Slashdot Mirror

> If you're even trying to define "normal" in a special way to make something true, then you've already left the realm of normalcy and entered the realm of "alternate facts."

Bad example. Math already has many different kinds of normal. You might think that a 'normal operator' is 'something my calculator has a button for', but instead it's a continuous linear operator N : H -> H that commutes with its hermitian adjoint N*, that is: NN* = N*N on a complex Hilbert space H.

There are also many different axiomatic systems, e.g. ZF vs. ZFC, which are built from different rules and which admit different factual statements. It's not like either one is more 'correct' either. In that example, both accepting and denying the Axiom of Choice leads to strange results.

So if you want to make a point about "alternate facts," you might want to make sure that your knowledge doesn't have big gaps in it. It's fascinating just how many different accounts you have to read these days to get a more complete picture of what's going on these days. So many stories (on *all* sides) like to omit and possibly denigrate whichever parts of a story they find inconvenient. You cannot trust any single source, best to read them all and figure out who is leaving out which bits of the story (and why). Personally, I think that a skeptical reading of the news is a good approach.

As a correction to the above, I should have linked more specifically to this comment by Ken:

https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/17/randazza-legalize-child-porn/#comment-1352363

Here's the essence of the rationale I wanted to refer to -

Actual child pornography is an artifact of the illegal abuse of children. That distinguishes it from other pornography, the production of which is legal. Child pornography is more like the fabled snuff film in which someone is murdered on camera. It's an artifact of not mere harm, but criminal harm. To me, possessing it is the equivalent of buying and possessing a child's severed head on a plaque for your wall.

Memory problems, actually. I was thinking about Ken's reply in the comments (which Randazza used to agree with) and I conflated the two.

The part I was thinking of isn't the article, but this comment:

https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/17/randazza-legalize-child-porn/#comment-1352363

Even a hardcore libertarian can find reasons why possession of CP should be illegal.

How exactly do you think this constitutes entrapment? What, precisely, did the FBI allegedly do here that forced people not already predisposed to visit CP sites to visit their sites? It seems to me that you're simply promulgating an old myth about entrapment, in that merely giving someone the means to commit a crime they were already predisposed to commit is 'entrapment', when this is not so. If that's what you think, please read this guide written by an actual lawyer.

There's a reasonable discussion of harm minimization here as to whether the interest in catching predators using the sites outweighed allowing them to continue to exist, but the idea that giving would-be criminals an opportunity to commit crime somehow constitutes "entrapment" is one of the most common myths.

Now, it is true that the standard reasoning given for why possession (as opposed to production) of child pornography is illegal is very much at odds with the idea of keeping the site live, in that they're ostensibly re-victimizing those portrayed in the CP sites they permit to live. However, that is by no means the only rationale as to why mere possession should be illegal. But if you want to argue that, you'd do well to discuss it in more detail rather than simply dashing off some ill-premised missive regarding an FBI operation that happened months ago.

No, Reddit has a very selective policy when it comes to banning people that do shit like this: https://www.popehat.com/2013/0...

Twitter has the same "issue" - as long as your viewpoint fits within the dogma of the SJW groupthink, you're free to do whatever including threatening and harassing.

Your wish:
https://www.popehat.com/2016/0...

Popehat has addressed this issue several times about how the reported maximum penalty for such a case means little.

Popehat has addressed this issue several times about how the reported maximum penalty for such a case means little.

First off, "fighting words" is a bullshit argument and nobody in their right mind will argue based on it.

Well, them, it's a good thing that I said that it didn't apply.

Second, you missed "discriminatory".

You're going to have to explain that point in a bit more detail.

Go read Popehat.

I do. Likely more than you, since a regular reader would recognize that I comment there as well. You may want to read the quote from United States v. Stevens discussed here. I apologize for leaving out defamation and fraud, which don't quite fit in the topic at hand (each require falsity). But I don't see the "discrimination" among "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem" listed at your preferred resource either.

First off, "fighting words" is a bullshit argument and nobody in their right mind will argue based on it.

Second, you missed "discriminatory".

I'm sure there are more holes in your post as well.

Go read Popehat.

> Yep, and now that story contains a correction [washingtonpost.com] at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors. Fake news sites don't issue corrections, because their entire purpose is to make up facts.

That's great, but people don't check back on stories after they've read them. It's telling that they rush the story first and retract only when called on. The canonical "fake news" sites are Macedonian clickbait. It's not clear that anyone ever read or believed them, it's just taken as an article of faith that a lot of people clicked this, therefore they must believe it's true. If we apply the same logic to tabloids, apparently most of the country has long believed in Bat Boy.

> Actually, your timeline is a bit messed up. What actually happened was that New York Magazine reported in September [nymag.com] that "Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues." This was NOT ignored in the media, but rather spread in September as a big rumor, which Kelly did NOT address or debunk at that time.

It's not up to Megan Kelly to address or debunk this! This is what fact checkers were for (past tense because it seems like they're not using them any more...). Running a ridiculous rumor like that without contacting the alleged source is simply inexcusable for a supposedly reputable news agency.

The same goes for the CNN clip saying it's "illegal" to possess stolen documents so only the media can read Wikileaks. Some under-appreciated context here is that CNN's Chris Cuomo is a licensed attorney. So he has no excuse for not knowing how wrong that is.

Moving on to the point, here's the thing: you're trying to restrict what people can say on Facebook. If they can't say things on Facebook, they'll change platforms. You can't stop people from saying what they want and trying to is ignorant censorship by the German government.

I'm amazed, and yet somehow not surprised, that you can find a way to blame Trump for Obama's response to this in a way so divorced from the reality of what just happened.

Your unprincipled essentialism is a defining characteristic of your posts and I honestly wonder if you even know what that is without clicking the link.

There's more good coverage of this on Popehat which has been covering this since the very start if you look through their archives.

I'm glad to see the submitter linked to the actual indictment.

In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Sorry, but no. It has to be a "credible threat", naming a specific action, a subjective and objective intent, as well as some indication that the person actually has the means and opportunity to carry it out. The "if we ever meet" part of the statement is a clear indication that the threat is not actually a credible one. There's a good discussion of the issues over at the PopeHat.

So when CNN has a lawyer employed by them tell us false statements about the law, what does that count as?

Chris Cuomo on CNN -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

An explanation of how badly wrong he is:
https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/

Chris' bio on Wikipedia showing he's a licensed attorney:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Cuomo&oldid=752709245

Also, we have a motive in that they rigged the debates with the DNC in DKIM-validated emails signed by both Hillary's mailserver and Google's with signatures that cover the body and body hash.

What about punishing customers after they are criticized online?

Anyhow, it's a good first step to stopping corporations from being able to arbitrarily punish their customers.

The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.

> The cult of tradition

It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.

> The rejection of modernism

Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.

> The cult of action for action’s sake

This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.

This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."

> Disagreement is treason

Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right? :)

Oh! He complained about the media too!

You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?

So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them? :)

> Fear of difference

That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g

The difference is that people no longer trust the MSM. I doubt they pay that much attention to the memes, but the MSM pretty much burned their credibility with a lot of people so we completely ignore whatever you're saying the same way we do with the people who constantly try to sell us viagra.

I don't know why, but it might have something to do with crap like CNN lying and telling us it's illegal to read wikileaks (as a lawyer, Chris Cuomo should've known better), the DNC holding events with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disapprove of, the New York Times posting editorials in favor of pedophilia, hyper-ventillating over #fakenews and ignoring the "nerd virgins" at Correct the Record propaganda teams that are openly employed, or maybe just the absolute disgust and condescension that the average liberal online treats people from the "flyover states" with.

I mean, isn't it just the least bit odd that you have to invent Russian propaganda teams because you can't believe that people disagree with you?

For those who actually hold a security clearance part of that is not trying to access material you are not cleared for. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.

CNN's news report was not targeting the tiny segment of people with security clearances (as low as CNN's ratings are, that part of the viewing demographic is likely ZERO), they were saying that to everyone. There's a good analysis of where they were getting this (blatantly false) idea from over at Pope Hat.

This is the SAME technique that sites like Snopes and other biased "fact checkers" use. If they want to defend someone's statement, they inject some qualifier that was NEVER included in the original statement, and then claim it was "Mostly True", or better. Nobody buys that crap but the other people in the echo chamber they are talking to.

It's doubtful that Trump has any power to affect the standards for libel. You can read a full explanation of why here:

https://popehat.com/2016/11/14...

What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? And yes, that was a lie, read this: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17...

Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.

Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.

The real question is who controls that truth meter and who they work with. [1]

Are they going to ban lies like this one from CNN? And yes, it is a clear lie.

Anyhow, it's clear they haven't learned anything whatsoever from this election, so you have 8 years of Trump to look forward to unless they figure it out.

[1] Refer to this old comment if you don't like reading raw HTML and for more context. It's an email thread of the DNC collaborating with Politifact.

CNN booted her for that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.

Bleh, if it's something that boring, we've got a dozen examples of using the Clinton Global Initiative / Clinton Foundation money in bogus ways. Here you go. That's only equivalent. Go to /r/wikileaks and start reading the real bad stuff for yourself, don't let CNN think for you (they're lying). Don't get me wrong, though, I don't support anyone doing that. But that's like the least bad stuff we've found in the Podesta & FBI dumps. I hope those deals all get stopped and the lawsuits are won. Oh, and you remember how Colin Powell supported Clinton? Turns out there's a document between him & her describing how to break the email rules. For anyone asking: feel free to throw the book at him for anything you can prove in a court of law. I'd happily rule against any of the shady business deals against any of them were I a juror.

But there's just so much even worse stuff going on. Remember that gunless "assassin"? It was a bird dogging attempt (agian). And an old lady who lives with him died back in 2002, but she's still voting.

Make sure you look into the sources on that. See, we have her address (same as his). We know when she died. We have voting records showing that she's been voting all this time. And we have him mentioned in the Stratfor dumps. Yet another bird dogging attempt and all the links are out there for anyone who wants to look them up. It's easy to see one news item you don't agree with and dump it, but be sure you look at the election records, look up the address, look up the death records.

As for the rate of going through these, we've found that they love to use irrelevant subjects like "congratulations" to send some of the crazy attachments. So while I can totally believe they'd filter out "irrelevant" emails, they'd be led around by the nose if they did so.

> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.

The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:

http://jezebel.com/the-source-...
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31...

The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...

The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.

There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.

FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.

Actually there are quite a few DKIM signatures on there, though those sometimes get broken for irrelevant reasons.

Furthermore, some of them can (and have) been corroborated based on independent evidence.

The best way to avoid being manipulated is to verify things yourself, though. Don't believe someone when they says the emails say this or that, go read them for yourself. Go follow the links in the investigations.

Think for yourself, don't let reporters do your thinking for you.

I don't even ask you to trust me. I'd much rather you investigate and verify everything on your own.

Yeah, they've been planning to blame Russia for almost a year now:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651#efmABRADsAGxAIRAMIAN3AU-AZ2Aa5AelAe4AlZA2SA3bA6eA-xBIPBJy

Remember: CNN authorization is required to view this.

https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/

Because it's not RICO, dammit!

1 RICO charges should be filed against the company and the execs (i think its called separately and corporately liable??)

I'm just gonna leave this here.

It's not RICO, dammit!. It's almost never RICO.

It's not RICO.

It's not RICO!

IT'S NOT RICO.

Relevant portion from that link:

RICO is not a fucking frown emoji. It's not an exclamation point. It's not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something. It's not a petulant foot-stomp.

RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.

You might be able to show a pattern. You might be able to show that it was happening under 18 USC 2318 or 2319, which are RICO-able. But you have to show that the photographer in this case was personally harmed by the actions of Getty. And since she had donated these images, precluding monetary gain from them by normal means, she probably wasn't harmed by the infringement. Therefore, and say it with me...It's Not RICO (tm).

With the entire history of Microsoft, RICO applies, because you can point out continual willful violations of the law for profit and flouting courts, plus tax evasion, etc.

From the above link:

So people on the Internet use "RICO" to sound tough. Do lawyers overuse it too?

Oh hell yes. And judges hate it. It's overcomplicated and most of the time it adds nothing to the case.

It's so overused — especially by crazy pro se plaintiffs — and so needless that a lot of federal judges have special RICO orders they issue in RICO cases demanding that the plaintiff explain, in painful detail, why they think they have a RICO claim. Like this one, for instance. Judges issue them automatically as soon as a RICO case hits their docket to gather information to dismiss the case because it's not fucking RICO you idiot.

Back to your nonsense though...

You must not be a bright lawyer if you can't piece shit together like this.

I never said I'm a lawyer.

If it was so easy to piece all of this together under RICO... you'd think someone, somewhere who has been injured by Microsoft due to racketeering would be able to find a bright lawyer who would bring a successful civil suit against them under RICO.

I'm seeing a settlement from a MS & Best Buy as defendants suit regarding unclear terms regarding MSN service from 99-04 which started out with a claim of RICO... yet still no legal findings to support an assertion under RICO yet, odd that?

I wonder what the lawyers & courts who have made such claims over the years kept failing? Not enough money? Surely there is a Peter Thiel who could be convinced to bankroll such a case... if they thought there was a case... right?

IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT

it would cause reasonable people to panic (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not protected speech in the USA)

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" trope is both commonly referenced and false.

Yes, because it is so difficult to use the cell phone, make a few photos and call the police. Can't be so hard to let the pros do their job. Or can it?

Apparently you are not familiar with the new professionalism of our police.

Involving the cops as a witness is an invitation to be arrested.

I did read what you wrote. You're simply mistaken on the facts.

You claimed the 1919 SCOTUS ruling was "overturned" in 1969, without clearly understanding the case history.

The 1969 case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation."

"The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[2] and articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:"

This "imminent lawless action" test replaced the "clear and present danger" test.

https://popehat.com/2012/09/19...

Now, maybe you think the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was literally about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre - it was not. That happens to be the tortured analogy Holmes applied in his opinion, but that's *not* what the case was about.

It is, today, an illegal use of the "freedom of speech" to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre to cause "imminent lawless action" (a stampede).

So, if you're willing to restrict the 1st amendment for inciting "imminent lawless action", we can apply the same restriction to the right to bear arms - you can't bear arms in such a way that would incite "imminent lawless action" (let's say, waving a rifle and pointing threateningly at a crowd in a theatre).

Being raped & tortured by the police is only worth a 1.6 million dollar slap on the wrist with no criminal penalties against the offenders... the 4th amendment seems to have fallen out of favor.

Being raped & tortured by the police is only worth a 1.6 million dollar slap on the wrist with no criminal penalties against the offenders... the 4th amendment seems to have fallen out of favor.

Bad Reporting on Matthew Keys' Possible Sentence Conceals Prosecutorial Power

TLDR: In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

So she's a social justice warrior troll doing this for attention? Called it earlier.

Expect her to have a Patreon account up within a few days, as well as a campaign started explaining why Linus is problematic and needs to be removed from Linux development soon, or how Linux needs a safe space special interest group so feminist coders can submit their commits without being threatened by people pointing out their code sucks. Because remember kids, criticism is "Cyber Violence."

