The NJSPBA does not and will not protect bad officers who violate the public trust and, yet, the 99.9% of good men and women serving in law enforcement continue to find themselves under attack.
Huh? The only people this case puts “under attack” are officers who committed serious misconduct. Aren’t those, pretty much by definition, “bad officers who violate the public trust”?
Eh, Ohio judges aren’t that bad in general. You’re more likely to have the legislature and governor just fire the Supreme Court that ruled against them and appoint new ones.
Exploring this line of thought much further will lead to a factual conclusion unacceptable to Techdirters.
The general community of people on Techdirt is quite heavily divided on the issue of gun control. We certainly don’t all focus on gun control as even a significant factor in how to handle mass shootings. Trying to say that we all—or even a majority of us—will reject the conclusion you allude to is highly unlikely in that light, since we can’t really come to a consensus on a lot of things on this issue.
…Unless you’re trying to imply something other than mental health or victims of bullying like race or religion, but if that’s the case, a) that’s unsupported by the facts, and b) no shit we’d reject that conclusion; it’d be no better than blaming the tool for how it’s used. But hey, surely that’s not what you’re going for, right?
I have no idea where you’re getting that from. Most of my comments appear immediately, and even the ones that do get held for moderation (which then do have to be individually okayed) usually don’t stay there for long. Also, if your accusations were true, why would he let this one through?
That’s what you get when you not only sell access to content but also don’t pay the people who provide content one cent, especially when those people also rely heavily on similar content by others.
Also, I saw one lawyer say that bringing up this defense—even as a preliminary one—may actually hurt more than it helps. To prove defamation, Dominion has to prove both that the statement was false and that it was made with her either actually knowing it was false or harboring serious doubts that it was true. This defense effectively admits that both are true if the statement is legally a statement of fact. If this defense fails (and it almost certainly will), her case may get a whole lot harder.
In other words, it’s a huge gamble that is unlikely to succeed and, if it fails, could actually backfire on her.
The whole purpose of a journalist is to talk about a variety of topics that they have some knowledge about even if they aren’t professionals or experts in that field. That way, the public can learn more about them.
Also, the opinion that this is an incredibly weak and astounding argument to make in context is perfectly valid. I’ve seen other lawyers and other legal experts say as much. The fact that this is a preliminary argument makes no difference to the fact that this is a silly and poor argument to use in this particular case.
Also, Dominion (and SmartMatic, for that matter) have seemed extremely confident that they will win on the facts and actually appear to be looking forward to discovery. Also, it is incredibly rare for a major company or a rich public figure to sue (not pro se) for defamation if discovery has any real chance of exposing damaging information about them. They might still threaten legal action, but they’ll stop short of actually filing a lawsuit. It’s highly unlikely that Dominion’s lawyers would have been willing to go this far without first making sure that discovery won’t make their client’s reputation worse.
And even if it turns out Sidney Powell is right in her accusations (which she won’t be; several of her statements have already proven to be categorically false), it’s highly unlikely she would get to use Anti-SLAPP laws to do anything here. Even giving her the best likelihood of success, anything favoring her would be too weak to provide the sort of “exceptional” case it would defend, and if it gets that far that discovery is something to worry about, it won’t be the sort of thing that an Anti-SLAPP law would lead to it ending.
What you’re describing sounds less like a multi-prong approach and more like a throw-everything-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach.
we're supposed to believe that some person waited 3 and half years
Three and a half years isn’t even that long. There are sites I haven’t posted anything on for longer than that that I still visit. Heck, I was on YouTube for far longer than that before I posted my first comment.
then found this topic on waning site
Do you have evidence to back up the claim that this is a waning site?
of such interest that just had to comment. BALONEY.
Again, pretty normal. I stayed off Facebook for longer than that until the “bathroom bill” in North Carolina became a hot topic on there and I decided to weigh in.
This is ASTRO-TURFING.
Tell me, why would someone “astro-turf” such a silly comment that doesn’t really support the opinion of the article? I don’t think you’ve actually thought this through.
