If that's your idea of a gotcha, you should have spent the hour it took to craft that reply actually reading the site which has covered the standards for defamation over and over and over again. Almost like the author was trying to explain how even sites like NPR get the standards wrong in their coverage. You can go read the EFF's article on it to at least get the basics. Also, it's kind of on you to prove your assertion that it is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e. TimothyHollins or you if you wish to take up that torch. I can't very well shoot down a non-specific assertion that made no attempt whatsoever to connect the facts of the matter to the elements of a claim of defamation, after all.
I'll want specifics of exactly which article(s) are "fraudulent", who was defrauded of what, which specific person(s) allegedly perpetrated the fraud, and you'll have to get that information by quoting specific Trump statements in contexts where he made the statement(s) you claim meet all the elements of a defamation claim. CNN is a public figure, so you will also have to prove actual malice here, once you figure out what that is.
Slander is spoken, libel is written. If you need to speak in general, you should use the word "defamation." Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
Spammers do weird things like flooding sites with fake referrers because the logs may appear publicly. I'm not saying it's even real traffic, necessarily, but yes, it should be obvious with some more investigation.
They could publish or not as they wish, what they can't do is use the threat of publishing to control someone. It's bad for society to allow that behavior, irrespective of what's beneficial to him.
> I remember "Fake News" used to mean "News that was fabricated, with maybe a sprinkle of facts to give it legitimacy".
It was first used against CNN for things like the clip where Cuomo, a lawyer, gives a completely false statement about the law with respect to reading Wikileaks. But here, listen to an actual lawyer call him out on that one.
Also, I have many serious doubts about the widespread use of anonymous-sourced stories. Something that can persist for years even at ostensibly reputable outlets.
Top Obama-era officials have told me that anonymously sourced stories are often fabricated whole cloth to tell people whatever they want to hear.
Purely in the interest of fairness, there are archives from Reddit of his account that indicate that he's at least 27 and more likely 30-something, if the comments are to be believed. I don't know where that rumor started, but I prefer when people back that with facts and there are enough damning facts for CNN as is without adding items that cannot be proven to the mix.
In the end, CNN massively over-reacted to a silly picture here and I don't think the age of the person is all that relevant with respect to their threats, only with respect to a few of the statutes that require a minor.
I honestly agree with this. I think they should be demanding the source to all security relevant products, if for no other reason than that they can control and analyze them. When software is feature complete, business types love to shove it into maintenance mode, leave a skeleton crew to do security updates and in general lower the quality with each new release by trying to milk it.
> You do know that google customizes the story selection to the user, based on the interests they've already exhibited, right? > I read google news with cookies blocked and I don't get any of that whacko stuff.
Yes. Firefox doesn't allow most cookies and deletes the rest every time I close it (i.e. many times a day). I don't browse while logged into Google, either.
So yes, they should be giving me the non-personalized version.
I'm more worried about the content of Google news than the presentation, honestly.
The health section in particular has been full of complete nonsense. I've been seeing spam for viagra and weed lately. I'll know they've hit rock bottom when homeopathy pops up.
Is there any surprise here, except perhaps from people who don't know how FCC commissioners are chosen?
Commissioners
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business
> They weren't on a price list because they were free.
You have a weird definition of "free." Donors paid the DNC to get "free" tickets from the WaPo. The price sheet was just showing how much you have to give the DNC before you qualify to go to the WaPo party. Nothing you wrote explains why the DNC lawyers forbade it, either...
The WaPo effectively donated however much those DNC donors paid for that level of access.
None of that explains why they waited until Trump had been in for 6 months to tell us. None of that explains why they waited until Trump called them out on Twitter to make something up to explain this. None of that explains why anonymous sources always magically tell you whatever you want to hear.
"Damage to our democracy"? Really? So they think that telling us that we're being hacked is more damage than, allegedly, electing a Russian Manchurian candidate? They're sure not worried about that now, nor have they been for a good six months now, so why wait? They're telling us that Obama needed the Republican's permission to say anything? Let's just pretend that everything is fine until we lose, then it's all wrong? Why not push for secure paper ballots, voter ID and anti-gerrymandering laws so we can have confidence in the vote rather than complaining after a loss?
Podesta (yes, that Podesta) works for the WaPo. They hold secret fundraisers with the DNC. This doesn't even pass the laugh test. They always have an anonymous source that tells you whatever you want to hear. Funny how that works.
You're ignoring the GP post, which talks about not telling us about this sooner, you know, during the six months or so they've been telling us stories about Russian hacking post-election. Saying that they couldn't tell us before the election says nothing about why they couldn't tell us until just now, or why they had to leak this anonymously.
But even if I go with your moving the goal posts to only pre-election activities, despite that never being the original topic at all, why did Obama assure us that the election couldn't be hacked if he was performing cyber ops against Russian hackers?
I mean, it's one thing to not be able to go public, it's quite another to assure everyone that stories of election hacking are fake news and change your tune quickly after a loss. But back then it was all Comey's fault...
Top Obama officials and intelligence agencies have told me that their sources are nonsense. Who are you to question them?
[1] To spare you trying to decode the HTML email:
Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.
We are waiting
Jordan Kaplan National Finance Director Democratic National Committee (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) kaplanj@dnc.org
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote: > > They aren’t going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.
You do realize that the election was over more than 6 months ago, right? It's quite odd to say they were trying not to "interfere" with an election that was already over...
They should use it on Google News, first. The health section in particular has become a joke lately. It's starting to get spammed with ads for viagra and marijuana as the 'top' articles. WTF?
I've long argued and it was obvious from being on Slashdot during the initial cash grab plans that pretty much everyone but the people hoping to rob us want NN. The real problem is with what we can DO about it. The government isn't exactly trustworthy either, so granting them broad powers is dangerous.
And yet, if we can find a more reasonable solution, we all want an internet where everyone gets to participate on an even footing, without the ISPs screwing everyone over for profit.
Because it's lawsuit bait, obviously. It's standard practice to object to costly discovery and they'd want to send anything they put out through legal review first.
It's sad. When we all first heard about the despicable cash-grab telcos were planning in order to make us all pay more, everyone here hated the idea.
A decade or so of lobbyists later and we're split along party lines over what to do about it.
But in case everyone has forgotten, please remember that most people absolutely abhor the idea of ISPs charging protection fees to the internet at large to avoid having their sites hobbled.
> Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards"
You should trust ACs exactly as much as everyone else here, which is to say, not at all. Judge the reasoning on its merits and its factual basis (if any), and not on the name attached to it.
Also, please reserve the same skepticism for all the news citing anonymous sources. Top Obama administration advisors have told me that many of the claims are made up whole cloth to support a point or tell a story.
Well, if you go back to when Net Neutrality wasn't yet a thing and everyone was outraged by the plans of telcos to hobble 3rd party site traffic over their networks unless they were paid a protection fee, you'll find that pretty much everyone who isn't going to profit from it really and truly hates that idea. Go back to the original Slashdot stories and you'll find that practically everyone agreed that it was an absolutely despicable money grab. What's changed since then is that the telcos bought lobbyists and worked hard to split the public along party lines as to how we should stop them from doing this disgusting cash grab.
If the public could build consensus around some solution without getting split up in D vs. R nonsense, most of us really hate the scumbag tactics the telcos and their lobbyists were using. The public has mostly forgotten this and is being divided and conquered by lobbyists.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's your idea of a gotcha, you should have spent the hour it took to craft that reply actually reading the site which has covered the standards for defamation over and over and over again. Almost like the author was trying to explain how even sites like NPR get the standards wrong in their coverage. You can go read the EFF's article on it to at least get the basics. Also, it's kind of on you to prove your assertion that it is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e. TimothyHollins or you if you wish to take up that torch. I can't very well shoot down a non-specific assertion that made no attempt whatsoever to connect the facts of the matter to the elements of a claim of defamation, after all.
In short, please come back when you can explain how "fraudulent news" is a specific claim of provable fact in light of Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 691 (1994) and Information Control v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir.1980).
I'll want specifics of exactly which article(s) are "fraudulent", who was defrauded of what, which specific person(s) allegedly perpetrated the fraud, and you'll have to get that information by quoting specific Trump statements in contexts where he made the statement(s) you claim meet all the elements of a defamation claim. CNN is a public figure, so you will also have to prove actual malice here, once you figure out what that is.
Good luck!
Slander is spoken, libel is written. If you need to speak in general, you should use the word "defamation." Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
Here are some actual first amendment lawyers talking about whether calling something "fake news" is defamation. Spoiler alert: their answer is "no."
Spammers do weird things like flooding sites with fake referrers because the logs may appear publicly. I'm not saying it's even real traffic, necessarily, but yes, it should be obvious with some more investigation.
They could publish or not as they wish, what they can't do is use the threat of publishing to control someone. It's bad for society to allow that behavior, irrespective of what's beneficial to him.
> I remember "Fake News" used to mean "News that was fabricated, with maybe a sprinkle of facts to give it legitimacy".
It was first used against CNN for things like the clip where Cuomo, a lawyer, gives a completely false statement about the law with respect to reading Wikileaks. But here, listen to an actual lawyer call him out on that one.
Also, I have many serious doubts about the widespread use of anonymous-sourced stories. Something that can persist for years even at ostensibly reputable outlets.
Top Obama-era officials have told me that anonymously sourced stories are often fabricated whole cloth to tell people whatever they want to hear.
> CNN didn't speak to hanassholesolo until AFTER the apology was made and all posting history was deleted.
CNN's own damned tweets contradict that. Many images abound of this with archive.is links that can be verified.
Purely in the interest of fairness, there are archives from Reddit of his account that indicate that he's at least 27 and more likely 30-something, if the comments are to be believed. I don't know where that rumor started, but I prefer when people back that with facts and there are enough damning facts for CNN as is without adding items that cannot be proven to the mix.
In the end, CNN massively over-reacted to a silly picture here and I don't think the age of the person is all that relevant with respect to their threats, only with respect to a few of the statutes that require a minor.
Eh, my first thought is spammers or affiliate marketers (yes, I'm repeating myself....).
I honestly agree with this. I think they should be demanding the source to all security relevant products, if for no other reason than that they can control and analyze them. When software is feature complete, business types love to shove it into maintenance mode, leave a skeleton crew to do security updates and in general lower the quality with each new release by trying to milk it.
Yeah, I barely look any more, but it's still (marginally) better than loading up a regular news site and having everything split over 20 pages.
> You do know that google customizes the story selection to the user, based on the interests they've already exhibited, right?
> I read google news with cookies blocked and I don't get any of that whacko stuff.
Yes. Firefox doesn't allow most cookies and deletes the rest every time I close it (i.e. many times a day). I don't browse while logged into Google, either.
So yes, they should be giving me the non-personalized version.
I'm more worried about the content of Google news than the presentation, honestly.
The health section in particular has been full of complete nonsense. I've been seeing spam for viagra and weed lately. I'll know they've hit rock bottom when homeopathy pops up.
Is there any surprise here, except perhaps from people who don't know how FCC commissioners are chosen?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Communications_Commission&oldid=785668648#Commissioners
> They weren't on a price list because they were free.
You have a weird definition of "free." Donors paid the DNC to get "free" tickets from the WaPo. The price sheet was just showing how much you have to give the DNC before you qualify to go to the WaPo party. Nothing you wrote explains why the DNC lawyers forbade it, either...
The WaPo effectively donated however much those DNC donors paid for that level of access.
None of that explains why they waited until Trump had been in for 6 months to tell us. None of that explains why they waited until Trump called them out on Twitter to make something up to explain this. None of that explains why anonymous sources always magically tell you whatever you want to hear.
"Damage to our democracy"? Really? So they think that telling us that we're being hacked is more damage than, allegedly, electing a Russian Manchurian candidate? They're sure not worried about that now, nor have they been for a good six months now, so why wait? They're telling us that Obama needed the Republican's permission to say anything? Let's just pretend that everything is fine until we lose, then it's all wrong? Why not push for secure paper ballots, voter ID and anti-gerrymandering laws so we can have confidence in the vote rather than complaining after a loss?
Podesta (yes, that Podesta) works for the WaPo. They hold secret fundraisers with the DNC. This doesn't even pass the laugh test. They always have an anonymous source that tells you whatever you want to hear. Funny how that works.
You're ignoring the GP post, which talks about not telling us about this sooner, you know, during the six months or so they've been telling us stories about Russian hacking post-election. Saying that they couldn't tell us before the election says nothing about why they couldn't tell us until just now, or why they had to leak this anonymously.
But even if I go with your moving the goal posts to only pre-election activities, despite that never being the original topic at all, why did Obama assure us that the election couldn't be hacked if he was performing cyber ops against Russian hackers?
I mean, it's one thing to not be able to go public, it's quite another to assure everyone that stories of election hacking are fake news and change your tune quickly after a loss. But back then it was all Comey's fault...
The tickets weren't for the DNC, they were for DNC donors and couldn't be put on a price list because that would be a donation to the DNC.
Instead, they just do everything with a wink and a nod...
This is the same paper that held a clandestine fund raiser with the DNC after their own lawyers told them not to [1]. It's stories rely heavily on anonymous stories and undisclosed facts, and the people who own it are not the same any more.
Top Obama officials and intelligence agencies have told me that their sources are nonsense. Who are you to question them?
[1] To spare you trying to decode the HTML email:
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
You do realize that the election was over more than 6 months ago, right? It's quite odd to say they were trying not to "interfere" with an election that was already over...
They should use it on Google News, first. The health section in particular has become a joke lately. It's starting to get spammed with ads for viagra and marijuana as the 'top' articles. WTF?
This is kind of the fundamental problem with NN.
I've long argued and it was obvious from being on Slashdot during the initial cash grab plans that pretty much everyone but the people hoping to rob us want NN. The real problem is with what we can DO about it. The government isn't exactly trustworthy either, so granting them broad powers is dangerous.
And yet, if we can find a more reasonable solution, we all want an internet where everyone gets to participate on an even footing, without the ISPs screwing everyone over for profit.
Because it's lawsuit bait, obviously. It's standard practice to object to costly discovery and they'd want to send anything they put out through legal review first.
It's sad. When we all first heard about the despicable cash-grab telcos were planning in order to make us all pay more, everyone here hated the idea.
A decade or so of lobbyists later and we're split along party lines over what to do about it.
But in case everyone has forgotten, please remember that most people absolutely abhor the idea of ISPs charging protection fees to the internet at large to avoid having their sites hobbled.
> Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards"
You should trust ACs exactly as much as everyone else here, which is to say, not at all. Judge the reasoning on its merits and its factual basis (if any), and not on the name attached to it.
Also, please reserve the same skepticism for all the news citing anonymous sources. Top Obama administration advisors have told me that many of the claims are made up whole cloth to support a point or tell a story.
Well, if you go back to when Net Neutrality wasn't yet a thing and everyone was outraged by the plans of telcos to hobble 3rd party site traffic over their networks unless they were paid a protection fee, you'll find that pretty much everyone who isn't going to profit from it really and truly hates that idea. Go back to the original Slashdot stories and you'll find that practically everyone agreed that it was an absolutely despicable money grab. What's changed since then is that the telcos bought lobbyists and worked hard to split the public along party lines as to how we should stop them from doing this disgusting cash grab.
If the public could build consensus around some solution without getting split up in D vs. R nonsense, most of us really hate the scumbag tactics the telcos and their lobbyists were using. The public has mostly forgotten this and is being divided and conquered by lobbyists.