• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:30 AM
    If I ever voted for one you'd have a point. But I never have and you don't.
    15 replies | 171 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:14 AM
    This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous. Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chestpounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron. ...The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear “magically,” as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting. ...Those who think our unhinged president’s recent mania about a murder two decades ago that never happened represents his moral nadir have missed the lesson of his life: There is no such thing as rock bottom. So, assume that the worst is yet to come. Which implicates national security: Abroad, anti-Americanism sleeps lightly when it sleeps at all, and it is wide-awake as decent people judge our nation’s health by the character of those to whom power is entrusted. Watching, too, are indecent people in Beijing and Moscow. https://www.pacificariptide.com/files/george-will--there-is-no-such-thing-as-...-is-yet-to-come.pdf
    15 replies | 171 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-01-2020, 11:24 AM
    I'm not. He avoids the obvious like the plague.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-01-2020, 10:25 AM
    For what? Cite the law that the DOJ can't prosecute a platform for violating now but will be able to do so if a platform loses its Section 230 immunity.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-31-2020, 07:55 PM
    You are not only not a legal expert, you are absolutely clueless about the law. But that doesn't prevent you from pontificating about it as if you had the faintest inkling about what the real issue is. You have failed miserably to show how the DOJ can "enforce the law" due to the EO as you previously claimed. But instead of admitting you didn't know what you were talking about, you change the subject to the real issue: the ability of non-governmental parties to sue platforms owing to their posting of allegedly defamatory material from other parties. That, and not your pathetic "the DOJ can now enforce the law due to the Executive Order" is the real consequence of the loss of the Section 230 immunity.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-31-2020, 09:58 AM
    They are huge only if (a) the administrative agencies come up with severely restrictive regulations that survive the next election, and (b) if the courts defer to those regulations.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-31-2020, 09:53 AM
    You mean like Trump's "When the looting starts the shooting starts"? There are federal statutes criminalizing the solicitation to commit violent crimes and inciting a riot (18 USC §§ 373 and 2101), and that type of conduct is thus already excluded from Section 230's immunity. You have consequently failed to back up your claim that the DOJ would be able to enforce the law because of the EO. It already has that power.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-30-2020, 08:25 AM
    Prosecute on what grounds? Can you give an example of a type of posted content that would subject a platform to a civil or criminal suit by the federal government if the platform didn't have the Section 230 immunity AND that isn't already excluded from the immunity under Section 230(e)?
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-29-2020, 05:27 PM
    There's nothing for the administration to enforce under Section 230. If a platform goes too far and loses its liability protection a private party who claims he's been defamed by something posted on the platform can sue it and seek damages. Oh sure, Trump wants the FCC to issue regulations to limit the liability protection the statute grants, but any such regulations won't necessarily be binding on the courts. The EO does want to get the FTC involved where a platform doesn't follow its terms of service and does so in a politically-biased manner. The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-29-2020, 12:59 PM
    That's only one of the things the EO addresses. Unfortunately, the EO misrepresents the policy reflected in the statute when it states "It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech." To the contrary, Section 260(c)(2) explicitly allows the restriction of objectional material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." What's especially ironic is the EO's championing of free expression, given Trump's well-documented desire to strengthen defamation laws.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-29-2020, 07:53 AM
    The portion of the video I saw didn't address the situation I raised: a platform's refusal to allow a post it deems to be false and potentially defamatory, such as Jones's claim about Sandy Hook.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-29-2020, 07:23 AM
    You need to understand the definitions as well as read them. Posting a link to a third-party site doesn't make one an "information content provider", because the linker doesn't create or develop the information contained on the linked site. The only information that was conceivably created by Twitter was the fact that information contradicting Trump could be found on a third-party site. But this fact was already out there, so it's a huge stretch to say that Twitter created or developed it. In any event, the matter is somewhat academic, given that under no circumstances could Twitter ever have any liability for pointing out that there is publicly-available information that contradicts Trump.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-29-2020, 07:07 AM
    If their actions weren't taken in good faith then there's no need to change the law or issue an executive order.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-28-2020, 03:24 PM
    Read the law: Where does the statute require that a social platform like Twitter or Facebook must publish material it believes to be false (e.g., Alex Jones' claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged)? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Where does it say that a platform loses its liability immunity and ceases to be an "interactive computer service" if it posts a link to a third-party's site that contradicts something someone posts on the platform? Oh yeah, it doesn't. The only thing Trump is seeking to enforce is his inflated sense of his own authority.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-28-2020, 12:36 PM
    What got Trump's panties all in a wad was Twitter's audacity to put a fact-check link on his tweets about mail-in ballots. This does not amount to censoring or restricting Trump's speech, meddling in the election, or any other paranoid fantasy the Narcissist-in-Chief dreams up.
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-28-2020, 07:47 AM
    Who gave the Narcissist-in-Chief the authority to rewrite legislation?
    159 replies | 2870 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-22-2020, 07:32 AM
    When spell check replaces proof reading you get stuff like this.
    8 replies | 852 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-09-2020, 11:10 AM
    Flynn's plea agreement documents can be read here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents Note that although he was charged with and pleaded guilty to only lying to the FBI, the Statement of the Offense document (which Flynn admitted was accurate) says that he also made false statements in a filing with the Department of Justice relating to his company's lobbying efforts on behalf of Turkey. Per paragraph 3 of the Plea Agreement, the government agreed not to prosecute him for this matter. Query: if the judge throws out Flynn's guilty plea, can he be prosecuted for his false filings with the DOJ? This is really an academic question, since there's no way Trump would allow Barr to do so.
    55 replies | 1919 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,815
Posts Per Day
0.61
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 07:36 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast

06-03-2020


06-01-2020


05-31-2020


05-30-2020


05-29-2020


05-28-2020



Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast