I don't know twitter's policies against nazis per se.
I'm fairly sure however that twitter does not condone hate speech itself, even if they allow nazis themselves. My guess is that people are prima facie welcome until they violate twitter's rules, then they get banned just like anyone else.
What twitter does NOT allow however, most likely, is a non-human bot using an account. Were the intentions of the bot (or rather, its programmer) less benign it would be nothing more than a spambot.
If Pandora's box wasn't already opened you might be right. But it is, so the next best thing is to make sure that good citizens get to join in the Mutually Assured Destruction game that the bad guys and the cops alike are already fully armed for.
If you had a way to disarm the bad guys BEFORE you disarmed the civilians, maybe.
That is because governments who operate roads that are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars DO have a legitimate interest in enforcing safety and registration rules.
If you were driving it legally on a public road you need a license and need to abide by the traffic code of the jurisdiction with control of the road in question.
This is one thing where ISPs whinging to state legislatures to ban municipal wifi is one case where the feds SHOULD play the "interstate commerce" card.
In that case legally it is probably up to the discretion of the telco in question. At least, it should be.
If it is, then the free market can decide if our privacy is worth enough for telcos to stand up to greedy cops that want to go fishing without having a warrant for a hook and line, and the telco has the luxury of choosing between rolling over to pressure or growing a pair and telling the feds to take a hike if they don't have a warrant.
if it is not, then we have a fucked up set of laws that blatantly disrespects the constitutional rights of the telco, and quite frankly, this also applies to the on site manager responsible for the equipment in question.
And I really do not like the idea in general of the government getting to use a combination of "not the customer's data" and "the telco is not a legal person" to do an end-run around the customer's privacy.
By demand, I mean that the telco tells the cops "you can rifle through my database over my dead body if you don't have a search warrant", meaning the telco demanding the search warrant from the police before allowing access to their data.
Actually, while you personally might not have the right to demand a search warrant, the telco however should.
Data hosted on someone else's server doesn't automatically mean they don't need a search warrant. In theory, the telco could still demand one before spilling anything.
And a side note, most phone calls sent to and from towers are encrypted precisely to prevent snooping by wardriving eavesdroppers, so they are also not public in the first place.
Indeed. And getting a warrant requires (or at least is supposed to require) someone testifying as to the proof of probable cause UNDER OATH.
"...and no warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION..."
And what that means, or should mean, is that someone is in court, either in person or over the phone, swearing to the facts, under oath, under penalty of perjury.
Part of the point of getting a warrant, is that some cop is so sure of the facts that he's willing to put his ass on the line for perjury charges if he gets busted for fibbing to the judge about it.
In a sense they really did die in the sense that they lost their immortality.
As it is, as you should have known, my point wasn't whether the serpent actually lied or not. My point was that by being the lying-ass coon dog that STARTED the process, he got the FIRST and MOST blame for being the original cause of the contraband fruit being touched.
Just like when the sheeple of america gullibly fell for the lies of the tobacco companies, the blame goes a great deal on the tobacco companies for actually deceiving the american public to begin with.
Just because the dog taking a nap may be to blame for the henhouse being raided at night, it doesn't mean the fox gets off the hook. If the fox gets caught he's getting skinned even if the dog gets sent to bed without supper.
Explain to me again the part where we're stuck between voting against kodos and kang because the political parties know damn well we can't vote out every politician we hate?
We as a nation might *collectively* deserve our leaders, but don't fracking tell us that we have an impressive menu where we only get to avoid the lesser of two evils.
If american voters stood up and cared enough to make their votes matter it would be great.
Not only though does the mass media keep them sheepified, but the electoral process itself is rigged in favor of the sovereignty of the states who, as SCOTUS says, are quite able to dictate who their electors vote for, since the electors are legally the agents of the state that sends them to the electoral college.
So, if we want to change america, we need to band together as a nation and start electing better state legislators who can possibly re-steer their state's electors. And start electing federal legislators.
Some constitutional amendments might be called for, and I'm sure every good civics student knows the process so I don't need to go into detail when the constitution itself is just a google away.
Honestly I think Google getting caught up in those politics is the best thing that can happen to internet in america.
Apart from companies like Spectrum majorly boosting their bandwidth, we now have sleazebags like AT&T exposed. Awareness of the politics is rising, and a very uncomfortable spotlight is being shined on incumbent telecoms, and the publicity from high profile court cases is like fresh sunshine against the undead hordes of telecoms trying to cling to the horse and buggy whip.
Google Fiber was intended to boost internet in america, and whether it does that by building fiber, or by lighting a fire under the asses of the incumbents, or by having itself become a martyr to economic politics, I'm happier either way.
The court said that he forfeited his due process rights by fleeing prosecution, so appearing before a US court (even voluntarily and without being arrested) won't give him back.
