Inexcusable

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in Inexcusable:

We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.

Unfortunately, the majority of the people want "entertainment" rather than "news". The entertainment shows on the various channels (Fox, CNN, etc) pretend to be news, and the news shows on those same channels also pretend to be news.

A station that would show unbiased straight news would not survive, unless they were willing to lose money every month.

I was reading an article about a cable station in Taiwan, that tried to focus on straight news and it failed. They referenced a news program in the US (I think called News America) that started out with a grand ambition to be an unbias news source. Ratings (if the program is still around) are almost zero.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Inexcusable:

@Jolly said in Inexcusable:

We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.

Unfortunately, the majority of the people want "entertainment" rather than "news". The entertainment shows on the various channels (Fox, CNN, etc) pretend to be news, and the news shows on those same channels also pretend to be news.

A station that would show unbiased straight news would not survive, unless they were willing to lose money every month.

I was reading an article about a cable station in Taiwan, that tried to focus on straight news and it failed. They referenced a news program in the US (I think called News America) that started out with a grand ambition to be an unbias news source. Ratings (if the program is still around) are almost zero.

They're doing it wrong. Read what I wrote.

[Ivorythumper]

@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:

I know it’s legal. But still.

It's not legal.

18 United States Code 1507:

"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."

What's indefensible is that the Biden Administration and particularly Merrick Garland are not acting to enforce the law.

[jon-nyc]

@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:

@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:

I know it’s legal. But still.

It's not legal.

18 United States Code 1507:

"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."

Good news! That’s probably why the cops were able to disperse them.

[Ivorythumper]

@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:

@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:

@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:

I know it’s legal. But still.

It's not legal.

18 United States Code 1507:

"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."

Good news! That’s probably why the cops were able to disperse them.

Good news would have been the cops arresting all of them.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in Inexcusable:

Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."

One of the Sandy Hook families has had to move seven times.

[Copper]

Put the sandy hook people into the Alito home

[Jolly]

Maybe just the spare bedroom...

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:

@George-K said in Inexcusable:

Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."

One of the Sandy Hook families has had to move seven times.

Good thing no mainstream ideas or people are on the side of those harassing the Sandy Hook families.

[George K]

Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I reported the following tweet to Twitter, because it explicitly called for Supreme Court justices to be assassinated:

The cartoon in question also called for the assassination of justices, albeit with a tiny fig leaf of deniability:

The response I got from Twitter regarding the explicit call for assassination: sorry, doesn’t violate our terms of service!

https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.32-AM-450x233.png

The email included a helpful list of material that would violate the terms of service. It includes a prohibition on, not just threats, celebrations of violence, and promoting terrorism or violent extremism, but also wishing harm on someone:

https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.40-AM-392x450.png

This is a total joke. I see a lot of people saying “Elon Musk will fix this!” but his proposed standard is to allow anything that passes First Amendment muster, and this probably would. That said, apparently the people doing the moderation are useless and the Elon Musk standard already prevails, unless you misgender someone. So Elon really wouldn’t hurt much.

Meanwhile, people are protesting outside the homes of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in an effort to influence their votes, which is illegal under a statute that is likely constitutional.

This is a dangerous environment and it is why the Court needs to get the abortion issue out of the courts and into the legislatures. Public influence campaigns are appropriate for legislators. Not for judges. They are supposed to interpret the law. Period.

I plan to have much more to say about this.

[George K]

OK, how is this not acceptance of breaking the law?

[George K]

Schumer.

[Horace]

So the leftist pop culture mob and its cheerleaders in the white house are ok with judge's personal lives being disrupted by every legal means possible, if the mob doesn't agree with them.

Imagine the hue and cry from the left if these mobs were right-leaning, angry about a left-leaning supreme court opinion. Imagine right-leaning mobs outside the home of the dearly departed RBG. Oh, the fainting couches that would have been required. Our cherished institutions, subverted by the Deplorables! Tantamount to an insurrection!

[Horace]

@George-K said in Inexcusable:

Schumer.

Somehow I doubt his analogy of whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.

[George K]

@Horace said in Inexcusable:

Somehow I doubt his analogy to whatever happens outside his house "3 or 4 times a week", to what is going on outside the judges' homes, would check out.

You're such a skeptic.

I eagerly await the hundreds of videos of the protestors outside of Senator Schumer's home. He's been in the Senate since 1999 - 23 years, or, about 1100 weeks.

So, according to the senator, there have been at least 3000 protests at his home. Surely there must be at least 100 videos documenting this.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Inexcusable:

Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.

Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the censors community standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.

Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal with something like this being posted on Twitter?

[George K]

@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:

Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the censors community standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.

So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.

"Oh, I was worried about the new CEO at the hospital. Sorry if I forgot to turn on the oxygen."

Incidentally, how would you like Elon to deal something like this being posted on Twitter?

Not really sure. THere's SO much BS on all social media platforms, so I'll decline to comment - for now. My understanding is that Trump was banned for posting "conspiracy" theories. Will Twitter ban the new WH PresSec?

This person called for violence against a SCOTUS Justice. Is this inexcusable? Twitter seems (for now) to think not.

Is a "Call to arms" a green light for violence, insurrection?

Like I said, let's see how it plays out in a year or so.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Inexcusable:

@Axtremus said in Inexcusable:

Folks who remain employed by Twitter are probably busy trying to figure out what Elon wants, so the censors community standards reviewers maybe more confused and more conflicted while Twitter works through this transition.

So, distraction on the job is sufficient reason for not doing it.

Not distraction, but confusion -- Twitter has a new owner coming in saying he wants to change the rules for Twitter, it's understandable that it might take a while for all of Twitter to catch up to what the new boss' new rules are.

[George K]

[Jolly]

I think a nice impeachment of an Attorney General might get the attention of a few folks. This is one I could get behind, as long as it was stressed during the hearings that nobody is above the law and all citizens should be treated equally,