I don’t know how you get noticed though bc at this point all of social media is so saturated
The joy of X
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
Well email has long been used to disseminate BS, too. So has text messaging. So have telephones. So, I would argue, have professionally produced and edited newspapers, magazines, TV programs, etc. However, this last groups are publishers, not interactive communications platforms, and so are treated differently under the law.
Social media platforms are *not* publishers. Nor should we want them to be. They are platforms for people to communicate with each other and should be treated as such -- legally and otherwise. As such, they're more akin to email, text, and telephones than they are to publishers.
The best answer to "IWill LieAboutTheOtherSide" is for other people to call them out. And, as somebody else mentioned, the Community Notes feature is a great algorithmic truth referee. Even Elon Musk himself has been corrected by Community Notes -- which I thought was spectacular.
Anyway, I fully realize that the 1A's speech protection doesn't apply to private entities, whether they're platforms or publishers. But it's a mistake to think that the social virtue of free speech is limited to what the 1A protects.
So, yeah, lying on social media is a bad thing. And so is blocking speech. I fully agree with both of those statements. But I think that uncensored speech should prevail, when those two things are hanging in the balance...and that the proper antidote to lies is not censorship, but truth.
Think of this. Barstool sports is now over 20 years old. Everything is too Fing saturated. Best bet is to follow @larsIU to Africa and get something cookin over there
I mean, maybe we do the same thing, only with that growing Nigerian audience. @larsIU what language do they write in?
Well, I'm not just calling it dicta. It was dicta. Remember that Holmes wasn't expressing that as his sentiment of what he believed the law says. He was expressing it as an example of something that he would surmise as being beyond the protection of the most stringent interpretation of protected speech. Here are his exact words:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
That's dicta.
And, no, it is not necessarily illegal today for somebody to falsely shout fire in a theatre. Because, again, one could have reason to believe there was one even if there wasn't one. What if food was merely burning in the oven? Or burning a candle?
But once again...my point here is about misinformation on social media. I found it ironic that IU_Hickory misused the analogy (as many people misuse it) in such a way as to literally render his statement, as written, as false. Since it was false, it was misinformation -- so by his own stated opinion should thus be subject to censorship by the moderators.
But that would be absurd. He shouldn't be censored. He should be corrected.
English. I could open a BPO shop down there. But by the time I'll be there I'll be retired and I won't wanna do any shit like that.
If you need a broker though, call me.
We’d fcking run that place in no time.
@BradStevens brad where are you????
In a yellow van outside of a market
If you guys had any idea how many votes from women this kind of crap is drumming up. I knew this is what the right would do and it’s playing right into Dems’ hands. Keep it up. Backing a sexual abuser while trying to shame a woman for having a sex life while NOT married. That’s gonna play real well. The stupidity.
Yeah. I’ll believe it when I see it. IIRC, Biden and Obama both won a larger share of women than Hillary. The idea that she’s a woman and has some jokes made at her expense is no guarantor that she’ll over perform with women.
It's nuts really. At some freaking point investment will come. Probably my last chance to get luck in anything involving money.We’d fcking run that place in no time.
@BradStevens brad where are you????
In a yellow van outside of a market
I don't think it is so obvious that it is dicta. I was taught that there are more parts of a legal opinion than just a holding and dicta. For example, there are parts of the opinion that are not the holding, but part of the reasoning, and they hold more weight than "mere [or obiter] dicta." I'd argue Holmes' analogy is part of the reasoning that leads him to his conclusion.
Here's one article on the topic:
"Statements in an opinion that fall outside of what was necessary to decide the issue at hand are deemed dicta, and they are not considered binding precedent in future cases. See State v. Breathette, 202 N.C. App. 697 (2010) (defining dicta), citing State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495 (2001) (“general expressions” that “go beyond the case […] may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit where the very point is presented for decision”). More specifically, remarks that are wholly “incidental to the disposition of the case” or “directed at issues upon which no formal arguments have been heard” are classified as obiter dicta (Latin for “by the way” or “said in passing”) and such statements “are not considered being precedent and should be distinguished from the ratio decidendi which provides the basis of the court’s ruling.” Chandler, Enslen, and Renstrom, “Obiter Dictum,” Con. Law Dsk., § 8:82 (2020)."