The district court entered a default judgement and approved the forfeiture, because the justice dept argued successfully that as a fugitive who was willfully evading US jurisdiciton he voluntarily abandoned any right to contest the forfeiture. Even though I agree with dotcom that he was not a fugitive in the first place, since he was legally fighting extradition instead of fleeing even from NZ authorities.
The appellate court basically took the side of the prosecution, possibly figuring that SCOTUS could fix it if they screwed up.
SCOTUS said "we got bigger fish to fry, piss off" and denied cert. As it is they're picky about cases even if they know the appelate court screwed up. For example, the "rule of 4" they use to filter out cases includes, among other things, circuit splits.
There is no further due process for kim with regard to the forfeitures. The only due process remaining is his criminal case for copyright infringement. The civil stuff is over and the US gets to keep everything.
As it is I think that the US legal system may well have been deliberately designed to be flaky enough to keep the proverbial buck passing until someone fumbles.
First, do foreign propaganda trolls have free speech rights in relation to the federal government?
Second, if they don't, can social media be forced to investigate said trolls?
I'm a little iffy on the first part, but my theory is that anything that would bring a foreigner of any sort under US jurisdiction in the first place would also put them under the protection of the constitution, with the attending protections to free speech as provided in the first amendment.
The second part is a completely different angle. Social media sites themselves are entitled to their own constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are also not agents of the state. Unless a court order says otherwise they are under no obligation to investigate foreign trolls, or, for that matter, even lift a finger to assist the government in doing so.
So, in a nutshell, apart from first amendment implications with the trolls themselves, why should social media sites have to roll up their own sleeves to do the government's job for them?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know twitter's policies against nazis per se.
I'm fairly sure however that twitter does not condone hate speech itself, even if they allow nazis themselves. My guess is that people are prima facie welcome until they violate twitter's rules, then they get banned just like anyone else.
What twitter does NOT allow however, most likely, is a non-human bot using an account. Were the intentions of the bot (or rather, its programmer) less benign it would be nothing more than a spambot.
I dunno, if it's a corn row you might get some opposition from the USDA when it angers the agricultural lobby.
This isn't a new regulation created by a federal agency.
This is a new law enacted by congress.
Sing it with me.
"Interstate commerce"
If Pandora's box wasn't already opened you might be right. But it is, so the next best thing is to make sure that good citizens get to join in the Mutually Assured Destruction game that the bad guys and the cops alike are already fully armed for.
If you had a way to disarm the bad guys BEFORE you disarmed the civilians, maybe.
That is because governments who operate roads that are publicly funded with taxpayer dollars DO have a legitimate interest in enforcing safety and registration rules.
If you were driving it legally on a public road you need a license and need to abide by the traffic code of the jurisdiction with control of the road in question.
SCOTUS would probably declare such a bill as unconstitutional.
Meta-bills that attempt to screw with the legislative process itself tend to run afoul of SCOTUS shooting them down on constitutional grounds.
That said, having such a bill turned into a constitutional amendment would definitely be welcome.
Honestly the way things are going with the nation these days, let them.
I would LOVE to see the FAA duke it out with the USDA when those subsidy-receiving corn farmers have their pet gravy train derailed.
*ironically and right on topic, gets out the POP corn*
This is one thing where ISPs whinging to state legislatures to ban municipal wifi is one case where the feds SHOULD play the "interstate commerce" card.
In that case legally it is probably up to the discretion of the telco in question. At least, it should be.
If it is, then the free market can decide if our privacy is worth enough for telcos to stand up to greedy cops that want to go fishing without having a warrant for a hook and line, and the telco has the luxury of choosing between rolling over to pressure or growing a pair and telling the feds to take a hike if they don't have a warrant.
if it is not, then we have a fucked up set of laws that blatantly disrespects the constitutional rights of the telco, and quite frankly, this also applies to the on site manager responsible for the equipment in question.
And I really do not like the idea in general of the government getting to use a combination of "not the customer's data" and "the telco is not a legal person" to do an end-run around the customer's privacy.
By demand, I mean that the telco tells the cops "you can rifle through my database over my dead body if you don't have a search warrant", meaning the telco demanding the search warrant from the police before allowing access to their data.
Actually, while you personally might not have the right to demand a search warrant, the telco however should.
Data hosted on someone else's server doesn't automatically mean they don't need a search warrant. In theory, the telco could still demand one before spilling anything.
And a side note, most phone calls sent to and from towers are encrypted precisely to prevent snooping by wardriving eavesdroppers, so they are also not public in the first place.
Good luck fighting incumbents who like to run crying foul to state legislatures into banning you from even entering the market.
One of the few times that the feds could use "interstate commerce" and actually do some good with it.
Indeed. And getting a warrant requires (or at least is supposed to require) someone testifying as to the proof of probable cause UNDER OATH.
