Tanner Andrews 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1400) comment rss

  • On the post: Minneapolis Cops Who Watched Officer Derek Chauvin Kill George Floyd Convicted On Federal Charges

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2022 @ 12:23am

    Asking people who have put their lives on the line for this country “Why don’t you do something?”
    You missed the question. It was not ``how many years of service have you?'', but rather ``why do none of the alleged good cops do anything to weed out the bad ones instead of paying dues to police unions which protect the bad ones?'' (preview still broken)

  • On the post: Minneapolis Cops Who Watched Officer Derek Chauvin Kill George Floyd Convicted On Federal Charges

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2022 @ 12:45pm

    I don’t know where you got the idea that the cops are arresting random passer[s]by
    Sometimes called ``stop and frisk'', and enshrined in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The required level of articulable suspicion is famously known in NY City as walking while black. (preview still broken)

  • On the post: Minnesota Pushing Bill That Says Websites Can No Longer Be Useful For Teenagers

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 07:26pm

    How do you pass out $1000 fines

    No body set up to monitor or enforce. How do you pass out $1000 fines?
    No need for a special body to monitor or enforce. A parent whose kid sees algorithm-selected data sues, getting the $1000 and his lawyer getting fees under the statute. We use similar mechanisms for FDCPA and FCCPA claims, unfair and deceptive claims, and a whole bunch of other things I cannot be bothered to dredge up at the momen. I am having a hard time figuring out how data could be other than algorithm-selected, even if the algorithm is no more than ``fetch the items out in their natural database order''. From this I conclude that there will likely be a lot of suits if it takes time for the law to be invalidated on First Amendment grounds. (preview still borken)

  • On the post: With Truth Social Having Trouble Attracting Users, Will Trump/Nunes Realize That There’s More To Managing A Social Media Site Than Grievances?

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 05:06am

    Paying for Free Speech

    But there are membership dues. T.S requires people to pay a monthly fee for the right to use the service.
    Interestingly enough, snopes says otherwise. There was another ``free speech'' vendor charging so much per week, and using pictures of Trump, but it was not truth social. (preview still borkne)

  • On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2022 @ 03:48am

    Re: [Technically]

    they’re allowed to do this because of the first amendment.
    Right you are. The problem is that litigating relying on the First Amendment alone can be long and costly. S:230 provides a path to shorten the litigation process because cases can go on a motion to dismiss. Yes, that can be appealed also, but you get there faster because you do not have to fully resolve the merits before the appeal. Your record on appeal is essentially 1. complaint 2. motion to dismiss 3. response 4. reply, if any 5. order dismissing rather than a voluminous collection of affidavits (summary judgment) or trial transcripts (if it got that far). It costs less to create that abbreviated record since you are not paying for discovery and more extensive motion practice. So, if the anti-S:230 crowd succeeds, then the courts get to do more work in order to frame the First Amendment issues. Everything takes longer and costs more, which is essentially the fourth law of thermodynamics. (and, yes, preview is still broken)

  • On the post: Jehovah’s Witnesses Abusing Copyright Subpoena Process To Unmask Critics

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 12:56am

    believing the difficult to believe

    posing as a religion.
    Ultimately, a religion is believing something incapable of being disproved. Belief that emacs is better or worse than vi is a religion; which side you prefer will depend on your personal choice for ``better''. Belief that only 144000 Witnesses should enjoy eternal reward is not disprovable, even if it seems unlikely. Russell's teapot is out there as well. It may be that the particular religion, including the views on kiddie diddling that you mention, is abhorrent to a large number of what we will call ``right thinking'' people. Remember that, at one time, Protestant views were considered outside of the mainstream, subject to punishment. Belief that the service hosting Techdirt will never fix "preview" may come close to beling a religion.

  • On the post: Jehovah’s Witnesses Abusing Copyright Subpoena Process To Unmask Critics

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 12:43am

    Disappointment in JW Attys

    They and their lawyers just accidentally happened to be correct and on the side of good in those instances
    Even so, they wound up losing in Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. 568 )1042). There, JW member insulted city marshal, who was assisting unruly mob, by offering what appears to be at least likely truthful commentary concerning said citgy marshall (``You are a *** damned racketeer''). The court deemed this to be ``fighting words'' properly subject to punishment. Would they have reached that conclusion, had Walter Chaplinsky not been a Witness? Later cases suggest perhaps not. Houston v. Hill 482 U.S. 561 (1987). (preview still borkne)

  • On the post: Cops Who Sued Journalist For Reporting On Their Poor Handling Of A Rape Case Lose Their Defamation Lawsuit

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2022 @ 03:18am

    There are countries where the statements being true is not a shield against a defamation case
    For most of its history, that would include the U.S. Various states provided some protection by allowing a defense of 1. truth 2. published with good motives, but if you could not show both then you could still be liable for defamation. The burden was on the defendant to prove the defense. It is not clear that this was entirely compatible with the US First Amendment, but until the 1920s it was commonly assumed that the First Amendment was no bar to state action. In Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) the good motive requirement was rejected there. However, the requiremet was still viable in some cases at least as late as 1964. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64,72 (1964). Even that was an innovation. As the court explained in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250,255 (1952) even truth with good motive was not a defense at common law, but only made so by the various state constitutions which provided that protection. (preview still broken)

  • On the post: Appeals Court Tosses Evidence Illegally Obtained By Opportunistic Cops Who Couldn’t Take ‘Nah’ For An Answer

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2022 @ 02:27am

    lying to law enforcement

    Oh, you are not allowed to lie to the police at all? Really?
    They call it ``obstruction'' and they can do you for it. Entirely bogus charge, yes, but courts will convict anyway. You couild be mistake and say that it is monday instead of Tuesday, and an eager prosecutor can turn it into prison time. The FBI takes great advantage of this by making sure that their interviews are not recorded. Then, if they get nothing else, they can write up their ``notes'' to include something false that they think you said, and you have just obstructed an investigation. (preview still broken)

  • On the post: (Corporate) Information Wants To Be Free

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2022 @ 02:06am

    Complete Organic Fertilizer

    the notion that a corporation’s private internal information and financial records must be revealed to the government & public BECAUSE the government may choose to buy some stuff from them — is absurd bullschitt.
    So it is, and I have not seen anyone advocate such a position. I think that what is being advocated in the original article is a theory that 1. when someone subject to government regulation (e.g. airplane vendor whose product will be used to carry passengers) 2. provides information 3. about the subject of the regulation 4. whose concealment endangers the public then the public ought to be informed in order to avoid that endangerment. Boeing appears to have argued that its control firmware ought to be maintained as a trade secret, despite its tendency to fly airplanes into terrain. It could be argued that concealing such a hazard, resulting in further deaths, was a bad act. (preview still broken)

  • On the post: ‘Preeminent’ Constitutional Legal Scholar Files Embarrassingly Confused Amicus Brief In Favor Of Texas’ Ability To Tell Websites How To Moderate

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2022 @ 06:47pm

    Prune Yard, Mis-Read

    why the SCOTUS upheld California’s decision to regulate shopping malls in PruneYard
    You may have mis-read that case. The Supreme Court actually said that the state's regulation was not a compensable taking because allowing First Amendment activity there did not impair the use or value of the property. Pruneyard, 447 U.S. at 83. (preview still borken)

  • On the post: Cloudflare Says Shutting Down In Russia Would Give Putin What He Wants

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2022 @ 11:51pm

    If Cloudflare wanted to be useful, they could disconnect their Russian customers. They can still respond to HTTP/HTTPS requests from Russia, but would no longer serve pages from Russian sites. (preview still borken)

  • On the post: Farmers Unions, Right To Repair Coalition Files FTC Complaint Against John Deere

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2022 @ 09:09am

    No Surprise that Most Farmers Buy John Deere

    Have you tried to buy a tractor by * International Harvester * McCormick * Farm-All * Deering * Case recently? There are a lot fewer options now than there were a few decades ago. Not saying that there are none, I believe Ford still makes tractors, but there has been a lot of market consolidation. (preview still borken)

  • On the post: Some Known Issues With The New Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2022 @ 04:00am

    must be your platform
    I normally run without javascript enabled. Preview and flag no longer work. Either this is a bug, which can be fixed, or some sort of truly horrifying decision to require javascript in an era when it is such a common attack vector that even children know not to allow it.

  • On the post: Court Ignores That Texas Social Media Censorship Law Was Blocked As Unconstitutional: Orders Meta To Reinstate Account

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2022 @ 06:23am

    Contracting Away First Amendment

    At this point, most of us would ask you to provide proof that someone entered into a contract that specifically and explicitly told him/her that he cannot speak his mind openly in public.
    Not a problem. Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875). Good discussion on the topic of voluntariness of waiver, Sambo's Restaurants v. City of Ann Arbor, 663 F.2d 686 (US 6th Cir.) Here in Florida, companies and governments enter into non-disclosure agreements as well. As a condition of participating in some bid processes, entitles agree that some information will be secret. In Silver Express, the bidders all agreed not to disclose outside of the private session. The ``floating billboard'' company dealing with the count has expressly agreed to waive the rights to say certain things. The county beach administration probably insisted on that, but in any case it is in the agreement as presented for approval. Since the original question was phrased as whether a contract could override First Amendment rights, I think my original response was on point. You can agree to waive rights, whether dealing with private entities or with the government. (preview still borken)

  • On the post: Some Known Issues With The New Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2022 @ 06:07am

    Spammers are still here
    Yes, and the ``flag'' option still does not work, maybe our advanced 1990s technology of embeded links with "?action=flag&ref=12341234" has been lost. It is hard to imagine that this is the first blog with a "preview" feature, but evidently that is not something known to wordpress. At any rate, preview also does not work. Technology can be lost over time. They still have not figured out the formula for Greek fire.

  • On the post: Some Known Issues With The New Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2022 @ 08:01pm

    still seems surprising that WordPress has not previously encountered website customization requirements like those of TD.
    Right you are. It is hard to believe that ``preview'' is showing up for the first time with Techdirt, because I seem to recall that being a feature available on other systems for weeks, if not months, prior to the migration here. I suppose that wordpress had not seen it before, but that would be due to a failure to pay attention. Also, you might think that the ``cookies'' warning technology had been seen before, since much of Europe is said to have required something similar even prior to this migration. So there ought to be some way to make that work. I can understand ``flag'' not working, the idea of a special-purpose link with embedded params (e.g. mysite.com/do_something?func=this&arg=that) seemed new and novel back in the 1990s when I did a little bit of web work. And it is possible that the technology has gone the way of Greek fire. Still, it is a shame to be moving backward so that we can no longer preview or flag spam.

  • On the post: McDonald’s Sued For Thwarting Third Party’s Solution To Its Broken Ice Cream Machine Problem

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2022 @ 06:12pm

    what are they supposed to do if the machine manufacturer voids the warranties if a 3rd party fix is applied?
    Ideally, corporate HQ would warn franchisees of the unreliability of the McFlurry machine vendor, and seek a new supplier of machines. This would be based on a theory that a working machine leads to sale of more ice cream, which means that the franchisees are buying more ice cream mix, which means that corporate makes more money. Disclaimer: I am not entirely unbiased because I own McD stock and therefore benefit which the stores sell more product. (note: preview still borken on new site)

  • On the post: Russia’s Social Media Propaganda Campaign Is Backfiring, So It’s Banning Facebook In Russia

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2022 @ 04:36am

    Control Public Sentiment

    Putin himself believed the false narrative that Russian trolls and disinfo peddlers really could control the public sentiment
    Not exactly false. For many years, Russian trolls appear to have influenced public sentiment, at least in the States. It may have controlled enough to influence the 2016 election. Even though a majority of the voters chose one candidate, the distribution of votes was such that a different candidate was declared the winner. There seemed to be a lot of pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine postings and influence around the time of the ``perfect'' phone call. Again, a majority of the public may not have been convinced of the administration's unreliable narrative, but enough, in the right places, seem to have been convinced. (BTW: ``preview'' still seems borken)

  • On the post: Court Ignores That Texas Social Media Censorship Law Was Blocked As Unconstitutional: Orders Meta To Reinstate Account

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2022 @ 06:13am

    You Can Agree to Waive Some Rights

    What “basic contract law” overrides the 1st Amendment
    Pretty much any contract (sometimes called ``private law'') can do that. We can have a non-disclosure agreement. In those, we waive our 1A rights to expound on certain things. Such agreements are frequently upheld. We can have an endorsement agreement, wherein one of us agrees to praise only the other's products or services and not a competitor's. For instance, you can agree to publicly endorse only Lucky Strike cigarettes, and not to praise any other brand, despite the fact that the 1A would allow you to praise any brand of your choosing. Less formally, as a condition of membership in your local KKK chapter, you can agree not to speak in favor of integration. The 1A would otherwise permit such political speech, but you agree not to do so in return for the perceived benefits of membership. You could even agree not to say [censored] or even [bleep] in order to be permitted to post on a family-oriented message board. But for that agreement, you could say those rude words, and indeed you might still say those words outside of the family-oriented message board.

Next >>