I don't mind your name calling. It's OK with me if the Moderator leaves it up. Afaic it says everything about your inability to engage in civil discourse without need to emotionally vent.
Printable View
I don't mind your lack of response to points. Afaic it says everything about your inability to make an honest evaluation of your rationalizations and hypocrisies.
And nice job replying to a post you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago. Yet again, you're not helping dispel the image of being demented.
For the last time, the leaker violated Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. Arguably they also obstructed justice. If the leaker is a law clerk then they violated Canon 3 D of the Canons of Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. Violation of same is grounds for disbarment. Yes, I think the leaker should be punished. I think justice should be swift, sure and severe. I reject any equivalence between the leaker and anyone kicked off Twitter. The Court did not censor anything. Confidentiality is essential to its essential functioning. Maintaining confidentiality is not censorship. Is it "censorship" when your doctor, lawyer, spouse or priest maintains your confidence and refuses to disclose what you said to them ?
Most of my critics in this thread have emphasized that Twitter was a private platform and had the right to set its own rules as to content and speakers. Fine. So be it. But then how can you criticize Musk and wear out your worry beads if he wants to broaden the standards and permit MORE speech instead of less ? I have also seen the argument that Twitter ought to protect us " from morons who believe falsehoods ". Presumably by controlling the flow of information. Assuming of course that it is somehow possible to "idiot proof" the world. People make bad decisions and do stupid things all the time. Our prisons , hospitals and graveyards are full of them. Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission and various manufacturers have been doing their best to try. My personal favorite warning label is on Schwinn's stroller: " Always remove child from stroller before folding." LOL. I've always wondered how many infants were saved because of that warning label ?
If anybody made a decision based solely on what they read on Twitter as opposed to all the reliable, reputable and verifiable information out there then THEY are responsible for the consequences. Not Twitter ! Twitter is just one platform in a huge array of information sources. I have little sympathy for anyone who closed themselves off from other and better sources of information. I don't care what their decision was . To use a particular medication or not ; to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate; to wear a mask or not or get vaccinated or not. The sole responsibility for their choice is theirs.
Personally I don't like children being lied to and taught Creationism and/or Creation Science ( sic ). But there is no way to stop it being taught in PRIVATE schools , homes and Sunday Schools. Or to shut down Ark Encounter in Kentucky; or even require a warning sign like : " This attraction is Anti-Science ". It is not a perfect world and it is full of imperfect people leading imperfect lives and making imperfect decisions. Often based on imperfect information and too often on feelings over facts. Welcome to the real world.
Leaking is not part of free speech. I never said I wanted any speech or speaker banned. I want the leaker punished. They committed a crime and violated the Canons Of Ethics .
The Twitter account of the N.Y. Post was suspended when they posted Hunter Biden's e-mails. At the time it was not claimed that they constituted disinformation or misinformation by Twitter. Others made that claim without any basis whatsoever. Twitter used the specious grounds that the e-mails had been hacked which was totally and completely false. Dorsey admitted that the whole fiasco was a mistake.
There's no clear definition that says it's a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 641 is a broad statute designed for embezzlement and physical property, not information.
Side note: Big surprise! You can blindly parrot purely conservative media and think tanks, who are the only sources that think this.
https://i.imgur.com/vRUgNpC.png
I READ the statute for myself. Did you ? I read the Canons of Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. Did you ?
The language of both is pretty clear cut and there is case law applying both.
A number of former law clerks for LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices have stated that what the leaker did was outrageous and cannot be tolerated. Afaic it is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. ALL incoming law clerks are told on Day 1 that they have an absolute , unconditional duty to protect the confidences of the Court and what will happen if they violate those confidences. No excuses. No exceptions. Regardless of which justice they work for .
Rather than argue further we'll have to agree to disagree.
Since you've tried to take me to task for not responding here goes:
When did I ever say that "two wrongs make a right" ?
What "other culprits " are you referring to ?
Your third point is almost unintelligible. That Twitter and Facebook were biased in favor of Liberals and against Conservatives supports MY argument.
For whatever it's worth from a demented boomer lol.
You're misrepresenting the course of events. Let's summarize (because this will be hilarious):
- You referred to Twitter many times as a public platform. You have been informed many times that it is private enterprise over the course of 15 months.
- You typed that Musk "will" own Twitter by the end of the year, and that it "is" a private company now. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
- You typed Twitter "was" owned by its shareholders despite the fact that it still is a publicly traded company.
- You have also criticized public figures for their incorrect word usage, and diagnosed them as having failing mental state. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
- You couldn't find how many people voted in a Twitter poll when the figure is right below the poll.
- You can't see that people should face the consequences of breaking the rules of a microblogging service, but tell us that people should face the consequences of civil disobedience.
- You try to appeal to hypocrisy that Twitter's terms of service aren't evenly applied long after I showed you instances that it has been biased in favor of conservatives.
- You reply to a post that you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago.
That was all in the course of 8 days! Can you honestly tell yourself it's solely due to ideological differences and not an evaluation based on empirical evidence?
You implied it with the post to which I was replying:
Other people that broke Twitter's terms of service and didn't get their posts moderated, accounts banned, or whatever else.
/facepalm. If your issue is that you feel that they're biased, then the base issue is not about freedoms, it's about the bias. And yet again, I've shown you that Twitter has also showed bias in favor of conservatives, so your premise isn't even necessarily correct. You also don't consider the possibility that one end of the spectrum breaks the rules more often than the other.
This has really gotten pedantic. For any lack of clarity or even inconsistency on my part I take total responsibility and promise to try and do better. As much as my demented boomerism will permit.
Afaik Twitter is open to all . Anyone can post on Twitter. That makes it a PUBLIC forum albeit privately owned by its shareholders. Twitter is publicly traded making it a "public " corporation. Musk wants to buy all the Twitter stock and take it private. Am I right so far ?
Twitter has rules as to posting and content. It used those rules to kick off Trump and suspend the account of the N.Y. Post. Musk says that he will permit Trump to come back on Twitter. Dorsey has admitted that suspending the Post account was a mistake. How am I doing so far ?
I have only been diagnosed as "demented " by you. Several prominent neurologists have called Biden's mental state and cognitive abilities into question. The list of his gaffes and inappropriate affect are well documented. I am doing everything I can to fight off Mother Nature and Father Time. Aren't we all ? Maybe I should order some Prevagen ? Since you are so concerned I will redouble my efforts.
I didn't see the raw numbers of Musk's Twitter poll. Mea culpa, mea culpa , mea maxima culpa.
If you are aware of anyone posting confidential information on Twitter I think you should report it immediately.
Part of civil disobedience is acceptance of the consequences of breaking the law. Gandhi, MLK , Thoreau, the Berrigan brothers and a long list of activists were all willing to go to jail and did so.
I am not aware of any bias on Twitter's part in favor of the conservative pov.
Yes:
No:
Dorsey admitted blocking the tweets was a mistake, not suspending the account.
I didn't diagnose you.
I am not concerned.
missa.p1600 first informed you here long ago. You acknowledged Twitter giving Trump special treatment here. You can't honestly feign ignorance now unless you have diminished mental capacities (and possibly *whisper* dementia).
Misleading:
Being a public forum is irrelevant. Being private property means the owners can do what they want, i.e. remove content and suspend/ban/delete accounts.
The same is true for prominent psychologists saying he's fine.
I provided you a list of your own gaffes to which you just replied. But you feel you're mentally fine after admitting to multiple mistakes.
I truly apologize for my imperfections and shortcomings.
Leave the experts out of it. Having lived with not one but two grandparents with Alzheimer's I think he is in the early stages of dementia. We can agree to disagree.
What was the difference between blocking the Post's tweets and suspending their account ? The effect was the same.
I said Trump got "special treatment " where ? On Twitter ? Please explain what you are talking about and for my benefit please go slowly.
You're exhibit A on why Twitter and Facebook need to censor posts. You believe nonsensical, crazy right-wing conspiracy theories like this.
He linked to it in the comment you replied too. Here's the full url:
https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/sh...=1#post3206002
And we'll know you're genuine if/when you avoid repeating these mistakes.
They're the ones qualified to evaluate it though.
And I guess it's time to point out the convenience that some verbal gaffes are due to dementia, but others aren't. For example, there were no posts when a certain someone said the Continental Army took over the airports during the Revolutionary War, or said "7-Eleven" instead of "9/11," or said he met with the president of the Virgin Islands. There's more than that, but I stuck with the comedy Rule of Three.
If this is a serious question, then after having its content removed and being instructed to stop, they continued and got suspended (and not even for particularly long).
I gave you a link to the post. People without mental deficiencies can trace the sub-thread from it easily. Kidding...kind of.