"...and no warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION..."
And what that means, or should mean, is that someone is in court, either in person or over the phone, swearing to the facts, under oath, under penalty of perjury.
Part of the point of getting a warrant, is that some cop is so sure of the facts that he's willing to put his ass on the line for perjury charges if he gets busted for fibbing to the judge about it.
In a sense they really did die in the sense that they lost their immortality.
As it is, as you should have known, my point wasn't whether the serpent actually lied or not. My point was that by being the lying-ass coon dog that STARTED the process, he got the FIRST and MOST blame for being the original cause of the contraband fruit being touched.
Just like when the sheeple of america gullibly fell for the lies of the tobacco companies, the blame goes a great deal on the tobacco companies for actually deceiving the american public to begin with.
Just because the dog taking a nap may be to blame for the henhouse being raided at night, it doesn't mean the fox gets off the hook. If the fox gets caught he's getting skinned even if the dog gets sent to bed without supper.
American stupidity is only part of the problem.
The other part is that the tobacco companies have been DELIBERATELY, and FLAGRANTLY, lying their ASSES off about it.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it was the SERPENT who got the worst punishment of all for fibbing.
Explain to me again the part where we're stuck between voting against kodos and kang because the political parties know damn well we can't vote out every politician we hate?
We as a nation might *collectively* deserve our leaders, but don't fracking tell us that we have an impressive menu where we only get to avoid the lesser of two evils.
If american voters stood up and cared enough to make their votes matter it would be great.
Not only though does the mass media keep them sheepified, but the electoral process itself is rigged in favor of the sovereignty of the states who, as SCOTUS says, are quite able to dictate who their electors vote for, since the electors are legally the agents of the state that sends them to the electoral college.
So, if we want to change america, we need to band together as a nation and start electing better state legislators who can possibly re-steer their state's electors. And start electing federal legislators.
Some constitutional amendments might be called for, and I'm sure every good civics student knows the process so I don't need to go into detail when the constitution itself is just a google away.
http://nelson-haha.api-meal.eu...
Honestly I think Google getting caught up in those politics is the best thing that can happen to internet in america.
Apart from companies like Spectrum majorly boosting their bandwidth, we now have sleazebags like AT&T exposed. Awareness of the politics is rising, and a very uncomfortable spotlight is being shined on incumbent telecoms, and the publicity from high profile court cases is like fresh sunshine against the undead hordes of telecoms trying to cling to the horse and buggy whip.
Google Fiber was intended to boost internet in america, and whether it does that by building fiber, or by lighting a fire under the asses of the incumbents, or by having itself become a martyr to economic politics, I'm happier either way.
The US government possesses sovereign immunity in NZ courts, especially regarding verdicts handed down by courts within its own borders.
Wrong.
The court said that he forfeited his due process rights by fleeing prosecution, so appearing before a US court (even voluntarily and without being arrested) won't give him back.
The district court entered a default judgement and approved the forfeiture, because the justice dept argued successfully that as a fugitive who was willfully evading US jurisdiciton he voluntarily abandoned any right to contest the forfeiture. Even though I agree with dotcom that he was not a fugitive in the first place, since he was legally fighting extradition instead of fleeing even from NZ authorities.
The appellate court basically took the side of the prosecution, possibly figuring that SCOTUS could fix it if they screwed up.
SCOTUS said "we got bigger fish to fry, piss off" and denied cert. As it is they're picky about cases even if they know the appelate court screwed up. For example, the "rule of 4" they use to filter out cases includes, among other things, circuit splits.
There is no further due process for kim with regard to the forfeitures. The only due process remaining is his criminal case for copyright infringement. The civil stuff is over and the US gets to keep everything.
As it is I think that the US legal system may well have been deliberately designed to be flaky enough to keep the proverbial buck passing until someone fumbles.
Let's see, you have to give up your right to sue in a class action, and all you get is random bullshit that tells you nothing anyway.
This smells like nothing more than bait for an immunity grab.
Don't forget that credit scores cost money.
I'm afraid Monsanto has a patent on that
There are two separate issues here.
First, do foreign propaganda trolls have free speech rights in relation to the federal government?
Second, if they don't, can social media be forced to investigate said trolls?
I'm a little iffy on the first part, but my theory is that anything that would bring a foreigner of any sort under US jurisdiction in the first place would also put them under the protection of the constitution, with the attending protections to free speech as provided in the first amendment.
The second part is a completely different angle. Social media sites themselves are entitled to their own constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are also not agents of the state. Unless a court order says otherwise they are under no obligation to investigate foreign trolls, or, for that matter, even lift a finger to assist the government in doing so.
So, in a nutshell, apart from first amendment implications with the trolls themselves, why should social media sites have to roll up their own sleeves to do the government's job for them?