Supreme Court decision of the day

[Blarg]

You posted it and ignored the conversation.

It was about data and collecting correct data to create a knowledge base. By not collecting all of the data, leaving out information for political reasons, you corrupt the data base. It presents a false image of what the country is comprised of and how that affects the economy, poverty, crime, health care, etc. 

It had nothing to do with lying. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

You posted it and ignored the conversation.

It was about data and collecting correct data to create a knowledge base. By not collecting all of the data, leaving out information for political reasons, you corrupt the data base. It presents a false image of what the country is comprised of and how that affects the economy, poverty, crime, health care, etc. 

It had nothing to do with lying. 

Im not completely sure which side your arguing for. The argument against adding the citizenship question is to limit it's potential to impact responses or influence incorrect data. 

[Lou]

14 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Im not completely sure which side your arguing for. The argument against adding the citizenship question is to limit it's potential to impact responses or influence incorrect data. 

maybe the want to know how many illegals there are in the country 

[AngelsLakersFan]

8 minutes ago, Lou said:

maybe the want to know how many illegals there are in the country 

That is a good reason not to add the citizenship question to the census.

 

[Lou]

7 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

That is a good reason not to add the citizenship question to the census.

 

it was a joke

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Blarg said:

You posted it and ignored the conversation.

It was about data and collecting correct data to create a knowledge base. By not collecting all of the data, leaving out information for political reasons, you corrupt the data base. It presents a false image of what the country is comprised of and how that affects the economy, poverty, crime, health care, etc. 

It had nothing to do with lying. 

Correct.  They are not going to collect correct data if they add the citizen question.

[Blarg]

You guys are in compliance. Anyone states that a factor that stands in the way of the collective needs to be attacked. Good job, Demobots.

[arch stanton]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You guys are in compliance. Anyone states that a factor that stands in the way of the collective needs to be attacked. Good job, Demobots.

Did a Repubot type this sentence? If so it needs to go back to the shop for some warranty work

[Blarg]

Come off it, Arch. Anyone just needs to mention illegal immigrants and you guys get all defensive and circle the wagons. Regardless of context or purpose of the discussion it suddenly becomes a cause to stomp out faux oppression instead of discussing the subject logically.

The census is for data banking to reveal how our country is comprised to better define it's strengths and understand how to address it's problems. But you guys don't want that to happen, you want to ignore that to stand on some false moral superiority pedestal. 

 

[arch stanton]

I still don't know what that sentence you typed means

[gotbeer]

 

Enterprising town turns SC highways into rivers of cash

You can guess how the towns made their money.  Hopefully the SC will finally put an end to this.

[gotbeer]

Finally, some reason in politics.

U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on 'excessive fines'

Quote

The nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs who argued that police violated his rights by seizing his $42,000 Land Rover vehicle after he was convicted as a heroin dealer.

 

[gotbeer]

Quote

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench for a second straight day after undergoing lung cancer surgery in December, wrote the court’s opinion, which clarified the applicability of the “excessive fines” prohibition contained in the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

 

Yes, she could probably kick all our asses.  Probably with one hand tied behind her back.

[gotbeer]

And also.

Supreme Court rules for ex-US marshal in W.Va. tax dispute

Not as major as the siezure.  But still a decision.  

[mtangelsfan]

17 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Finally, some reason in politics.

U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on 'excessive fines'

 

Nice!

[gotbeer]

This could become interesting if it goes anywhere.  

Justice Thomas assails landmark U.S. libel ruling that protects media

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, gotbeer said:

This could become interesting if it goes anywhere.  

Justice Thomas assails landmark U.S. libel ruling that protects media

This would be awful if it changed. It would have a chilling effect on free speech.

[gotbeer]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

This would be awful if it changed. It would have a chilling effect on free speech.

Yes, but there should be protections for people on false speech.  Which the media does with reckless abandon regardless of who they trample in the guise of free speech.  

[Taylor]

18 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Yes, but there should be protections for people on false speech.  Which the media does with reckless abandon regardless of who they trample in the guise of free speech.  

If public figures are allowed to successfully sue for libel, media outlets will no longer publish any negative information for fear of making a mistake. You need to read up on communication law for why this is important. 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

[mtangelsfan]

so zero repercussions for making stuff up about people as long as they are "famous"?

[Lhalo]

It's a dicey situation. I lean more toward freedom of speech. Let the press say what they want. Everyone knows they're full of shit anyway.

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

It's a dicey situation. I lean more toward freedom of speech. Let the press say what they want. Everyone knows they're full of shit anyway.

Are you sure about that?

[Taylor]

16 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

so zero repercussions for making stuff up about people as long as they are "famous"?

Well, if the "actual malice" requirement were removed, some good would come out it. Breitbart, InfoWars, and all of the tabloids would instantly go away. We'd also have to say goodbye to The Onion, The Babylon Bee, political cartoons, and all other kinds of satire. Anything that is written or posted online is considered published. So Trump (or Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Lindsay Graham or ...) could sue Chuck because of defamatory and false statements posted about them on AngelsWin. 

The "actual malice" requirement is important, as it puts the burden on the public figure to prove that a media outlet (which includes anything that has words that are posted or seen by two or more people) acted with reckless or blatant disregard for the truth. That means they knew the information was false, or they didn't care whether or not the information was false. If Trump were able to dig up an email from a CNN exec saying, "Who cares if this is true ... let's publish it anyway," he'd be able to successfully sue. If this burden of proof didn't exist, any kind of published negative information that turned out to be false in any way (even 1% false and 99% true) would be grounds for a libel suit—no matter the context or the motivation behind it. 

Yes, this leads to irresponsible media outlets, tabloids, liberal MSM framing info in a way that slams Trump, Fox News framing info in a way that slams the left, etc. But free speech leads to the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, Twitter trolls, Antifa, etc. When you allow free speech, you allow the crap that comes with it. When you start to censor speech, you start taking away the rights of the people who are legitimately exercising their free speech. When you start to censor the freedom of press, you create a chilling effect that renders the press unable to carry out their purpose.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Taylor

[Jason]

35 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Yes, but there should be protections for people on false speech.  Which the media does with reckless abandon regardless of who they trample in the guise of free speech.  

As everyone here knows I'm a big 2nd amendment guy. If I choose to exercise that right and do something illegal with my gun then I should held accountable. Just because something is a right doesn't mean there are no consequences for exercising that right. 

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, gotbeer said:

This could become interesting if it goes anywhere.  

Justice Thomas assails landmark U.S. libel ruling that protects media

 

 

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

This would be awful if it changed. It would have a chilling effect on free speech.

 

1 hour ago, gotbeer said:

Yes, but there should be protections for people on false speech.  Which the media does with reckless abandon regardless of who they trample in the guise of free speech.  

 

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

If public figures are allowed to successfully sue for libel, media outlets will no longer publish any negative information for fear of making a mistake. You need to read up on communication law for why this is important. 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

 

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

so zero repercussions for making stuff up about people as long as they are "famous"?

 

1 hour ago, Lhalo said:

It's a dicey situation. I lean more toward freedom of speech. Let the press say what they want. Everyone knows they're full of shit anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Are you sure about that?

 

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

Well, if the "actual malice" requirement were removed, some good would come out it. Breitbart, InfoWars, and all of the tabloids would instantly go away. We'd also have to say goodbye to The Onion, The Babylon Bee, political cartoons, and all other kinds of satire. Anything that is written or posted online is considered published. So Trump (or Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Lindsay Graham or ...) could sue Chuck because of defamatory and false statements posted about them on AngelsWin. 

The "actual malice" requirement is important, as it puts the burden on the public figure to prove that a media outlet (which includes anything that has words that are posted or seen by two or more people) acted with reckless or blatant disregard for the truth. That means they knew the information was false, or they didn't care whether or not the information was false. If Trump were able to dig up an email from a CNN exec saying, "Who cares if this is true ... let's publish it anyway," he'd be able to successfully sue. If this burden of proof didn't exist, any kind of published negative information that turned out to be false in any way (even 1% false and 99% true) would be grounds for a libel suit—no matter the context or the motivation behind it. 

Yes, this leads to irresponsible media outlets, tabloids, liberal MSM framing info in a way that slams Trump, Fox News framing info in a way that slams the left, etc. But free speech leads to the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, Twitter trolls, Antifa, etc. When you allow free speech, you allow the crap that comes with it. When you start to censor speech, you start taking away the rights of the people who are legitimately exercising their free speech. When you start to censor the freedom of press, you create a chilling effect that renders the press unable to carry out their purpose.

@Taylor , when I saw this I got pretty fired up and was about to unleash a 18,000 word post on why this would be absolutely terrible. However, you've really hit the nail on the head with your post(s). It would absolutely seal the deal on us descending into a dystopian nightmare.

Of all the things I've read recently, this is by far the most concerning. That says something.

I know we joke around that this forum is a cesspool, but if this were to pass, it would disappear and I'd bet that Chuck would have some serious liability issues on his hands in the right (wrong) set of circumstances.

Be careful what you wish for, if you think it's a good idea. This isn't ANYTHING like asking somebody to be careful with their rights to own a gun.