We need more pci-e lanes on the desktop and high end gaming systems.
And what if most of the public don't use high end gaming systems? Why would they need more pci-e lanes? AMD and Intel both have to sell the the general public more than the high end gamer.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
What's ironic is when lab-grown diamonds first started appearing one of the ways jewelers could tell them apart from mined diamonds was the lab-grown ones were too perfect and didn't have any flaws. One of desired features of diamonds is lack of flaws but the labs had to go back and add flaws to make them more "realistic".
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them.
You said exactly: "Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum." What you are saying makes no sense in that Twitter isn't part of the suit but would be affected by a suit. That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce. In some sense they would move but because I don't interact with them so it doesn't affect me.
Second you are aware that judges consider the rulings of other judges? In this case, it did not involve Twitter. If a similar suit is filed, Twitter can reference this decision and point to how they are not a party.
. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to.
By that logic, EVERY SINGLE lawsuit affects Twitter. My neighbor's divorce affects Twitter. Every single lawsuit affecting Twitter affects me whether I use them.
In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it.
What part of "party to a suit" is unclear to you? Or do not understand how lawsuits work. A lawsuit has to name who is party to it. A judge's job is not name everyone but to oversee it. As far as the future parties is concerned, again we live in linear time and we cannot move forwards in the future or backwards in the past so it would be impossible for a judge to do that unless she or he is a time-traveling judge.
As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
No you presented bogus arguments that were not founded on anything having to do with this suit. Instead of merely admitting it you've spun it as some sort of silly, hypothetical case that doesn't exist.
I think it was in April that PUBG sued NetEase for two mobile games for copyright infringement. This copyright lawyer, Leonard French goes over that suit and discusses elements of it. While French talks about general concepts of copyright infringement like "substantially similar" requirements he also talks about specific things like PUBG's claim that NetEase "copied" guns which were real world guns is problematic as you'd expect a Tommy gun to look like all other Tommy guns.
It could be more silly or less silly depending on the details. It would be less silly if PUBG is suing over items which are unique for example a helmet that is easily identifiable. It would be more silly if PUBG is suing over items which are not unique like real world guns like a Glock 19.
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs]
against
Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s
blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the
law and because all government officials are presumed to follow
the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume
that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have
held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
Only if you will NEVER EVER add a new device or replace a device. I mean I still use all the same electronic devices I purchased in 1977. Now get off my lawn.
Considering the range of 100m, yes. Now this vulnerability relies on attacking during a pairing process so an attacker cannot drive by and take control of all IoT networks but they can just wait outside a physical home for a pairing. How often does pairing occur? That depends. For unknown reasons my bluetooth devices required to be re-paired every now and then. If the devices do not need to be paired often then the chance of a remote attack is less
Neat trick, but if you watch the video, they have to be able to connect to the device while it's pairing to inject the attack...so, pretty cool, but I wonder how practical an attack it is in practise.
The ZWave protocol has a range of 100m. How would it not be practical to park outside a house and launch an attack from the street?
The vulnerability is not in someone getting a hold of your device in your house. The vulnerability is in someone using a device to get inside your network from outside your home. The Z-Wave protocol has a range of 100m. This attack means that someone could use a device, force pair it with your door locks from a distance and then unlocking the doors without you knowing. In the article it shows researchers doing that. And that's just door locks. Any IoT device can be force paired from a distance.
Actually, no, I don't need your permission and your insinuations don't invalidate my claims. Trying to shift the focus on the person making the argument as a way to dispute facts is the typical diversionary tactic of a partisan shill. Stop acting like one.
No one claimed that you do. What I'm saying is that you seem so focused on Hillary doing something and again ignored or excused it when the GOP did it.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
Well that's amusing coming from someone who wants to claim convenience as the sole motivating factor for exclusively using a private server for state business. When not even the example of the destruction of the records despite a preservation order can possibly stand as evidence in your eyes, then it seems that you're only interested in moving the goal posts.
No I claim that you are seemingly outraged that Clinton does something and ignores it when the GOP does it too. I claim that you are biased in this regard. If you were outraged that one does it, you should be outraged that the other one does as well. I claim you are trying to make distinctions to bolster your bias that don't exist.
Well maybe. I wouldn't put it past the Cheney administration to want to avoid things being entered into the public record. But what was the opinion of Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive?*
That is irrelevant. What is important is your opinion. Were you outraged that you cannot access some of the Bush emails both when announced and today?
Seems like negligence on the their part, but I don't see where highly classified information was stored on insecure devices.
In 22 million emails from 88 individuals are you asserting that no classified information was stored on insecure devices? I don't know that they were but it seemed that was the least of the problems. Also with one of the people were the Chief of Staff and the VP so there is a high degree of likelihood that some emails may have been classified.
Trump also doesn't have anything to do with the State dept. being sued to release these records in a timely manner, or with the original FOIA lawsuit that revealed the private email server to begin with.
My point which you missed is that Trump makes a lot of claims. The State Dept does not share his claims. But to address your point, you are aware that Trump can order the State Dept to release the records, right?
tilting at windmills means attacking imaginary enemies. Unfortunately there is no lack of people who want to mislead or bury the truth to satisfy their own political preferences.
My point again is that you seem to ignore the transgressions of the GOP while focusing entirely on that of Hillary.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Against your determination to hand wave using convenience as an excuse, while ignoring purposeful actions that point to a cover up.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your accusations. When confronted with that, you point to a cover up.
"lost for a time" vrs. lost for all time due to deliberate destruction in the face of congressional hearings.
You are aware that it took a computer forensics team working under Obama to recover the Bush emails, right and that the Bush administration didn't provide the emails? And again are you equating 22 million emails among 88 individuals with one person? Because it would seem to me that 88 people would seem more like a conspiracy to me.
So let's wait for the State Department to be forced to release more emails before the decade is up and possibly reveal something in black and white and not completely redacted that could even come close to your expectations of proof.
You are aware that the State Department under Trump doesn't support your claim. Trump makes all sorts of outrageous claims himself but the current State Department does not. Seems like you are chasing windmills.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
We should clarify one thing. I said "US only", you said "citizens". Those are two very different things.
You said both: "It notices that the plaintiffs are in fact US citizens, who have been blocked based in the viewpoints they posted. The ruling is that the President's office can't block based on viewpoint. They could perhaps set it to US-only, which would send the Democrats into a tizzy."
If you are saying I'm wrong, that the government can't keep out people from other countries, what page number do you see that on? I don't see it.
Under your theory, that the US government can't block people from other countries trying to come to a public place, all of our border security would be unconstitutional. The US would not have sovereignty
What? That's both a false equivalence and terrible logic. What it says is that if you have a public meeting in your town, your mayor cannot block the public from attending regardless of their viewpoints OR their citizenship. As you are aware some members of the public may not be citizens.
You are aware that some people who legally reside in the US are not US citizens right? That is true of other countries. For example some of my friends who have their visas and are married to citizens and waiting to go through the process of naturalization.
So if you're the leader of the United States, you're not allowed to use privacy features on a privately-owned social media platform.
Not on your official public account. If Trump has a private account that is allowed; however, the judges specifically discounted the idea that it was Trump's private account.
But that social media platform can block, hellban, censor and terminate the accounts of anyone, including the President, over arbitrarily decided, biased terms of service.
The court can only rule what the President as a public official can do; they were not deciding what private citizens and companies can do which has always been the case.
The ruling covers the "public" cannot be blocked from a public forum regardless if they are citizens are not. Blocking non-US citizens would equally violate the law.
Slashdot Mirror
We need more pci-e lanes on the desktop and high end gaming systems.
And what if most of the public don't use high end gaming systems? Why would they need more pci-e lanes? AMD and Intel both have to sell the the general public more than the high end gamer.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
What's ironic is when lab-grown diamonds first started appearing one of the ways jewelers could tell them apart from mined diamonds was the lab-grown ones were too perfect and didn't have any flaws. One of desired features of diamonds is lack of flaws but the labs had to go back and add flaws to make them more "realistic".
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them.
You said exactly: "Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum." What you are saying makes no sense in that Twitter isn't part of the suit but would be affected by a suit. That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce. In some sense they would move but because I don't interact with them so it doesn't affect me.
Second you are aware that judges consider the rulings of other judges? In this case, it did not involve Twitter. If a similar suit is filed, Twitter can reference this decision and point to how they are not a party.
. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to.
By that logic, EVERY SINGLE lawsuit affects Twitter. My neighbor's divorce affects Twitter. Every single lawsuit affecting Twitter affects me whether I use them.
In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it.
What part of "party to a suit" is unclear to you? Or do not understand how lawsuits work. A lawsuit has to name who is party to it. A judge's job is not name everyone but to oversee it. As far as the future parties is concerned, again we live in linear time and we cannot move forwards in the future or backwards in the past so it would be impossible for a judge to do that unless she or he is a time-traveling judge.
As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
No you presented bogus arguments that were not founded on anything having to do with this suit. Instead of merely admitting it you've spun it as some sort of silly, hypothetical case that doesn't exist.
I think it was in April that PUBG sued NetEase for two mobile games for copyright infringement. This copyright lawyer, Leonard French goes over that suit and discusses elements of it. While French talks about general concepts of copyright infringement like "substantially similar" requirements he also talks about specific things like PUBG's claim that NetEase "copied" guns which were real world guns is problematic as you'd expect a Tommy gun to look like all other Tommy guns.
It could be more silly or less silly depending on the details. It would be less silly if PUBG is suing over items which are unique for example a helmet that is easily identifiable. It would be more silly if PUBG is suing over items which are not unique like real world guns like a Glock 19.
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
You really need to read the thing https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs] against Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something." I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
Only if you will NEVER EVER add a new device or replace a device. I mean I still use all the same electronic devices I purchased in 1977. Now get off my lawn.
Considering the range of 100m, yes. Now this vulnerability relies on attacking during a pairing process so an attacker cannot drive by and take control of all IoT networks but they can just wait outside a physical home for a pairing. How often does pairing occur? That depends. For unknown reasons my bluetooth devices required to be re-paired every now and then. If the devices do not need to be paired often then the chance of a remote attack is less
Neat trick, but if you watch the video, they have to be able to connect to the device while it's pairing to inject the attack...so, pretty cool, but I wonder how practical an attack it is in practise.
The ZWave protocol has a range of 100m. How would it not be practical to park outside a house and launch an attack from the street?
The vulnerability is not in someone getting a hold of your device in your house. The vulnerability is in someone using a device to get inside your network from outside your home. The Z-Wave protocol has a range of 100m. This attack means that someone could use a device, force pair it with your door locks from a distance and then unlocking the doors without you knowing. In the article it shows researchers doing that. And that's just door locks. Any IoT device can be force paired from a distance.
Actually, no, I don't need your permission and your insinuations don't invalidate my claims. Trying to shift the focus on the person making the argument as a way to dispute facts is the typical diversionary tactic of a partisan shill. Stop acting like one.
No one claimed that you do. What I'm saying is that you seem so focused on Hillary doing something and again ignored or excused it when the GOP did it.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
Well that's amusing coming from someone who wants to claim convenience as the sole motivating factor for exclusively using a private server for state business. When not even the example of the destruction of the records despite a preservation order can possibly stand as evidence in your eyes, then it seems that you're only interested in moving the goal posts.
No I claim that you are seemingly outraged that Clinton does something and ignores it when the GOP does it too. I claim that you are biased in this regard. If you were outraged that one does it, you should be outraged that the other one does as well. I claim you are trying to make distinctions to bolster your bias that don't exist.
Well maybe. I wouldn't put it past the Cheney administration to want to avoid things being entered into the public record. But what was the opinion of Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive?*
That is irrelevant. What is important is your opinion. Were you outraged that you cannot access some of the Bush emails both when announced and today?
Seems like negligence on the their part, but I don't see where highly classified information was stored on insecure devices.
In 22 million emails from 88 individuals are you asserting that no classified information was stored on insecure devices? I don't know that they were but it seemed that was the least of the problems. Also with one of the people were the Chief of Staff and the VP so there is a high degree of likelihood that some emails may have been classified.
Trump also doesn't have anything to do with the State dept. being sued to release these records in a timely manner, or with the original FOIA lawsuit that revealed the private email server to begin with.
My point which you missed is that Trump makes a lot of claims. The State Dept does not share his claims. But to address your point, you are aware that Trump can order the State Dept to release the records, right?
tilting at windmills means attacking imaginary enemies. Unfortunately there is no lack of people who want to mislead or bury the truth to satisfy their own political preferences.
My point again is that you seem to ignore the transgressions of the GOP while focusing entirely on that of Hillary.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Against your determination to hand wave using convenience as an excuse, while ignoring purposeful actions that point to a cover up.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your accusations. When confronted with that, you point to a cover up.
"lost for a time" vrs. lost for all time due to deliberate destruction in the face of congressional hearings.
You are aware that it took a computer forensics team working under Obama to recover the Bush emails, right and that the Bush administration didn't provide the emails? And again are you equating 22 million emails among 88 individuals with one person? Because it would seem to me that 88 people would seem more like a conspiracy to me.
So let's wait for the State Department to be forced to release more emails before the decade is up and possibly reveal something in black and white and not completely redacted that could even come close to your expectations of proof.
You are aware that the State Department under Trump doesn't support your claim. Trump makes all sorts of outrageous claims himself but the current State Department does not. Seems like you are chasing windmills.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
Which is a completely different matter. However in the case of the plaintiffs, they posted tweets critical of the President's policies.
We should clarify one thing. I said "US only", you said "citizens". Those are two very different things.
You said both: "It notices that the plaintiffs are in fact US citizens, who have been blocked based in the viewpoints they posted. The ruling is that the President's office can't block based on viewpoint. They could perhaps set it to US-only, which would send the Democrats into a tizzy."
If you are saying I'm wrong, that the government can't keep out people from other countries, what page number do you see that on? I don't see it. Under your theory, that the US government can't block people from other countries trying to come to a public place, all of our border security would be unconstitutional. The US would not have sovereignty
What? That's both a false equivalence and terrible logic. What it says is that if you have a public meeting in your town, your mayor cannot block the public from attending regardless of their viewpoints OR their citizenship. As you are aware some members of the public may not be citizens.
You are aware that some people who legally reside in the US are not US citizens right? That is true of other countries. For example some of my friends who have their visas and are married to citizens and waiting to go through the process of naturalization.
So if you're the leader of the United States, you're not allowed to use privacy features on a privately-owned social media platform.
Not on your official public account. If Trump has a private account that is allowed; however, the judges specifically discounted the idea that it was Trump's private account.
But that social media platform can block, hellban, censor and terminate the accounts of anyone, including the President, over arbitrarily decided, biased terms of service.
The court can only rule what the President as a public official can do; they were not deciding what private citizens and companies can do which has always been the case.
The ruling covers the "public" cannot be blocked from a public forum regardless if they are citizens are not. Blocking non-US citizens would equally violate the law.