You reject it because you're in favor of censorship when it comes to information you don't want made public, but you're against censorship when it comes to information that you do want made public. I've never seen such hypocrisy. Medical information is personal information and can potentially harm that patient if it is made public. Nobody was harmed by making the Supreme Court's decision public before the SC did. Not allowing information to be made public in regard to actions by public officials is censorship, except in cases of classified information that could harm national security. It's obvious that your entire reasoning on your opposition to Twitter and FB blocking posts about Hunter Biden's laptop, is because you hate the Biden's, and want to see them humiliated. You want the Supreme Court's decision to be censored, because you don't seem to have a problem with this horrible, abhorrent ruling, that can potentially harm many women.
Because businesses should act responsibly. Social media platforms shouldn't allow their platforms to be used to incite violence and harm others, the same way businesses shouldn't sell products that are unsafe or harmful. Nobody is saying we can "idiot proof" the world, but just because we can't, doesn't mean we shouldn't take any steps to prevent lies and misinformation from being spread. There is no question that we would be much better off if the press and social medial platforms all refused to print or allowed to be posted, all of the lies about the election that were told by Trump and his sycophants. We would also be much better off if the press and social media platforms blocked all of the lies that were told about covid-19, as well as the vaccines. There is also no question we will be much better off if the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones bankrupts him and forces him to shut down his conspiracy theory websites.
You still don't seem to understand the simple concept that when people believe lies and absurd conspiracy theories, not only are the people who believe them harmed, but often, others are harmed as well. Alex Jones made the lives of parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, hell, with the lies he was putting out about them. Trump and his sycophants made the lives of election workers hell, for nothing more than doing their jobs. People shouldn't be subject to this abuse and threats, and sometimes violence, just to make you happy with your "more speech is better" and "fight bad speech with good speech," especially when you want to censor information that you don't want made public.
Leaking is part of free speech, just as much as making public what was supposedly on Hunter Biden's laptop.
It wasn't a fiasco, and Twitter didn't do anything wrong. Just because you disagree with what Twitter did, doesn't mean it was wrong, especially when you want to go a lot further than Twitter, in blocking free speech.
If you want to believe that Biden has all his faculties and is physically and mentally capable or being POTUS you are free to think so. Personally I think it is wishful thinking on your part but whatever. I don't need right wing sources to watch him on T.V. for myself and conclude he is not all there. I certainly did not form my opinion based on Twitter or Facebook. Or any media report. I can watch and listen to him for myself.
I've had enough. As usual with this stuff we have gotten to the point where we are arguing in circles and repeating ourselves . We'll have to agree to disagree.
The Supreme Court was harmed by the leak. If the leak was not wrongful then why are there Canons Of Ethics for law clerks ? You want to throw those out too ?
I don't like the Bidens. I think they are a bunch of crooks. Sue me.
Afaic Alex Jones is a complete and total asshole and got what he deserved.
I am all in favor of safe products. If Schwinn wants to post a warning addressed to and for idiots that is their business.
Whether or not a leak is protected by the First Amendment depends. The N.Y. Times and Washington Post were allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted. His case was dismissed based on prosecutorial misconduct. For me the issue was that nothing he revealed was really "Top Secret ". It was a tough case because it was not for him to second guess the Pentagon and yet I am glad he did. And glad that his case was dismissed. And that the Times and Post were permitted to publish.
We will see if Musk is able to take Twitter private. I hope he does. And if he does and you have at least one conniption per day over something that he permits to be posted then I'll consider it to be huge "Win Win". Lol.
That wasn't the point! You're critical of certain people's verbal gaffes, but give a pass to someone who very famously and public said the Continental Army took over the airports during the Revolutionary War, "7-Eleven" instead of "9/11," and that he met with the president of the Virgin Islands. And you give yourself a pass for your various mistakes too.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of logic. The fact that there are Canons Of Ethics for law clerks does not prove the leak harmed the court.
There aren't even allegations that President Biden has done anything wrong. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make him a crook. You don't have a very good record on character judgement. You've expressed admiration for Rush Limbaugh, a disgusting, lying, racist, misogynistic POS. You've frequently defended the stupid, lying, racist, sexual predator and crook, Donald Trump. You defended rapist Hugh Hefner. I don't see the fact that you don't like the Bidens as being a bad thing.
Then you agree with me that it shouldn't be allowed for people to post lies and misinformation on the internet?
Like you've been having over the leaked Supreme Court decision? If Musk ruins Twitter, I'll just stop using it, and so will millions of others. Musk is already starting to backtrack. Now he's saying that Trump should have been suspended for inciting the insurrection.
The Canons of Ethics are not suggestions. They are RULES that the clerks are obligated to follow whether they like it or not. I cited the statute that was violated. If the leaker is found out and if he or she is a clerk they are subject to disbarment. For violating the Canons of Ethics AND for a felony conviction for which disbarment is automatic.
There ARE allegations that Biden misused his office as Veep to benefit Jim and Hunter. A L L E G A T I O N S . Not yet formalized in an indictment. Certainly not yet proven. As shown by both Hunter's e-mails and Bobulinski together with other sources. Possible crimes include tax evasion and influence peddling. There may be others or it may turn out that there is inadequate evidence to proceed against any of the Bidens. Even if there is such evidence Joe can't be indicted while he is POTUS. Impeached yes but not indicted and even that is questionable unless there are crimes alleged that occurred while he was actually POTUS. He could, repeat COULD, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was. We don't know yet. Investigations are ongoing. We will see.
Will you please stop holding back and tell us how you really feel about Limbaugh. You didn't like the guy. So what. Who cares ? I think you're just jealous of his success . He's DEAD ! Go find out where his remains are buried and piss on his grave. Same thing for Trump although you might want to wait until after he croaks before you try and piss on him. He still has Secret Service protection. Hefner is different. Early on in the show "Secrets of Playboy " that many of us watched I raised questions about some, repeat SOME of the unproven allegations against him. As the allegations piled up I found them to be more and more disturbing and more and more credible so I evolved into being more of a believer . I NEVER said he was a good person. Check your PM's for something I don't want to post.
If you or anyone is going to try and eliminate lies and misinformation from the internet, Good Luck ! I think you will find it to be a herculean or even Sisyphusian task. Rather than try I think it best to let the legal system work via libel suits. And to respond to "lies and misinformation" the same way humankind has been doing for centuries ; with truth and truthier information.
You continue to evade my question. How was the Supreme Court harmed by the leak? Stating laws or policies is not showing any harm to the Supreme Court. This is a very simple and straightforward question. Please answer instead of citing laws or policies. That doesn't prove anything.
Influence peddling is not a crime. How do you think lobbyists make their money? Basically, you've decided already that President Biden is guilty. You just have to find the crime.
You completely missed my point.
On Hugh Hefner:
So it was better to let Alex Jones's victims be subject to years of harassment and death threats, until the case works its way through court?
You continue to make straw man arguments and evade my points. Nobody said we could eliminate all lies and misinformation. My position is that the owners of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should not allow their platforms to be used to spread lies and misinformation, and should delete posts and and suspend users when they violate the rules. You have two different standards for speech. Speech you're in favor of, and speech you're against. You don't want Supreme Court justices or their clerks to be allowed to make decisions public, before they're formally announced, despite the fact that you can't even specify what harm it causes. You do want nutjobs and conspiracy theorists to be allowed to post all the lies and misinformation they want on social media, no matter how much harm or violence it causes.
Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding me presumably to try and show off and score points.
You obviously do not understand how the Supreme Court works. If they did not think that confidentiality was essential to its function ; that the justices have to be able to trust each other and not fear disclosure of their private conferences and private communications ( of which Alito's draft was one ) then they would not have rules governing same. They think so and have rules enforcing same including but not limited to the Canons of Ethics. Do you even know what the Canons of Ethics are ? And how sacred they are in the legal biz in general and pertaining to SCOTUS law clerks in particular ? If Alito's draft opinion can be leaked then anything from the Court can be leaked. Memos among the justices ; notes of their Justices Only conferences etc. At what point do you think leakers should stop ? Unless and until that leaker is found and dealt with the Justices are justifiably on edge and suspicious . Possibly of their fellow justices and definitely of their law clerks. Such an atmosphere has NEVER existed at the Court before. Despite strong ideological differences among the judges it has always been a collegial body where everyone trusted everyone else. RBG and Scalia were the best of friends ; everyone liked Bill Rehnquist including Brennan , Marshall and later RBG and Breyer.
Influence peddling is not criminal if a private citizen does it. It might be if Joe Biden did it while he was VEEP. A recent SCOTUS decision involving the former Governor of Virginia requires a strictly defined and clear quid pro quo which would not be easy to prove . Tax evasion is definitely illegal. Do I think he and his family are crooked ? Definitely . Joe wakes up telling lies about anything and everything and I don't trust him at all. Does that make them guilty of specific crimes ? Possibly but not necessarily. I clearly posted that Joe can't be indicted for anything while he is the POTUS. Also that he probably can't be impeached NOW for things he may have done while he was Veep. We shall see. I doubt very much that Joe will ever be held responsible for whatever wrongs he may have committed. Assuming there are any that are supported by sufficient evidence. I would like to see him held accountable in the Court of Public Opinion and in the history books. For now that is a big "Maybe". Hunter and Jim might, repeat MIGHT , be a different story depending on what the current investigation finds. We will see. Btw, you never applied the standard that you want me to apply to your own opining about Trump. Perhaps you might want to re-read Mueller's report. Just a suggestion.
I am taking your word that the "victims" of Alex Jones were harassed and subject to death threats. I honestly don't recall that and haven't done a search. I clearly posted that he is a disgusting and reprehensible individual and afaic nothing is too good for him. If Twitter wants to ban him or delete his posts that is fine with me. I never said otherwise . Jones and a few other nuts are extreme examples of what we are talking about and you know it.
I prefer free speech and free expression. If there are going to be rules for a private platform like Twitter or Facebook I prefer those rules to be clear and applied evenhandedly. Not politically filtered first. I again wish you Good Luck in your crusade to eliminate lies and misinformation from all sites and platforms. There is a LOT of it out there. I suggest you bring a LOT of help.
As I posted: I NEVER said Hefner was a good person. I DID say that he had done some good works. I ALSO said that as "Secrets of Playboy" went on I found some of the allegations made directly against Hefner to be more and more disturbing and more and more credible.
I have been hesitant to do this because the specific thread dealing with it was closed but since we are discussing Alito's draft opinion I think there is vital point to be made here. As I posted, most of the EU countries permit abortion. Except for Sweden and the Netherlands they generally limit it to the First Trimester. More or less. To get a legal abortion past the cut-off time limit ranging from 13 to 20 weeks there must be a sound medical reason that passes review of some kind. As I posted, The Center For Reproductive Rights has an excellent overview of the laws in those countries and others like Japan and Israel. In ALL of those countries it is a settled issue. They do not have the demonstrations , debates ( civil and otherwise ) not to mention violence against abortion providers and opponents that we have had for almost 50 years. Even in strongly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Ireland and Austria. In those countries abortions are safe , legal and RARE because they have much more sex education and contraception than we do. More importantly the issue was decided legislatively not by unelected judges appointed for life. They have not had abortion clinics bombed , doctors killed or Right To Life groups and facilities attacked. Currently , at least two thirds of Americans favor retaining Roe. Some 85% OPPOSE the situation in N.Y. , N.J. , Illinois and California where abortions can be performed up to the point of birth. The Senate Bill that was just defeated went beyond codifying Roe's protections and would have guaranteed legal abortion up to the birth of a child. And there are cases in the aforementioned states where aborted fetuses were removed alive and permitted to die. The former governor of Virginia , Ralph Northam spoke in favor of infanticide in a video that went viral. He said whether to let the infant ( NOT fetus ) live was a matter for the mother and her doctor. Nancy Pelosi said something similar. That is light years beyond what Roe provided for. Even most Pro-Choicers think that is way too far.
If Schumer had really been smart and really wanted to put the screws to the Republicans and Joe Manchin he could have had his bill simply codify Roe. Or better yet simply guaranteed 1st Trimester abortions. Instead he wrote it to take the most extreme position possible.
Just as Blackmun was wrong in thinking that Roe v. Wade would settle the issue Alito is mistaken if he thinks his decision will do so. Any way you slice it overturning Roe en toto opens a Pandora's Box that could have and should have been left closed by simply upholding the Mississippi law. In the U.S. some 90% of abortions today are done by taking a pill. Most others are medically necessary at least to some extent. How exactly any state thinks they are going to ban or limit pill taking by women is both extremely unrealistic and runs counter to the overwhelming weight of public opinion. If you READ Alito's opinion it contains its own Achilles heel. He said that this decision "does not affect any other right ". Meaning Griswold is still good law and thus contraception cannot be banned or even really regulated by the states. So if the Pill is legal then why not RU486 , Plan B and the Morning After pill ?