Holding or Dicta? – North Carolina Criminal Law
In the comments to a blog post I wrote about using unpublished cases, one reader suggested a follow-up topic: "Should do an article on dicta; what is it
nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
To buttress my claim, I'd point to the very fact you're pointing out--that the only thing people remember from that case is Holmes's reasoning, because it is so commonsensical and his example so vividly displays the point. In fact, the example is so intuitive, you can drop off some of the key words and still understand the reasoning really well.
Re your example, it appears you're arguing that mens rea is required for a crime. That's a given.
Again, I agree with your overall point. I'm just combatting what I think is a mischaracterization of that phrase by not just you, but a lot of (other? are you a lawyer?) really smart lawyers who care a lot about free speech.
It’s massive. Wow. Lagos has almost 20 million people. Amazing. What are the beaches like?
You think that the Dobbs decision will have no effect at all on women voter turnout? Do you know any non-Trumper women?
There has been a cooling off period, but it's still a factor. And Kamala will remind them of it, where Biden seldom did.
Yes, Biden seldom belabored the Dobbs decision. 🙄
It appears that in states with abortion on the ballot, Republicans are probably hurt somewhat. But it shouldn’t be enough for Trump to blow this especially given how he’s triangulated on the issue.
Most of the battlegrounds have pretty liberal abortion laws in the books already that aren’t being threatened. I think with the exception of Arizona where Trump has a 6 point lead on Harris.
Dicta is just an opinion that is presumed authoritative, but not part of the holding. I don't think it's mutually exclusive from reasoning. Dicta may or may not contain substantive statements of rationale. But, either way, they don't constitute any binding law.
Here's one article on the topic:
Holding or Dicta? – North Carolina Criminal Law
In the comments to a blog post I wrote about using unpublished cases, one reader suggested a follow-up topic: "Should do an article on dicta; what is itnccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
My reading of that piece is that it's just discerning between dicta and holding. Is there a part of it where they declare some third category that is neither holding nor dicta, but reasoning?
My point is simply that IU_Hickory stated something that is factually untrue. A person absolutely can falsely shout fire in a theatre -- because, yes, mens rea. That was true in 1917, it's true today. And IU_Hickory's statement (read it carefully) didn't allow for this. As such it was, literally, misinformation. My point is not to quibble over Holmes' opinion, but to simply point out the irony of the context.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm somebody who was also corrected on this some time ago -- which prompted me to do a lot of reading on it and conclude that I had also been misusing the phrase and that the person who refuted me was correct. So I'm just passing on the favor....in defense of free speech!
I'll give you dems credit for one thing. Your party just f*cked you up the rear with no lube and you're accepting it. They lied about Joe to the point where you didn't even get to choose your own candidate. That alone would have me pissed. Then they placed a candidate in the dem spot that got her ass completely handed to her in 2020 debates. Joe took her as a DEI hire and the first "black" candidate after California claimed her senate victory a first for "Indian American". Now after 3.5 years of her fumbling around making a fool of herself which some of you have admitted, you accept this outcome.
Wow!
I’ll see you in November. You should see the groups organizing on social media. The fundraising didn’t give you an idea? You know anything about black women’s sororities? Hillary was attached for decades as the devil, but at least they didn’t use this ugly sexual crap.
Haha. Let me know when my party runs a sexual predator who is one of the most despised men in the world, due to his corruptness and ineptitude. And then doesn’t get rid of him when they have the chance. You aren’t smart enough to be upset at that? And yoire talking about Kamala making a fool of herself when Trump is your candidate? An international laughingstock? Good one.
I don't get the concept behind the idea that Brown and Kamala openly dating 30 yrs ago is supposed to be some sort of "scandal"? Especially when the main proponents attempting to make hay out of a nothingburger are people that support Donald Trump? A man who slept with a porn star while he THIRD wife was at home with a newborn. A man that basically cheated on his first wife with his second wife and repeated the pattern continuously. He's got 5 kids, and the only thing they all have in common is that Trump ****ed aound on each of their respective mothers...
But aside from that, Brown and Harris dated.He had been seperated from his wife for a decade, and she was not married. So now in MAGA world politicians aren't allowed to date who they want? And two people who are dating are not allowed to work together in the same field, in this case politics?
Actually I don't think she was in politics. He was a CA State assemblyman who had been estranged from his wife Blanche since at least 1981, when he met the single Harris in the mid 90s. Thewy dated for about a year,from 1994-95. After they broke up Brown later ran for Mayor of SF, and almost a decade later in 2003 Harris initially ran for office in he SF AG race.
I'm not even sure why Trump or anyone connected with him would think this would resonate with anyone outside MAGA cult, or why they'd even want to bring it up? The year that Brown and Harris dated roughly coincides with the time Trump raped EJC in a dressing room. And any claim of an extra marital affair "scandal" instantly brings to mind Stormy Daniels...
It's like Trump supporters are oblivious to the fact that when you are yourself or when you support a scumbag there really is no moral high ground for you to try and claim...
"Statements in an opinion that fall outside of what was necessary to decide the issue at hand are deemed dicta, and they are not considered binding precedent in future cases. See State v. Breathette, 202 N.C. App. 697 (2010) (defining dicta), citing State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495 (2001) (“general expressions” that “go beyond the case […] may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit where the very point is presented for decision”). More specifically, remarks that are wholly “incidental to the disposition of the case” or “directed at issues upon which no formal arguments have been heard” are classified as obiter dicta (Latin for “by the way” or “said in passing”) and such statements “are not considered being precedent and should be distinguished from the ratio decidendi [reasoning in English--added by BS] which provides the basis of the court’s ruling.” Chandler, Enslen, and Renstrom, “Obiter Dictum,” Con. Law Dsk., § 8:82 (2020)."
Notice that dicta is not just "everything that is not the holding." Dicta is defined as opinion "that fall outside of what was necessary to decide the issue at hand." Again, I consider Holmes's analogy as setting up the principle that some speech may be regulated and so is part of his reasoning (that doesn't mean it is a holding, by the way). In other words, he didn't include that analogy as an aside or an "oh by the way" but used it in getting to his conclusion. As you can probably see, there are few bright line rules here.
Tell the person who chastised you, he's being pedantic (was it Goat???). If it was a woman, I'll tell her myself. I can DM you my Snap as soon as you post pics.
The fact that they are ignoring nearly every election since the decision. Women aren’t forgetting that men don’t trust them to make their own decisions about their bodies. And this sex nonsense goes right along with it.
But she gave him a blow job!!!! This is scandalous to Republicans! Missionary only.
Zeke don't go there...You know damn well Biden showered with his daughter it was confirmed! You buy anything they tell you about the Don we get it...
BUT thats not the point. You got screwed every which way you can imagine by your party, and you all act like it's ok.
My point is you just got a candidate handed to you without any process. Everything I stated was true. I would think some of the sane thinking dems (if there are any left) would be upset about the position you are in.
I think the criticism is more along the lines of she clearly slept with him to advance her career, and less about the affair itself.
Now to make up for law nerd posts and back to the original topic, I present you this:
8 am not disagreeing with what you say. My concern is if this were a boxing match the refs would stop it and order truth's corner into the ring to try and save its life.
Zimbabwe. Landlocked. The only beaches have crocs and hippos.
Nobody messes with hippos
You’re paying attention to a poll two days after Harris has been the nominee? As I said in another thread, many women believe that a federal ban is the final goal and plan, whether Trump admits it or not. This is what many Republican legislators want and they’ve been very clear about it. Sorry if women have difficulty trusting what Donald Trump says.
I had to look up Loomer. Had no idea who she is. Interesting that she’s described as a white nationalist and she’s Jewish! Obviously, she’s completely uninformed and has no sense of reality.
My neighbor across the street makes a killing on Amazon each election. He sells signs to both sides.
Meaner than shit. My daughter and I watched all those shows when she was little
Lol yeah it was confirmed by whom exactly? Oh right his daughter said it didn’t happen. Nice try. I’m not the least bit upset. I’m ready to roll. I don’t have to back a stupid lunatic for a candidate.
To the extent any of the male posters think they are “speaking for men” on this board, they’re being dumb.
Try having a personality and a thought, not just a gender.
Now that would be a battle. On the beach and a Hippo strolls in for a dip. Sitting underwater and a great white comes in the picture. Who ya got?
Similar threads
