Slashdot Mirror
Advice To Twitter Worker Who Deactivated Trump's Account: 'Get A Lawyer' (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill:
A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues has this advice to the unnamed Twitter worker said to have pulled the plug on President Trump's Twitter account: "Don't say anything and get a lawyer." Tor Ekeland told The Hill that while the facts of the case are still unclear and the primary law used to prosecute hackers is murky and unevenly applied, there is a reasonable chance the Twitter worker violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...widely considered to be, as Ekeland explained it, "a mess." Various courts around the country have come up with seemingly contradictory rulings on what unauthorized access actually means. Ekeland said the Ninth Circuit, covering the state of California, has itself issued rulings at odds with itself that would have an impact on the Trump Twitter account fiasco as a potential case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that employees do not violate the law if they exceed their workplace computer policies. It has also ruled that employees who have been told they do not have permission to access a system cannot legally access it. Depending on which ruling a court leans on the hardest, a current Twitter employee without permission to shutter accounts may have violated the law by nixing Trump's account.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
The greatest legal minds advise that if you have access to a system you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Jury Nullification! Cut the head off and the guts out of two people, and be set FREE! because, well, because if the glove don't fit you must acquit! And Forman said a naughty word. Don't forget that!
If they are authorized to disable accounts that violate their Terms of Use, it seems like it is part of their job. If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.
Oh he's getting a cigar alrighty.
Clinton style.
As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.
Remember how money gets distributed by courts. Lawyers first.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's a fucking travesty!
Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.
But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.
I'd prefer if they let the guy just walk away. He made a fool of himself and achieved nothing, which is punishment enough. And he risked his own skin career-wise for what he believed in (or couldn't control himself about), which is something to respect.
What about the employee who turned it back on? How much damage is that?
If they aren't required to know (and obey) the law, why should anybody else be held to that standard?
While these comments are fairly amusing, Trump and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement. This employee violated that agreement. Unless you are an expert in contract law, you can't begin to estimate the potential damage done or even which states rules apply. In fact, just pick a favorable State and sue. While Twitter claims they can terminate services for no reason, Twitter wasn't involved here. Civil suit damages can reach crazy numbers fast, so even if you don't see jail time aka CFAA, you may never make another dime.
I think the worker could pretty easily say that he terminated the account for hate speech, and he would WIN in court. Then the tables would be turned, and Twitter would be forced to justify why it has allowed a hate-speech account to violate its terms of service for such a long, long time ...
Assumptions based on what I've read: The contractor's actions appear to have been intentional, applied after termination, done without company directive, and did harm to the business. I think this ticks a lot of the boxes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. While the action was "easily" (I assume) undone without loss of data, the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation. Hell, if Twitter doesn't sue the contractor then it can be viewed as condoning the act, and Twitter's public shareholders likely have a class-action suit ready-made for lack of effort regarding their fiduciary responsibility, since being publicly traded comes with a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and a multi-billion dollar company is a juicy target.
the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation.
I don't care who this happened to; Trump, Omaha, some unknown janitor - it's hugely damaging to find out someone in such a low level position can so easily mess with an account without authorization from the holder.
We all know that support personnel have to be able to manage accounts to do their jobs, but remember they also always ask you questions as well related to the account that one presumes are also to give the system enough confidence the person is working on behalf of the account holder to make changes - especially in the case of something as extreme as account deletion of a verified account.
After this there are huge questions of trust in Twitter to disallow capricious change, that very much affect their worth as a company. Is every low level employee with a grudge against some high level Twitter user going to be able to execute account deletions going forward? That is why you are probably going to see very public action against the employee.
On a side note, trust is also a big issue for the employee who did this - how could any company hire them for a position of trust again? And these days, working with any computer system is pretty much a position of trust because of how fragile internal systems usually are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only reason Twitter didn't delete the account years ago is that the company is desperate to turn a profit ...
the sentence would probably be lower, though.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
U know it.
No, I doubt it.