As an aside, she's a blockbot user, so yes, she most definitely is a SJW or a SJW ally:
https://twitter.com/sarahsharp

(If you're blocked and have never even spoken with her, congratulations, you're a member of Randy Harper's blacklist, an list of white men, gamers, nerds, conservatives, KFC, President Obama, and other people Randy Harper and her radical feminist friends consider too "problematic" to be allowed to communicate with people in the tech industry.)

Actually... Yuuuup, 5 seconds of research later:
http://sarah.thesharps.us/tag/...

Third Wave (Professional Victim) Feminist, with posts pushing the lie about the gender gap (there are more women than men getting STEM degrees now), and a post about the "Donglegate" lynch mob, wherein a professional outrage mob was directed by professional victim and gender identity con artist Adria Richards to shame and destroy the lives of two men making a joke about forking and dongles, suggesting that hearing a joke you disagree with is equivalent to being physically attacked.

In short: She might be a gifted programmer, but she's a weak willed human being, and her having a professional freakout about Linus making a joke about being intimidating isn't surprising -- it's a calculated maneuver. Expect something else to come up soon -- as mentioned, Linus will be deemed too problematic to be allowed to remain in Linux, or the Professional Victims will demand special treatment for Women in Linux Development.

I disagree with your short-term interest argument. Law enforcement does not have your best interest in mind. You do not know what is or is not legal. (Almost) anything can be construed as being illegal. Just shut up and ask for an attorney to be present while they question you.

The whole point of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, whether they know it or not.

I disagree with your short-term interest argument. Law enforcement does not have your best interest in mind. You do not know what is or is not legal. (Almost) anything can be construed as being illegal. Just shut up and ask for an attorney to be present while they question you.

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.

http://popehat.com/2013/06/26/...

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

http://popehat.com/2008/07/16/...

http://popehat.com/2008/05/28/...

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.

http://popehat.com/2013/06/26/...

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

http://popehat.com/2008/07/16/...

http://popehat.com/2008/05/28/...

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.

http://popehat.com/2013/06/26/...

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

http://popehat.com/2008/07/16/...

http://popehat.com/2008/05/28/...

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.

http://popehat.com/2013/06/26/...

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

http://popehat.com/2008/07/16/...

http://popehat.com/2008/05/28/...

There are two kinds of free speech. It's not the 1st amendment free speech, it's Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say but will defend you to the death to say it" freedom of expression.

No one is claiming that the government is stepping in to censor Reddit. What they are claiming is that Reddit attracted users on the basis of "Free Speech" anything goes. Moderators volunteer their time (Free as in beer) to moderate based on the premise that Reddit allowed Free Speech.

Comments, moderators, content is all built by the users. Users that were told "This is a free speech zone". The 1st amendment equivalent would be 'free speech zones' and then censoring what people said in them.

I disagree with FatPeopleHate, I loathed the subreddit. However I defend their right to exist. The freedom of expression exists in many other forms than just the US Government's interpretation of it.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

England’s Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Reddit claimed it was a place for freedom of expression and then backtracked on it. And with it users such as myself will find other places.

I came here to post popehat. My legal blog recommendations:
* Popehat insightful/snarky legal commentary from someone who used to be a federal prosecutor and is now in private practice.
* Lowering the Bar: hilarious legal humor. Recent topics: Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump, drone law, argle-bargle.
*Papers, Please: Lots of TSA and similar topics. Their MO is to file expansive FOIA requests to intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then write stridently about how they were rejected.
* Jetsetting Terrorist: trials and tribulations of somebody erroneously on the do not fly list. (not updated often)
* Taking Sense Away: blog written by TSA employee (no longer updated, but fun to read the archives).
* SCOTUSblog: blow-by-blow news of goings-on at the supreme court. super nerdy.
* Supreme Court Haiku: summaries of supreme court decisions, in haiku form.
* Volokh Conspiracy: insightful pieces on constitutional law and similar topics. primarily conservative, primarily written by law profs.

wow, with all these things in my feedly, it's amazing I get any work done!

The War Nerd on well, war, Scott Greenfield on (mostly criminal) law, and Ken White on law and privacy.