|
Guys, I really don’t think the tweet about the 1st and 2nd Amendments is trying to invoke or make any kind of statement regarding people getting banned from Twitter for being Nazis. It’s drawing a parallel between the two amendments as pertains to the Government Regulating a Thing. It’s saying that if the First prevents the government from regulating novel forms of press like Twitter, the Second equally prevents the government from regulating novel weapons like the AR-15. That’s all it’s saying, it’s saying you can’t interpret one to mean reee government hands off and the other to mean well the founders couldn’t possibly have imagined. I mean I am probably missing something obvious and would love to know the logical fallacy that I’m sure is there because as far as I can tell it seems annoyingly sound.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Inco posted:But where the 1st doesn't apply is Twitter or the owner of the billboard refusing to let certain groups or people use their service. This isn't government regulation of speech, it's private discretion regarding the usage of their property. Funny how that private discretion disappears when it's, say, a baker who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, then private discretion regarding the usage of their property doesn't matter. In broad terms, what you say may be approximately correct but it leaves out a lot. Let's say there's a company mining town, there are houses and churches and schools and shops and it looks exactly like a regular town but the whole thing is built on private corporate property and the workers live there at the mining company's sufference. Can the mining company prohibit people from passing out religious tracts on the sidewalk? No, turns out it can't: "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In addition, a number of state constitutions are even more protective of speech than the First Amendment. A group of high school kids in California went down to their local mall (private property, most definitely), and started trying to get signatures on a petition. Security guard kicked them out, eventually the Supreme Court of California said "nope, California's constitution says they can do that," US Supreme Court decided unanimously that the California court was correct. That decision's later been narrowed to apply only to areas that are like traditional public forums (In other words, soliciting for signatures in the food court would be okay, but you can't force your way into the kitchen and harangue the cooks), but in a number of states, you do have some right to engage in free speech in common areas of private property. There is a real legal argument to be made that if Twitter is presenting itself like a public forum and acting like a public forum, then Twitter engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination might not be kosher. It's not as clear-cut as people are suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Guys, I really don’t think the tweet about the 1st and 2nd Amendments is trying to invoke or make any kind of statement regarding people getting banned from Twitter for being Nazis. It is. But that's not what they're saying. Essentially, they're saying that a certain Mr. Twitter has been allowing them to use his printing-press free of charge for years, but now he's said they're no longer welcome to do so because of some of the things they've been printing with it, and that this is a violation of their first-amendment free speech rights. This argument is most definitely not sound. If the government said that the former users of Mr. Twitter's printing-press are forbidden from buying their own press to resume their printing operations, or are forbidden to have their stuff printed at another shop, then you'd have grounds for a first amendment argument. But that hasn't happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Funny how that private discretion disappears when it's, say, a baker who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, then private discretion regarding the usage of their property doesn't matter. I don't think private discretion technically applies to your example as you would be discriminating based on what someone was rather than say their actions towards you. It's a weird fine line where you can say no I don't want to work with that person as I didn't think the transaction would go well or I would be able to fulfill their needs versus I didn't do it because they are gay. Also I realize you are phanatic and none of that will sink in so schaden on me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Is this the first and only United Statesian police officer in the history of earth that has been convicted of (at least some of the) crimes he's committed while on duty? Because I can imagine it came as a shock to him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
ZeusCannon posted:I don't think private discretion technically applies to your example as you would be discriminating based on what someone was rather than say their actions towards you. It's a weird fine line where you can say no I don't want to work with that person as I didn't think the transaction would go well or I would be able to fulfill their needs versus I didn't do it because they are gay. All of this completely accords with what I stated; the situation is considerably more complex than was being presented: that a private business can just refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. I'm not sure why you expect me to disagree with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/B6gtjCo.mp4 Version with sound (FB link): https://www.facebook.com/andrew.coxlps/videos/10215876265085263
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:It is. But that's not what they're saying. Essentially, they're saying that a certain Mr. Twitter has been allowing them to use his printing-press free of charge for years, but now he's said they're no longer welcome to do so because of some of the things they've been printing with it, and that this is a violation of their first-amendment free speech rights. This argument is most definitely not sound. Are we talking about different tweets or something? It sounds like you're talking more about the Discord thing, which is a "censorship" argument over people getting banned for specific activities. But I'm referring to this  Which is just using the First Amendment as an illustration of the logic of a case against gun control, and is not related to Twitter Nazis or any Twitter-related current events at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Are we talking about different tweets or something? It sounds like you're talking more about the Discord thing, which is a "censorship" argument over people getting banned for specific activities. But I'm referring to this Lol. You might read up on Jacob Wohl.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Are we talking about different tweets or something? I was also thinking of the Alex Jones tweets quoted on the last page, where he referred to his youtube account freeze as a first amendment thing, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Is this the first and only United Statesian police officer in the history of earth that has been convicted of (at least some of the) crimes he's committed while on duty? Because I can imagine it came as a shock to him. He's shocked because he specifically targeted women with criminal backgrounds, and his defense tried to use those backgrounds to discredit their testimonies. And that's literally all they tried to do. I don't think they made any attempt to defend his character, just to discredit theirs. It obviously didn't go over well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VitoGesualdi/status/968414938669621249 https://twitter.com/TheAxisOfEgo/status/968506944574115842
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Samuringa posted:https://twitter.com/VitoGesualdi/status/968414938669621249 Is the freude on me? Because google shopping gives me results for all of those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Apologies for the Facebook link but lol That's the slowest bloody burglar I've ever seen. Also, never even noticed the home owner filming him from the first floor. SMDH. But smacking him in the leg with the baton was a bit American, wasn't it? Shouldn't real cops at least give a warning?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Samuringa posted:https://twitter.com/VitoGesualdi/status/968414938669621249 The people have been kept safe from Chinese Democracy once more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:Is the freude on me? Because google shopping gives me results for all of those. Hell, I put in searches for a variety of guns I own and google shopping comes up with real guns (specifically things like a Thompson Center). I call shenanigans. Though to be perfectly fair, when I search for stuff like my Ras-47, it brings up skins and carry cases, not the guns. But I don't use google shopping to shop guns anyway. There are no end of websites for that. marshmallow creep has a new favorite as of 03:57 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:Is the freude on me? Because google shopping gives me results for all of those. Well you're on a list now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:Is the freude on me? Because google shopping gives me results for all of those. It got reported in several newspapers as well, looks like it's been fixed. Also Google is quite open about the fact that they've been banning weapons listings in the shopping tab since at least 2012, looks like they tried to widen the parameters without realising that they'd also block listings for Burgundy wine and Gundams. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/27/wine-lovers-cannot-buy-burgundy-tipple-google-internet-giant/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-shopping-bans-gun-searches-water-guns-guns-n-roses-2018-2 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/google-gun-ban-puts-sex-pistols-out-of-range-ftsn65wm2 Gorilla Salad posted:But smacking him in the leg with the baton was a bit American, wasn't it? Shouldn't real cops at least give a warning? It's probably not a good idea to give an advance warning to a guy who's smashing poo poo up with a crowbar and give him time to consider how he's going to respond.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:Is the freude on me? Because google shopping gives me results for all of those. No they removed the "gun" search substring but a lot of incidentally related word searches are still hosed like "indianapolis colts".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:That's the slowest bloody burglar I've ever seen. Haven't watched because Facebook but if it was a smack to the thigh that's actually a pretty low risk way of gaining pain compliance. American cops would have shot the homeowner's dog through the door before aiming at the robber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
