to enforce the deed restriction barring other than white people from purchasing property, should be turned away. Likewise, a newspaper columnist is free to discriminate in his writing. He need not write in praise of gay weddings for the Liberty University Press, or in favor of Jewish tradition in his column for the Illinois Nazi Update.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2022 @ 03:47am

    not a place of public accommodation

    Public accommodation law has been settled law for almost 60 years since the 1964 Civil rights act.
    That is why I said that it matters what your business is. A restaurant cannot refuse to serve persons based on protected class. On the other hand, a newspaper columnist can refuse to write nice things about the Illinois Nazis based solely on their religious views concerning Judiasm, and I see no reason a web site author cannot refuse to express approval for them on the same basis. A person creating an expressive work need not turn away Illinois Nazis. The attorneys in the Skokie case were Jewish, and presumably would not be permitted to join the parade once it was established that the Nazis had a right to parade.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2022 @ 03:38am

    compelled speech redux

    It’s literally work for hire. Unless she has a clause in there that the website is her work and she retains copyright which any reasonable customer would tell her to f*** off, it’s not her speech.
    SO it is. But it is still speech. And I can choose to accept or reject employment to deliver it. My sign printing company that prints pro-truck signs is free to reject orders from the railroad saying ship by rail, and from ecological concerns saying that trucks generate an inordinate amount of diesel fumes. The railroad, on the other hand, does not have the same freedom to refuse to deliver boxcar loads of material to my factory, and to ship loads of signs to the truck factory political distribution center. If you want to view my sign plant as a public accommodation, well. I will print pro-truck signs for anyone who comes along, here are five designs to choose from. I just do not happen to print signs advocating for a cleaner environment. Freedom of the press is for he who owns one.

  • On the post: Yes, Elon Musk Is Fucking Up Twitter; But No, The Government Has No Business Getting Involved

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2022 @ 03:30am

    more than one

    to keep from public knowledge: such as a: to keep secret
    Right you are. And I can certainly keep things from public knowledge, or at least reduce public access to knowledge, without government involvement. Consider a tobacco vendor. They may, through selective funding of research institutions, effectively limit the spread of information about unhealthful effects of their product. Or consider a social media cry-baby. He can, through account management practices, limit the spread of information as to where his airplane is to be found. Or consider a coal mine. The operator may use Pinkertons to prevent information about working conditions from gaining public attention. The information may not be entirely stamped out. People may eventually find out that tobacco is not good for them, or where airplanes are to be found, or that coal companies do not care about you. but the respective entities can at least suppress information spread.

  • On the post: Yes, Elon Musk Is Fucking Up Twitter; But No, The Government Has No Business Getting Involved

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2022 @ 12:19am

    more than one

    Only one organization can censor: Government.
    Dictionary defines censor: * to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable Many organizations can do that. For instance, the local newspaper can censor its letters-to-editor page, replacing or omitting undesired speech. Television stations reporting on the Nixon tapes could bleep out certain words. A porn site may censor comments urging people to watch less porn or to view pictures of different porn stars. And twitter can censor criticism of the owner. None of this presents a 1A problem because in each case it is a private entity controlling its own property.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2022 @ 11:28pm

    compelled speech redux

    A gay wedding is not a pro-gay message.
    A web site for it, on the other hand, is most assuredly delivery of a message. That is its sole purpose.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2022 @ 11:21pm

    She can’t be more granular than “wedding website” and she either has to make a wedding website, gay or otherwise… or she has to refuse to make any wedding website for anyone.
    I do not see any rational basis for drawing the line here. Should a web site author be required to write a web site for Illinois Nazi nuptuals, if she writes one for Jewish nuptuals? Closer to home, should a newspaper columnist be obliged to write a column extolling the virtues of the County Manager, if he writes columns at all? Or should he be obliged to praise Illinois Nazis as a matter of fairness after he wrote a column likening them to the ``very fine people'' of Virgina? I am of the view that compelled speech is obnoxious. If the government wishes me to express a particular view, consistent with the First Amendment it has a few options: it can pay me, convince me of that view's virtue, or go pound sand up its butt.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2022 @ 11:11pm

    compelled speech

    the trash website designer was never foced in any way to make websites for anyone
    A lawyer is not obligated to take cases with which he disagrees. But, if he does so, the views of the client are not imputed to the lawyer. The attys for the Illinois Nazis were Jewish. Why should it be different for writng web sites than for writing briefs? Or, for that matter, writing something on wedding cakes? If I find the views of the Illinois Nazis odious, I ought to be able to 1. not write their brief 2. not write their web site 3. not write something on their cake I acknowledge that an Illinois Nazi may likewise have the right to not represent my views in court, on the interweb, or about the top of my cake. They are probably obligated, if they run an office supply, to sell me a generic court form from that display over there. They are probably obligated, if they sell website-in-a-box, to sell me one. They are probably obligated, if they run a bakery, to sell me a pre-made cake. The difference is between being required to open a public accommodation, and being required to speak.