IANAL, but it is widely understood that the prosecution carries the burden of proof. In this case, the prosecution would need to prove that hate was a motivating factor in the crime, in order for it to be characterized as a hate crime. Deactivating Obama's Twitter account just because you don't like his politics would not qualify.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I find it amusing that "A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues," is named Tor. Great name for it!
load "linux",8,1
Who has standing to bring suit under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? IANAL, but it would seem to me that only Twitter was 'harmed' here, and could bring legal action. Trump doesn't own his twitter handle. Random joe user who reads Trump's tweets definitely doesn't own anything here. I think it's highly unlikely, given Twitter's executive-level dislike of Trump, that they will throw the book at this already ex employee. They're just gonna beef up internal controls and tell everyone that deactivating accounts without cause is a fireable offense.
Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.
If this happened to a regular user instead of the President of the United States, what would be the recourse?
No. This wouldn't even be a story.
It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.
U know it.
I hate Trump because of what he is doing to us as a country. He has normalized so many things that are just out right wrong and highly unethical. He destroys freedom of the press by destroying all credibility everywhere. He lies so often that you have to be paying exceptionally close attention and then fact check everything, to have any idea. He lies as easily as most people breath. If he doesn't get us into a war with North Korea, it won't be for lack of his best efforts. He is everything that people have complained about the Clintons, generally erroneously at least for the most part, taken to about an order of magnitude above that, so needless to say I'm not Trump fan. The day he is no longer the president I may very well get happily drunk.
All that being said, hate crime statutes, which are more of a democrat thing I guess are just out right stupid and wrong. They are like laws against terrorism and other such nebulous things.
If a person attempts to commit murder it is attempted murder. Hate is a motive not a crime. If a person actually commits murder it is murder. It is not more or less of a crime if the person belongs to a protected minority. That a person hates is not really relevant. Now I'm okay with the other way. If a person commits a crime in response to a crime committed to them or someone they care about, well it doesn't make the crime forgivable, but should at least be taken into account. Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.
Tech companies hire contractors,
"Hacking Laws" are a mess, and
A lawyer offered up the unsolicited advice that the contractor that may have violate a "messy" law should secure the services of a lawyer.
Wow, that Is "News for Nerds" - who knew any of the above?
Ken
Who cares about this dumb ass president's Twitter account?? It's is just shit coming from it ans it's used as propaganda tool from an elected president ass hole. I would have do the same, and seriously, if it could stay closed, I would be happy! And Twitter is a private company, they can do whatever they want with accounts on their systems.
Seeing as how the experts canâ(TM)t figure out if it is a crime and the victim is the idiot a very large village had to try very hard to send away the most appropriate punishment is to throw he book at him.
By which I mean the biggest book Donald Trump can personally read and explain correctly. So basically pelt this guy with some Seuss and letâ(TM)s be done with it.
It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.
No, it doesn't - has the Whitehouse actually done anything about the 11 minute outage? An individual, even the President, merely "tweeting" about something isn't really anything at all... The issue is that the press/media are obsessed with all things that spill across the POTUS personal twitter account.
Ken
The motive would have to be color. Also, orange, unlike black, is not a protected class.
Regardless of Twitter's TOS, they may not be able to just terminate a contract without cause. State and Federal override whatever silly rules you have written.
The ability to terminate at will, along with bottom-line savings of benefits costs, are the two main reasons companies hire contractors over full-time employees.
What law says you can't terminate a contractor at-will, any time for any legal reason - you can't fire them for being a member of a protected class, but that's about it.
Ken
Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.
People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.
The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that. Declaring illegals to be outside the protection of the law may be another.
It is similar to how drunk drivers are punished in my country. If you drive drunk and get caught, you get punished, that's obvious. But you may also be punished for an accident that you did not cause. In an effort to reduce the number of drunk drivers, the government in my country passed a new law. If there is an accident involving more than one car and one of the drivers is drunk, then he is automatically guilty of the accident
That means, if you are stopped at a red light and somebody rear-ends you:
1. You are guilty of the accident and will pay a fine for causing an accident while drunk (higher fine than just the accident or just driving drunk), they may even take your license for a few months.
2. Your insurance company may refuse to pay so you may have to fix the other guy's car from with own money.
3. Your insurance payment will definitely be higher for a few years because of this.
And this is just so driving drunk would carry more risk than the usual increased risk of an accident and the risk of getting caught.
Does anyone have a good link to a semi-literate gibberish to English translator?
We need to have a war with North Korea though. Their nuclear arsenal keeps growing. Should have been dealt with decades ago, but here we are. In another 5 years they may be able to nuke all of America, and will gladly do so.
I believe Bannon's figure was what 5 million south Korean causalities, or something like that?
I'm not a military expert, but that is a hard figure to ignore. Long term infiltration until you can decapitate the leadership and take over might work, but also might not and could take decades.
Also if you think a semi stable north korea is bad, just wait till it is falling apart. Lots of more potential terrorists there that have been indoctrinated from birth, and again, South Korea's losses would be devastating.
The only idea I can think of that might work, or might just trigger the war, is to get all the major powers to agree to take over north korea on a timetable over a period of say 30 years, just a little bit each year. You don't directly threaten the leadership. Leave them alone, but slowly take ground according to your public-ally agreed timetable. Include an offer for the leadership/generals/etc to retire in a country of their choice and keep your world. That is paramount. Trump's biggest tragedy is he will do things like tear up the agreement with Iran, which is the same as the US not keeping its word, and that is very bad. I can't think of a single thing that is worse, for credibility and trust lost is seldom regained. Yes, letting war criminals off is horrible, but millions of dead is worse, and if they do a single thing else you can go after them.
The press and media have been working for years to destroy their own credibility.
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
Thank you Captain Obvious! YES, major tech companies hire contractors for non-technical positions, and you know what, they've even been known to hire consultants for technical positions too! (Ever heard the term H1-B visa?)
Ken
Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.
People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.
I was more thinking of Gitmo, but I'd say punish them for crimes they commited, and perhaps a token amount for the costs to ship them out. If they commit a crime they must of course serve the time or face that punishment before they are allowed out. There is no reason to make it excessive.
The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that.
Create/use an identify check system. Punish the employers for hiring the illegals. Problem (mostly) solved.
Most illegals are from an overstayed visa from what I recall, so Trump's wall aint going to do much. It surely isn't going to stop drugs. I bet with a bit of work you could almost just catapult the drugs over into a nearby waiting truck. or, if it is the wall with the see through areas, you just slip a specially shaped pipe through and the person on the other end collects in a bucket, or possibly a heavy duty balloon. Use a minor bit of air pressure and it would be quick.
Could also use a single LVL from say the equivalent of menards. Nail some 2x2's on the side and you can climb almost any wall, then you just need a knotted rope to get down. Could also go to one of the coasts and just hold onto a board until you drift over to a beech, etc, etc. Hell I bet you could put together a big drone without any real trouble that people simply grab onto. They get floated over dropped off and return. Of course there is also all the freight we move back and forth. Lots of possibilities there. The wall also won't keep out terrorists, other than maybe the stupid ones. Besides many of the new terrorists grew up here and were radicalized here.
To be honest the biggest thing I think that might slow terrorism is if we did elect a devout Muslim president. I don't see that happening in my lifetime though. Hell, I'm not even sure a woman will get the job in my lifetime. The racists are going overtime since Trump said it was okay to be proud of your racism again.
Oh, but it so is. Trump has made a point, over and over again, of announcing policy over his personal Twitter account; he himself reminds us regularly that Twitter is the main way to "get his message out" (sic). The POTUS is effectively using social media as his main communication channel, which is absolutely insane.
Now ponder this: do you imagine this uproar over @POTUS being offline for 11 minutes? And what would've happened if instead of disabling @realDonaldTrump someone over Twitter wrote "I've instructed USPACOM to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea"?
...But Trump isn't a normal POTUS...
^^^ This. For anyone else this would be a complete non-story.
If you want to make it unprofitable for undocumented foreigners, then the government should prosecute the employers that hire them.
However, that won't happen, because the Republicans don't really want to change anything. They just want to use the issue politically.
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
make an effort to make a splashy exit the last day at work.
If the Fastest Delete Key In The West here had been working for Microsoft or Amazon and deleted a bunch of high profile clients' cloud accounts on his last day, he'd want a lawyer just the same. The fact that he only did it to one user and didn't cost anyone any real productivity is probably the one good thing he's got going for him.
There is NO SUCH THING as HATE SPEECH, there is only SPEECH.
A lot of people seem to. His haters cannot seem to keep themselves from immediately going ad hominem on every tweet, and echoing to each other how great their tweets are. If his account is removed, where will they find something with which to pass the time?
Not to mention, people are filing suit over being blocked. So yes, some people seem to care. Too much so.
Nail some 2x2's on the side and you can climb almost any wall, then you just need a knotted rope to get down.
If you climb over the wall, you may be detected easier (it probably is possible to detect when something is climbing the wall), the wall may have barbed wire on the top and, if caught, you will not be able to say that you somehow managed to get here by accident ("I thought this was still Mexico").
At least this is my opinion.
As for a Muslim US President - well, that day I would be really happy with the government of my country, even if it is corrupt. Islam does not seem to be compatible with the Western way of life. Also, a Muslim President would be another problem IMO - it would be very difficult to criticize his policies (especially if those policies were even partially based on his religion) without somebody calling you a racist. That is, you can criticize a Christian politician for banning abortions as much as you want, but criticizing a Muslim politician for the same policy would be more difficult.
I personally do not consider myself a racist, but I would consider myself "behavior"-ist or "culture"-ist. That is, I really do not care about the color of your skin (Muslim is not a race by the way), as long as you behave the same as everybody else in the area. If you behave differently, then I will consider the differences and decide whether I like you or not. However, if a bunch of people who look similar are behaving the same, but it is different from the norm, then I may have a problem.
For example, a man behaving like an asshole towards his wife or women in general - well, he's just an asshole. A big group of men behaving like that is a problem though. And if more members of that group want to immigrate, I will be against it, we have enough assholes already. Either stop being an asshole or - if that behavior is normal in your country - stay in your country.
In my opinion, immigrants and refugees pose several problems:
1. They demand welfare from the government. Money, that could be used to support our own poor people. Some immigrants have the audacity to demand more money than the locals get.
2. If they do not want to assimilate into our culture then there will always be some friction between us.
3. The immigrants are more likely to be common criminals.
4. The immigrants and their children are more likely to be terrorists (this seems to be exclusive to Muslims).
5. They might reduce the salaries of locals by offering to work cheaper (this applies more to more wealthy countries).
If the employee did this after employment ended, we would have a problem. But you see, this employee was granted access to Twitter's systems freely by his/her supervisors. While the act was pretty childish and silly, it fails to meet the requirements of being a criminal act. Let it go, move on, geeze. No quantifiable damage was caused.
Racism would be the immediate claimed motive, by multiple organizations, with or without evidence.
That's the clear implication of the OP. How you choose to suspend recollection of the typical news cycle, seems a lot like noise farming.
If you have nothing to add, just being disagreeable isn't very interesting and makes you look overtly biased.
It would be a lot more useful to apply the tactics used to attack Trumps "racism", since similar tools would be employed.
Facts are not as compelling as they are portrayed.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Your argument is logical. Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
When it comes to political hot topics like race, verdicts are more or less random.
Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.
This wasn't "the left". It was a lone wolf performing an act of digital vandalism, and he'll face the consequences of his actions.
That being said, it might benefit his approval rating if Trump spent less time incessantly whining on Twitter about sensationalized issues du jour, and more time learning how to suck less at being president. He could start by reading the Constitution.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The stickler on this is whether he was following company policy. Remember, they haven't cut off his access yet. It's likely therefore that he has not been given instructions to stop doing his job. Given that he's empowered to terminate accounts we can assume that doing so is within his job description. We also know that Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed the limits of Twitter's terms of service. Unless this person has been instructed otherwise, terminating the account could be entirely legal.
The real loser in this is likely to be the subcontracting company. I suspect that their contract with Twitter requires them to follow a procedure for terminating employees, and that they failed to do so.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
Typical leftist. Someone makes rational arguments that you don't like, so you howl names.
Give an example of "hate speech" that trump posted.
Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
Oh, but it so is. Trump has made a point, over and over again, of announcing policy over his personal Twitter account; he himself reminds us regularly that Twitter is the main way to "get his message out" (sic).
Seems like something out of Idiocracy, where you've got the POTUS giving his personal endorsement to a for-profit social media company.
That, and he pretty much uses it to slander every company he doesn't like. How that is even remotely considered acceptable conduct for the POTUS is beyond me.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Ho-Lee-Fuck you are next level retarded if you think that tweet constitutes hate speech.
Did your teachers at school welcome you every morning by bashing your brains in with a mallet?
You would literally have to have your brains pouring out of your nostrils from sever trauma to consider that tweet "Hate Speech".
Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
Yeah, I also remember Trump threatening Iran with "massive retaliation" if they attacked Israel and later clarified Iran's aggression against Israel "would provoke a nuclear response from the United States". Hate speech!
And what about that time Trump threatened to "erase North Korea from the map of the world"? So much hate speech!
Oh, wait...
Since when does Twitter have shareholders?
**Life is too short to be serious**
I think the parent post meant Trump should _understand_ the Constitution. It'd help if he understood it better than you.
The Obama administration's immigration policies were perfectly constitutional. Are the police acting unconstitutionally when they fail to arrest me for jaywalking? No? Oh, then let's turn to your other piece of bullshit: the employment authorizations. You know, the ones that the AG/Director of Homeland Security can, according to legislation passed by Congess and signed by Reagan, give to ANYONE for ANY reason. Obviously it was way out of line to offer those authorizations to people Republicans don't like for reasons Republicans think are bad.
The problem with Trump's immigration orders, and the reason they're continually in court, is not because they exceed his powers, it's because he's too fucking stupid to keep his mouth shut and not implicate 14th Amendment concerns. All it would take for those orders to stand is an actual rational basis and, you know, some actual facts besides the fact that Trump _wants_ to discriminate.
We want E-verify, but evidently that's a hate crime. A lot of resistance to an obvious step. Other countries have it, I don't see why it's a big deal.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The point of jury nullification is for jurors to judge the ethics of the LAW itself. In other words, regardless of what any judge or prosecutor says, the jury retains the right to acquit a defendant if they think the law itself is unjust or being unjustly applied. Judges and prosecutors routinely lie to jurors to tell them otherwise, but this is a well-established fact in the common law tradition. Bringing up OJ simply confuses the issue.
Details on jury nullification are available at http://fija.org/
(...talks about politics, religion, culture...)
"You're just a racist."
WTF?
Ezekiel 23:20
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.
It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.
Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.
If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible objections to it. Don't just fucking squeal, "HATE SPEECH!!!" and pretend you've won the debate. You've merely killed your own credibility.
The American lawyer frenzy and harsh punishment driven mentality feel really strange to an outsider.
So deactivating Trumps account was probably a stupid thing to do, but c'mon 10 years in prison? Is that really productive?
His staff would have to create a specialized version of the Constitution for him to read. All bullet points, with no line being longer than 144 characters and no word beyond a third grade vocabulary. They'd also have to throw in a random statement on every page about how awesome he is or he'd stop reading after the first one or two bullet points.
~X~
Yep, immigration is little more than a political football. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a lucrative alternative. And business wouldn't employ illegal immigrants if it wasn't so profitable to do so. Today's penalties for using illegal immigrant labor comes down to a finger wag and a slap on the wrist. As long as it remains more profitable to employ illegal immigrants than the penalties for doing so, they're going to keep doing it.
But you'll never see republican pushing for harsh penalties against businesses. You'll see them taking idiotic measures, like trying to spend billions on a border wall.
~X~
Progressives really like "hate speech" laws. It makes it easier to censor people, you know, just like what is happening in Europe.
Om, nomnomnom...
You have trouble understanding his tweets too I gather.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This is simply untrue. For example, did you know that you are presumed innocent until trial, after which if you are not found guilty you are not considered innocent? That is every single criminal case, and yes I have had numerous lawyers look me straight in the face and tell me this is true, and that there is no logical inconsistency in that line of "reasoning."
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
He would have to start by learning to read first. He could stare at the Constitution all day, but he certainly couldn't read it in any meaningful way (i.e. understand it.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
As a big Trump supporter, I find this story to be amusing, This act was certainly closer to a Halloween prank than to an assault on national security. I think that Mr Trump would also see the humor - although now that we have all had our laughs, I think Twitter needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
Funny, that. Some of the laws that are getting activists pushing for them being dropped, the basic reason they're against them is because that is not at all the normal result. It's not news, because it's the normal situation--and, really, some of these laws seem to be inherently against logic.
It turns out that 'ability to use basic logic' is not a basic skill among those who hold elected offices.
Ah, yes ... The "he just looks like a moron, but is secretly a brilliant mastermind" delusion.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You mean of course that he was *stupid* enough to get elected. He could have lived the rest of his life grabbing pussies and eating "beautiful chocolate cake", but soon he will be sucking dicks and giving his cake to Bubba. It takes a phenomenally stupid motherfucker to blow the free ride he was given and trade it for what he has coming to him now.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If a person attempts to commit murder it is attempted murder. Hate is a motive not a crime. If a person actually commits murder it is murder. It is not more or less of a crime if the person belongs to a protected minority. That a person hates is not really relevant.
There is actually a good reason for this, and that is maths. Assume you have 10,000 people, and 1,000 of them are member of some minority. And there are 10 people among those 10,000 who are willing to kill just because of someone's race. Nine from the majority, one from the minority. If you are a member of the majority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 9,000. If you are a member of the minority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 111. Clearly this is a good reason for laws protecting the minority.
Also, a Muslim President would be another problem IMO - it would be very difficult to criticize his policies (especially if those policies were even partially based on his religion) without somebody calling you a racist
London has a muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, and he is doing just fine. Doing a lot better than the former mayor, the incompetent and lying Boris Johnson, also known as mini-Trump.
Progressives really like "hate speech" laws. It makes it easier to censor people, you know, just like what is happening in Europe.
Europeans have good reasons to see hate speech differently than we do in America. If Adolph Hitler had been muzzled early on millions of lives would have been saved.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
That has to be some of the most stupid shit I have read in quite some time. Trump has everyone guessing what he'll do next because he is a mentally unstable sociopath who doesn't know what he is going to do next, and when he does things fails to grasp the gravity of what he has done.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
First, tRump has done NOTHING but support the big corporate and private spenders at every turn of the dial. They are still making tons of cash, and they are successfully getting some of their most important legislation passed, albeit not so well publicized (which is how they really like it). Consumer protection? GONE! Student loan forgiveness? GONE! ACA? Still pumping money into the insurance industry! Tax breaks? Nearly DONE!
PlaynBass
Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....
By your alleged definition, any critique of a population group, religion or nationality is hate speech.
Fuck that and fuck you. Sign me up for the hate speech bus because if telling cunts like you that you're cunts is hate speech then I'm right on board.
Fair enough. Sign up for whatever you want, but don't pretend something is not hate speech only because you agree with it.
Europeans have good reasons to see hate speech differently than we do in America. If Adolph Hitler had been muzzled early on millions of lives would have been saved.
Really? You mean the fact that the winners of WWI basically pissing on Germany had nothing to do with it? Or are you trying to say that if you censor views and ignore the issues they bring up you're making society better. I mean it's sure working well in the UK isn't it. Where the 13yr old rape victim was arrested and charged with hate speech because she called the muslim who raped her a bad name. Or the councils and government dry washing their hands for fear of being labeled 'racist' with all those "asian grooming gangs" and threatening people who want them charged and arrested.
Yep...that's not going to backfire at all...not a single bit..
Om, nomnomnom...
Those laws are not used to censor.
Tell that to the people who've been charged with hate speech after being raped because she called her rapist a bad name. What didn't hear about that one? How about where thousands of girls were raped and used as sex slaves, but the police didn't do anything for fear of being labeled racist and even went as far as to threaten the families with prosecution if they said anything.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....
Depends on what you define as "higher standards of living." If higher standards mean the police will charge you with hate speech after being raped, yes we sure don't want that here. If higher standards mean being threatened by police for not wanting illegals who refuse to immigrate into society turning your area into a ghetto? Nope don't want those 'higher standards of living' either.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yeah bloody Europe with the higher standards of living. We don't want any of that here....
Depends on what you define as "higher standards of living."
We don't have to guess at this. People smarter than us have already done the hard work https://www.mercer.com/newsroo...