Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 299: George Floyd

(+) Yeah! (+)

MoogleKupo141 posted...

He knows stuff, sure, but he also knows how to interpret stuff in a way that favors him in an argument. I wouldnt trust that whatever he says is an objective assessment of the circumstances.

This 100%. There are some incredibly smart and heavily educated people on both sides (obviously) but their goal is not to solve all problems in a logical manner but to progress their individual or partys agenda

---

Wonder if Ted would have complained about a fact check on Trump's assertion that his dad killed JFK

---

Dark Young Link posted...

Well it's a shame if he was overly punished, but that's how driving while drunk goes. You're bound to be punished.

You literally just tried to twist it. Like, step back and think about how you are acting.

I was guilty of a M2. I plead guilty to a M2. I was found guilty of a M2 and punished accordingly. Clerically there was an error where they wrote down M1 instead of M2. This didn't affect the court punishments the judge ordered, but has repercussions. This affected me with PennDot. It also is the difference between me being able to own a gun or not (not that I care about that).

No. Committing a crime doesn't mean that you should be punished erroneously. That is the same as saying if you committed an infraction of speeding that they could give you a Felony and years in jail because "but that's how speeding goes. You're bound to be punished."

---

Fact check: JFK is not one of the people the Cruz family has killed.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Justin Amash actually has a pretty good thread summarizing it:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1266105211044663298

It also has a link to the text of the law at the end if you want to read that. In particular:

(c) Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

So if I am reading this correctly, the more apt comparison would be that Twitter can be treated less like NYT and more like the Drudge Report (or any news aggregator). Because Drudge does not create any of the articles he links to, he is not liable for their content even though he is actively choosing which links live on his website. Is that right?

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. Committing a crime doesn't mean that you should be punished erroneously. That is the same as saying if you committed an infraction of speeding that they could give you a Felony and years in jail because "but that's how speeding goes. You're bound to be punished."

So why is that your mentality when someone resists arrest?
(Not that such a thing would be relevant in the case of George Floyd)

---

Dark Young Link posted...

So why is that your mentality when someone resists arrest?
(Not that such a thing would be relevant in the case of George Floyd)

When you resist arrest you escalate situations and a bevy of options become possible in how you are subdued. Depending on the situations, this could result in possible death.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Oh man I come back to check in on the Politics topic after a while and find everyone engaging with Human Piece of Shit SephG again like he's a human being

Great job guys you did real well learning from your mistakes

i'm sure red sox and suprak are happy about this, at least.

"sEpHyG mAkEs ThIs ToPiC sO iNtErEsTiNg"

---

red sox 777 posted...

We are an election or two away from anarchy and mob rule if the left wins.

the left winning leads to anarchy? pretty sure muffin would be a lot more sympathetic to the left if that were the case!

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

So if I am reading this correctly, the more apt comparison would be that Twitter can be treated less like NYT and more like the Drudge Report (or any news aggregator). Because Drudge does not create any of the articles he links to, he is not liable for their content even though he is actively choosing which links live on his website. Is that right?

I'm not sure if there's any legal distinction or not between Drudge linking to illegal material and writing it themselves, but in any case it wouldn't be the same. The point is that NYT is both a publisher of their own content (e.g. the articles) and a platform for what users post (the comments); they're liable only for the former, and under 230 they can moderate those comments without taking on liability for everything their users post. Twitter is exactly the same: they're liable for what they personally post to the site, but not for what their users post (though under DMCA they need to remove copyrighted content if notified by the holder of the rights). By adding a note to Trump's tweet, they're additionally liable only for the content of that note.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I think he's more disappointed that they aren't taking the side of the people who killed a man for trespassing on property that didn't belong to them, freedom to murder! (Murder, okay! Trespassing? Worthy of death!)

the stance of a true libertarian

---

Corrik7 posted...

When you resist arrest you escalate situations and a bevy of options become possible in how you are subdued. Depending on the situations, this could result in possible death.

So you acknowledge that the punishment for one's actions can be disproportionate.

So why complain about what happened to you when you seem to shrug your shoulders at much more deliberate and more fatal responses?


---

Finelly, we got her.

Boy that photo out of context!

I know Taylor Swift talked about the murder and stuff.

---

Dark Young Link posted...

So you acknowledge that the punishment for one's actions can be disproportionate.

So why complain about what happened to you when you seem to shrug your shoulders at much more deliberate and more fatal responses?

Are you seriously going down this route right now? Because this is an insane line of thought and has zero connection despite the way you are attempting to frame it. I mean...? Do we need to waste our time on this? You don't have a gotcha. You have a completely broken line of logic.

You are comparing taking a criminal into custody and a court sentence. These are not the same. In any way at all.

---

https://twitter.com/PoorlyAgedStuff/status/1266463039030689796?s=19

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm not sure if there's any legal distinction or not between Drudge linking to illegal material and writing it themselves, but in any case it wouldn't be the same. The point is that NYT is both a publisher of their own content (e.g. the articles) and a platform for what users post (the comments); they're liable only for the former, and under 230 they can moderate those comments without taking on liability for everything their users post. Twitter is exactly the same: they're liable for what they personally post to the site, but not for what their users post (though under DMCA they need to remove copyrighted content if notified by the holder of the rights). By adding a note to Trump's tweet, they're additionally liable only for the content of that note.

Adding a note may change everything. They are implicitly endorsing everything they don't add a note to.

I suspect SCOTUS will have to hear this case at some point.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/PoorlyAgedStuff/status/1266463039030689796?s=19

A+

---

If that reading is correct, I suspect Twitter will ultimately win this case. However, given they are not a profitable company, they might go bankrupt with litigation fees in the meantime.

---

Nope, no "gotcha".

Just found it funny that someone who's a "The law is the law" type would be guilty of breaking such a huge one themselves.

People murdered by police for not bowing down to them(And sometimes even then) but are expected to have complete and total faith in the legal system by you, but the thing that gets you upset is a clerical error.

But yeah, I admit I've gone off on a tangent there for a bit. My bad.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wonder if Ted would have complained about a fact check on Trump's assertion that his dad killed JFK

If they did a fact check on it the theory would never die. Because that would imply there was a debate on it, with at least two sides. Ted did the right thing when faced with a ridiculous allegation like that - ignore it.

A big part of political acumen is being able to decide which allegations are ridiculous on their face and should be ignored, and which ones need to be rebutted (i.e. swiftboating). If you can't distinguish between them, you tend to choose the wrong strategy and fan the flames even more.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Adding a note may change everything. They are implicitly endorsing everything they don't add a note to.

I suspect SCOTUS will have to hear this case at some point.

No, that's the whole point of the law. Congress recognized that if an online company with a large userbase provided the ability for those users to post content, it would be impossible for those companies to uniformly police that content. 230 is saying that companies can allow users to post stuff, and attempt to police it, without undertaking liability. (They do have to take down illegal stuff if notified).

---

Dark Young Link posted...

Nope, no "gotcha".

Just found it funny that someone who's a "The law is the law" type would be guilty of breaking such a huge one themselves.

People murdered by police for not bowing down to them(And sometimes even then) but are expected to have complete and total faith in the legal system by you, but the thing that gets you upset is a clerical error.

But yeah, I admit I've gone off on a tangent there for a bit. My bad.

People don't have leniency to murder people for not bowing down to them. They have the option to subdue someone with fatal consequences if there is a reasonable reason to do so.

What the cop did here was not reasonable from everything I have seen. Thus, the cop should be subject to the court of law for his crime.

There are plenty of situations when a cop shooting a person resisting could be the optimal response. Sometimes where it is a reasonable one but not optimal. And times when it is not reasonable, and it is a crime.

This case doesn't involve shooting someone. But, the point remains. It is lacking details on what led up to the subduing of the person. Subduing him may have been reasonable or may not have been. However, what isn't reasonable is that the cop continued to pin his neck with his knee after the man clearly was submitted. That is what undoubtedly makes it a crime.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If that reading is correct, I suspect Twitter will ultimately win this case. However, given they are not a profitable company, they might go bankrupt with litigation fees in the meantime.

Oh god now Im imagining a GoFundMe to help Twitter and cringing at all the people who would donate just because its anti-Trump
---

The Trump Administration is terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/29/trump-china-hong-kong-who/

Also revoking Hong Kong's special trade status and treating it the same as the rest of China.

---

xp1337 posted...

Also revoking Hong Kong's special trade status and treating it the same as the rest of China.

Reasonable, actually
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, that's the whole point of the law. Congress recognized that if an online company with a large userbase provided the ability for those users to post content, it would be impossible for those companies to uniformly police that content. 230 is saying that companies can allow users to post stuff, and attempt to police it, without undertaking liability. (They do have to take down illegal stuff if notified).

Well let's look at it.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

I don't see "false" or "politically bad" anywhere on there. There is a canon of construction that blanket catchalls like "otherwise objectionable" refer to things similar to the list that precedes them. Obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, and harassing are very different in type to false things or political opinions with which one disagrees. So, I don't think "otherwise objectionable" could apply to fact-checking and certainly not to opinion policing.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh god now Im imagining a GoFundMe to help Twitter and cringing at all the people who would donate just because its anti-Trump

Well, whoever donated to Stormy Daniels may have ended up paying Trump when she was ordered to pay his attorney's fees for bringing a frivolous suit against him.

---

xp1337 posted...

The Trump Administration is terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization:

Remember this moment everyone.

In a few months when many more Americans are dying from the pandemic, I'm sure Trump will find some way to blame Obama for "leaving him unprepared".

---

Also, while this is from copyright law so I don't know if it would apply here, it has long been established that content aggregation produces copyrightable material. So if I collect a list of addresses and put them in a phone directory, that book is copyrightable notwithstanding that all of the information in it is public record.

The nature of a typical platform is that they do not curate their content, or they let users self-curate (like Reddit upvoting/downvoting). Curation is a form of content production, and nothing in section 230 says that it isn't with the exception that platforms have a safe harbor for restricting content based on obscenity, lewdness, etc. As a matter of feeling, I think a court would probably see it that way too.


---

So the Brooklyn protests are set for tonight literally across the street from me at the Barclays Center. Have about 200 cops outside my door right now.

---

say hi to timjab

---

Hey you wanted to be able to get out and socialize
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'm sure red sox and suprak are happy about this, at least.

"sEpHyG mAkEs ThIs ToPiC sO iNtErEsTiNg"

Can you just pretend I insulted you so you can go to your most important contribution of any topic and spam go fuck yourself?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Can you just pretend I insulted you so you can go to your most important contribution of any topic and spam go fuck yourself?

i don't have to pretend so i'll just tell you to go fuck yourself for a reason

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Hey you wanted to be able to get out and socialize

Yeah it's weird that the mayor isn't chastising this gathering the same way he was with the Hassidic funerals. I wonder what the difference is here?

---

FFDragon posted...

say hi to timjab

oh shit this is my opportunity to make amends!

---

Thats the well adjusted Lasa we all know and love!

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

oh shit this is my opportunity to make amends!

Please go out to the police line waving your hands around and screaming for him, I'm sure he'll show.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Thats the well adjusted Lasa we all know and love!

not sure what response you expected to "you've contributed 0% of value in your 16 years on this message board"

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Please go out to the police line waving your hands around and screaming for him, I'm sure he'll show.

Take him a Pepsi
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Please go out to the police line waving your hands around and screaming for him, I'm sure he'll show.

@ExThaNemesis can you text Tim and see if he's at the Barclays Center? I assume he would volunteer for this shift!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Take him a Pepsi

Ooh perfect, keep it in your pocket so it's a surprise and make sure to reach for it right when you find him.

You guys! Lol!

---

Mike Flynn transcript:

https://twitter.com/Timodc/status/1266480054470492160

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Mike Flynn transcript:

https://twitter.com/Timodc/status/1266480054470492160

Getting help when you need it is not subservient. Fact of the matter is that we were losing the war in the Middle East. We swallowed our pride and asked Russia for help and then we won.

---

That transcript is slam dunk evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI, too:

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1266486158890057728

---

I'm cooking steak and making a nice gin cocktail right now as I can hear the BLM protesters. Is this the "white privilege" I've been hearing so much about?

---

Privilege is what makes people believe that the arc of history bends toward justice!

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the left winning leads to anarchy? pretty sure muffin would be a lot more sympathetic to the left if that were the case!

Muffin has awful political instincts, even worse than the DNC. He's basically always wrong and chooses the option that will hurt his cause most.

---