  • On the post: The First Amendment Needs To Protect Everyone (Even Homophobic Web Designers) To Protect Anyone

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2022 @ 10:55pm

    public accommodtion

    It doesn’t matter what the service is, whether it’s restaurant services, medical services, or website creation services.
    It does matter, actually. The restaurant and the hospital are public accommodations. Website creation, on the other hand, is expressive activity protected by the US First Amendment.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Continues Along The Content Moderation Learning Curve, But Doesn’t Seem To Be Learning A Damn Thing

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2022 @ 11:50pm

    interesting revision to history

    The government (a sentencing judge) can block your access to [the intenet], and it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment.
    Not entirely correct. Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (19-Jun-2017).

  • On the post: Iowa Appeals Court Affirms State Cops Can’t Use Their Ignorance Of The Law To Justify Traffic Stops

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2022 @ 10:58am

    murder charge

    Cops do not generally pull over a random car for a murder charge. In a pretextual stop, they pull it over for something observable, e.g. DWB, and then hope to find some sort of post-hoc justification.

  • On the post: California Court Denies Facial Recognition Pariah Clearview’s Anti-SLAPP Motion Over Its Web Scraping Activities

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2022 @ 10:44am

    munbles

    Speech requires publication of some kind
    Mumbling to myself is speech. Publication is only possible once the speech exists, e.g., I record my mumbles and sell copies of the tape. Analyzing the latest batch of data is speech, even if only between me,the keyboard, and the database engine. Publication is only possible once that speech exists, e.g., when I e-mail the results to the newspaper for the next edition the column.

  • On the post: Court Again Tells Cops That A Councilwoman Referring To Them As Murderers Isn’t Defamation

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2022 @ 10:40am

    offer of judgment

    I sure hope there was an early offer of judgment.

  • On the post: California Court Denies Facial Recognition Pariah Clearview’s Anti-SLAPP Motion Over Its Web Scraping Activities

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2022 @ 04:40am

    is it speech

    The biometric analysis and maintenance of the database is not “speech".
    Court is clearly wrong here. At its best, speech is analysis of information and views, ideally based on some nucleus of fact. When I write an opinion column, that should offer some analysis. Analysis is speech. Mathmatical analysis is speech, too; remember the ``DECSS'' t-shirts. Collecting and maintaining that core of facts which is the subject of the analysis, which core may be deemed a database, is essential to the speech. You should not expect me to analyze the thin air, it is essential to have some facts (a/k/a ``data'') to begin. With that in mind, I am not convinced that Clearview's biometric analysis and database maint activity is speech on an issue of public concern which might bring it within the anti-SLAPP statute. Thus the motion was due to be denied, just not for the reason given by the court.

  • On the post: Ohio Cops Decide First Amendment Doesn’t Exist, Arrest Newspaper Editor For Committing Journalism

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2022 @ 08:42pm

    charging document sounds familiar

    DEREK JOEL MYERS did unlawfully and purposely use, or attempt to use, the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the contents ‘were obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code, in violation of Section 2933.52(A)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code.
    This sounds familiar. (Searches cases...) Oh, yes, here it is. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). The language of the charging document sounds like the fact pattern in Bartnicki, perhaps because it reaches the same conduct. Also, Bartnicki is a 2001 case. That should mean that it is ``clearly established'' law.

  • On the post: Advertiser Explains Why They Paused Their Giant Ad Spend On Twitter After Two Weeks

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2022 @ 07:31am

    Re: Trump's Revenge

    Just curious, but has anyone considered that Musk is doing all this on purpose – literally to kill Twitter.
    Considering, but that is a real stretch. Remember that he did not have the full $44B kicking around in petty cash. He had to borrow about $13B according to the reports. What chance that thelenders of the $13B asked for a personal guarantee? Even if not, he had to toast a bunch of other assets to raise the $31B. That is going to hurt. All that said, it certainly is predictable that Twitter will not prosper under his leadership.

  • On the post: Federal Court Blocks Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE’ Act, Calls It ‘Positively Dystopian’

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2022 @ 04:13am

    One Reason

    Why shouldn’t [Sosomayor talk] be part of the official curriculum
    Mainly because it would violate the Individual Freedom Act to allow her to speak freely. The school would be required to at least discipline anyone who allowed her to speak approvingly of how she got into law school, and if they were not diligent then they risk some of the school's state funding. I think the judge explained this in the ruling, pg 10..11.

  • On the post: Federal Court Blocks Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE’ Act, Calls It ‘Positively Dystopian’

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2022 @ 04:07am

    One-Party Government

    Sure, the legislature and executive are generally run by one party in Florida. And did you know that the appellate judges, and many trial judges, are appointed by the executive?

Next >>