I think they initially just put a bunch of phrases in their "do not show results" list without any sort of differentiation or specificity, because that's clearly the best idea, and then started putting in exceptions like "burgundy" when social media got wind of it. This is one of those situations where they probably would have been just the same or better off not touching anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This is one of those situations where they probably would have been just the same or better off not touching anything. Absolutely. Being "the search engine that doesn't give me things because reasons" is not a good look for something that's supposed to be an impartial tool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:Absolutely. Being "the search engine that doesn't give me things because reasons" is not a good look for something that's supposed to be an impartial tool. Does anyone still think Google is an impartial tool? Even after they got fined 2.4 billion euros for preferentially displaying search results they have a financial interest in? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Was that supposed to be a thing? I don't know of any point at which I would have reason to think Google has a duty, much less actually follows that duty, to be some impartial service. They're just as much a giant corporation as every other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Generally speaking, it’s okay for you to dominate an industry. But as soon as you start using your dominance in that industry to dominate other industries, that’s when antitrust law sits up and starts looking at you. If anyone actually used Froogle it’d have been a much bigger deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Tony Snark posted:but a lot of incidentally related word searches are still hosed like "indianapolis colts". yeah, that must be why
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Well yeah, of course they're not, but you're not supposed to make it obvious. You all drat well know how oblivious most people are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Was that supposed to be a thing? I don't know of any point at which I would have reason to think Google has a duty, much less actually follows that duty, to be some impartial service. They're just as much a giant corporation as every other. They don't have an obligation to deliver impartial search results but this is at least a 1-2 handful on the PR department's handfuls of Tums scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's probably not a good idea to give an advance warning to a guy who's smashing poo poo up with a crowbar and give him time to consider how he's going to respond. Grab the crowbar? He was an ancient geezer and had no idea they were there. There were four cops, there was no need to hit him. goatsestretchgoals posted:Haven't watched because Facebook but if it was a smack to the thigh that's actually a pretty low risk way of gaining pain compliance. Because police should not be engaging in "pain compliance" on someone who hasn't acted in a threatening manner. Hurting someone should be the last step for police when dealing with someone, not the first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Funny how that private discretion disappears when it's, say, a baker who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, then private discretion regarding the usage of their property doesn't matter. uh you did hear how that turned out, right
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Pick posted:uh you did hear how that turned out, right It didn't turn out any way, it's still at the Supreme Court. Ruling will come down in a few months. And this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/us/wedding-cake-ruling-trnd/index.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Grab the crowbar? He was an ancient geezer and had no idea they were there. There were four cops, there was no need to hit him. Robber in the process of forced entry with a loving crowbar, and we have a guy suggesting the police should have reached out with an open hand to grasp at it? It was a reasonable amount of force, and ended the confrontation as fast as possible to avoid escalation. "Threatening manner"?! He's in the loving process of breaking poo poo open with a crowbar. Flabbergasting. Also pain and injury are two different things. Twisting someone's arm behind their back is painful, but not injuring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
I'm going to touch the poop, I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to. The police should have given him a chance to drop the crowbar and surrender peacefully. Which he probably would have, because there's four of them. The police get paid to de-escalate violence, not instigate it. Guy is breaking in, hears a yell, turns around to see four police officers with their batons out, what's he going to do, Jackie Chan them all to death?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Edit: I'm actually not gonna get into this. I'm in generally a bad mood today and came in to argue with a poo poo attitude. Apologies.
Untrustable has a new favorite as of 07:00 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
where on the escalation of force pyramid is a swat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
I...need a rear dashcam now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Memento posted:The police should have given him a chance to drop the crowbar and surrender peacefully. Which he probably would have, because there's four of them. The police get paid to de-escalate violence, not instigate it. No. They come upon him actively using what can be considered a dangerous and potentially deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. That's grounds for use of force, period. They don't have to take their chances and hope he might comply with verbal commands. If he doesn't, well then you might have some crazy rear end in a top hat attacking you with a crowbar. 4 vs. 1 or not, someone's probably getting hosed up. A baton to the leg is absolutely reasonable use of force in this situation. That IS de-escalation. You separate the weapon from the equation, in a non-lethal fashion. If he's just standing there with the crowbar when you make contact with him ('make contact' as in arriving on scene - not in the 'making contact using the baton' sense) then you should absolutely try verbal de-escalation first. But that's not what was happening. e: ^Thanks, Weatherman. Point taken
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:33
|
|