Seriously, I don’t know why you keep bringing up these “zombie accounts”, but it seems that you’ve been coming up with weaker and weaker arguments lately. One guy had actually made multiple comments on recent articles, one of which you had actually replied to, when you made (another) claim that they hadn’t commented for years. One person was actually a former writer for Techdirt (a poor choice for a sock-puppet account). And now you have someone who was only inactive for less than four years and who is actually taking a contrary position. You were never exactly good at this, but you’re actually getting worse lately. Is something going on with you? You’re not even reaching the incredibly low bar you previously met. Is there something going on IRL with you?
Your suspicion is accurate. IANAL either, but every lawyer I’ve seen speak on the subject has explicitly said that the fact that actual people genuinely believe(d) that these statements were intended to be taken as statements of fact and not mere exaggeration or hyperbole has little to no impact on whether or not it is actually a statement of fact as a matter of law.
That said, even under the current standard, the fact that these were sworn statements of fact and sworn factual allegations in actual litigation does tend to suggest that a reasonable person knowing the full context of the statements made would reasonably believe that they were intended to be taken as statements of fact even when stated outside the courtroom by the same person.
Let’s set aside whether or not guns are actually helpful in such situations. Masnick hasn’t really spent much time discussing the 2nd Amendment at all. Gun rights, gun control, and the 2nd Amendment are rarely even mentioned on Techdirt beyond noting that many pro-2A people are less insistent on protecting other rights, or that someone is known for having strong opinions on such issues, or noting cases where someone was shot solely because police thought that they had a gun but it wasn’t out in the open or where the police broke into the home and an occupant exercised their right to defend their home from unknown intruders. None of it was anti-2A, pro-gun-control, or any of that. Sure, many commenters have taken such stances in the comments, but neither the articles nor their writers did.
Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly and vehemently attacked §230, calling for its repeal or reform (mostly repeal) in many occasions, both as President and as a private citizen. He has never expressed support for or said anything even neutral about §230. He even tried to hold up a military spending bill because it didn’t repeal §230 (which, of course, has literally nothing to do with the military or spending at all)!
As such, the idea that Trump will have to rely on §230 is far more ironic and hypocritical of him than the idea that Masnick will someday rely on the 2A, and the former also appears far more likely than the latter. The comparison you make is completely and utterly inapt.
(Also, I’m unaware of any articles on Techdirt that even mention abortion aside from mentioning the speech rights of people who are pro-life or pro-choice or anyone sued by such persons, nor have any Techdirt writers appeared to have ever mentioned abortion in any of the comments on Techdirt or in their Twitter accounts. So why you even mentioned abortion is beyond me.)
Furthermore, Masnick never said that Trump shouldn’t rely on §230. He just noted that it would contradict his vocal stance against §230, and that he should really rethink that particular stance if and when he does start a social media site if he doesn’t want to be a hypocrite (something Trump doesn’t seem particularly bothered by beyond calling any such accusations “fake news” when it’s inconvenient for him).
As for Trump being mentioned again, he was brought up as a potential new entrant to the social-media space in recent news, and his stance on §230 is well-known. That makes this news on current events in an area Techdirt generally covers. It’s also been only, like, two months since he left office and slightly longer than that since he was kicked off of Twitter, and he’s still a public figure both as a businessman and as a former president who still tries to remain relevant in politics even now (and also as a subject of several ongoing criminal investigations, but that’s not exactly relevant to this specific article). That he’s being mentioned on this site now is essentially his own fault, not to keep beating a dead horse.
(untitled comment)
Huh? The only people this case puts “under attack” are officers who committed serious misconduct. Aren’t those, pretty much by definition, “bad officers who violate the public trust”?
(untitled comment)
In other breaking news, water is wet, fire is hot, pain hurts, and people breathe.
(untitled comment)
What do they mean that the blue coloration calls to mind the Swedish brand? Their brand is clearly not blue.
Re:
Please tell me where they do those things.
Re: Re:
Eh, Ohio judges aren’t that bad in general. You’re more likely to have the legislature and governor just fire the Supreme Court that ruled against them and appoint new ones.
Re: Re:
I apologize for my state government. They are fools.
(untitled comment)
So, a laughingstock just proved they are also a tech laughingstock? And this is news because…?
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment
The general community of people on Techdirt is quite heavily divided on the issue of gun control. We certainly don’t all focus on gun control as even a significant factor in how to handle mass shootings. Trying to say that we all—or even a majority of us—will reject the conclusion you allude to is highly unlikely in that light, since we can’t really come to a consensus on a lot of things on this issue.
…Unless you’re trying to imply something other than mental health or victims of bullying like race or religion, but if that’s the case, a) that’s unsupported by the facts, and b) no shit we’d reject that conclusion; it’d be no better than blaming the tool for how it’s used. But hey, surely that’s not what you’re going for, right?
Re: WHEW! Worst ever blocking, then suddenly none.
It’s funny how you say these things as if they make Techdirt look bad rather than make you look dumb or like a fragile snowflake.
Re: YOU WISH THE DISSENTERS TO GO AWAY!
I don’t think you know what “doublethink” actually means, because even if what you said was true, that wouldn’t involve doublethink.
Re: innocuous leader -- M's pieces usually seemed locked down
I have no idea where you’re getting that from. Most of my comments appear immediately, and even the ones that do get held for moderation (which then do have to be individually okayed) usually don’t stay there for long. Also, if your accusations were true, why would he let this one through?
Re: Re: Who's "Matt"?
I’m not sure what power Google could possibly have (legal or practical) to “suppress” links from one third-party site to another third-party site.
Re: Re:
That’s what you get when you not only sell access to content but also don’t pay the people who provide content one cent, especially when those people also rely heavily on similar content by others.
Re: Schooling
Also, I saw one lawyer say that bringing up this defense—even as a preliminary one—may actually hurt more than it helps. To prove defamation, Dominion has to prove both that the statement was false and that it was made with her either actually knowing it was false or harboring serious doubts that it was true. This defense effectively admits that both are true if the statement is legally a statement of fact. If this defense fails (and it almost certainly will), her case may get a whole lot harder.
In other words, it’s a huge gamble that is unlikely to succeed and, if it fails, could actually backfire on her.
Re: Schooling
The whole purpose of a journalist is to talk about a variety of topics that they have some knowledge about even if they aren’t professionals or experts in that field. That way, the public can learn more about them.
Also, the opinion that this is an incredibly weak and astounding argument to make in context is perfectly valid. I’ve seen other lawyers and other legal experts say as much. The fact that this is a preliminary argument makes no difference to the fact that this is a silly and poor argument to use in this particular case.
Also, Dominion (and SmartMatic, for that matter) have seemed extremely confident that they will win on the facts and actually appear to be looking forward to discovery. Also, it is incredibly rare for a major company or a rich public figure to sue (not pro se) for defamation if discovery has any real chance of exposing damaging information about them. They might still threaten legal action, but they’ll stop short of actually filing a lawsuit. It’s highly unlikely that Dominion’s lawyers would have been willing to go this far without first making sure that discovery won’t make their client’s reputation worse.
And even if it turns out Sidney Powell is right in her accusations (which she won’t be; several of her statements have already proven to be categorically false), it’s highly unlikely she would get to use Anti-SLAPP laws to do anything here. Even giving her the best likelihood of success, anything favoring her would be too weak to provide the sort of “exceptional” case it would defend, and if it gets that far that discovery is something to worry about, it won’t be the sort of thing that an Anti-SLAPP law would lead to it ending.
What you’re describing sounds less like a multi-prong approach and more like a throw-everything-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach.
Re: Re: "merk" seen only once before!
Three and a half years isn’t even that long. There are sites I haven’t posted anything on for longer than that that I still visit. Heck, I was on YouTube for far longer than that before I posted my first comment.
Do you have evidence to back up the claim that this is a waning site?
Again, pretty normal. I stayed off Facebook for longer than that until the “bathroom bill” in North Carolina became a hot topic on there and I decided to weigh in.
Tell me, why would someone “astro-turf” such a silly comment that doesn’t really support the opinion of the article? I don’t think you’ve actually thought this through.
Seriously, I don’t know why you keep bringing up these “zombie accounts”, but it seems that you’ve been coming up with weaker and weaker arguments lately. One guy had actually made multiple comments on recent articles, one of which you had actually replied to, when you made (another) claim that they hadn’t commented for years. One person was actually a former writer for Techdirt (a poor choice for a sock-puppet account). And now you have someone who was only inactive for less than four years and who is actually taking a contrary position. You were never exactly good at this, but you’re actually getting worse lately. Is something going on with you? You’re not even reaching the incredibly low bar you previously met. Is there something going on IRL with you?
Re: Re: 'Were you lying to that court, this court, or both?'
Your suspicion is accurate. IANAL either, but every lawyer I’ve seen speak on the subject has explicitly said that the fact that actual people genuinely believe(d) that these statements were intended to be taken as statements of fact and not mere exaggeration or hyperbole has little to no impact on whether or not it is actually a statement of fact as a matter of law.
That said, even under the current standard, the fact that these were sworn statements of fact and sworn factual allegations in actual litigation does tend to suggest that a reasonable person knowing the full context of the statements made would reasonably believe that they were intended to be taken as statements of fact even when stated outside the courtroom by the same person.
Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment.
Let’s set aside whether or not guns are actually helpful in such situations. Masnick hasn’t really spent much time discussing the 2nd Amendment at all. Gun rights, gun control, and the 2nd Amendment are rarely even mentioned on Techdirt beyond noting that many pro-2A people are less insistent on protecting other rights, or that someone is known for having strong opinions on such issues, or noting cases where someone was shot solely because police thought that they had a gun but it wasn’t out in the open or where the police broke into the home and an occupant exercised their right to defend their home from unknown intruders. None of it was anti-2A, pro-gun-control, or any of that. Sure, many commenters have taken such stances in the comments, but neither the articles nor their writers did.
Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly and vehemently attacked §230, calling for its repeal or reform (mostly repeal) in many occasions, both as President and as a private citizen. He has never expressed support for or said anything even neutral about §230. He even tried to hold up a military spending bill because it didn’t repeal §230 (which, of course, has literally nothing to do with the military or spending at all)!
As such, the idea that Trump will have to rely on §230 is far more ironic and hypocritical of him than the idea that Masnick will someday rely on the 2A, and the former also appears far more likely than the latter. The comparison you make is completely and utterly inapt.
(Also, I’m unaware of any articles on Techdirt that even mention abortion aside from mentioning the speech rights of people who are pro-life or pro-choice or anyone sued by such persons, nor have any Techdirt writers appeared to have ever mentioned abortion in any of the comments on Techdirt or in their Twitter accounts. So why you even mentioned abortion is beyond me.)
Furthermore, Masnick never said that Trump shouldn’t rely on §230. He just noted that it would contradict his vocal stance against §230, and that he should really rethink that particular stance if and when he does start a social media site if he doesn’t want to be a hypocrite (something Trump doesn’t seem particularly bothered by beyond calling any such accusations “fake news” when it’s inconvenient for him).
As for Trump being mentioned again, he was brought up as a potential new entrant to the social-media space in recent news, and his stance on §230 is well-known. That makes this news on current events in an area Techdirt generally covers. It’s also been only, like, two months since he left office and slightly longer than that since he was kicked off of Twitter, and he’s still a public figure both as a businessman and as a former president who still tries to remain relevant in politics even now (and also as a subject of several ongoing criminal investigations, but that’s not exactly relevant to this specific article). That he’s being mentioned on this site now is essentially his own fault, not to keep beating a dead horse.
(untitled comment)
I dunno. Some of them are luddites who refuse internet or cable and just assume all tech is dangerous.
More comments from bhull242 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by bhull242.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt