Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Ä uest]

I wonder if PZ is unconsciously hurting his possible truth-based defence. The way he handles comments by frequent deleting of opposing opinions, while leaving ones that agree with the crowd leads to frequent cases where he deletes true comments positive to Shermer, and leaves untouched comments with false negative information about Shermer. This way he, via his own actions, can be judged as not interested in truth, but with having propaganda published on his blog. And a defense like "almost always I'm supporting propaganda and suppresing truth, but in the case of this e-mail - believe me - I was truthful" may not stand well in the court.

it also hurts his ability to claim no responsibility for the comments. If he's actively moderating, he's actively responsible for what is allowed through and what is allowed to stay.

I think you should be right, but I am not sure you are right. I think you were right according to Internet as I knew it in the mid to late 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_car ... unications

An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason (e.g. post doesn't allow to send cash[citation needed]). As of 2007, the status of Internet Service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).

I am just not sure what the current state is, or what libel law is, and I to repeat myself from elsewhere, I am somewhat surprised no real life lawyer/atheist has chimed in here or on a blog to help clarify the situation.

[welch]

Perhaps Peezus himself doesn't mention Shermer anymore, but in the comment threads the likes of Nerd of Redhead still happily call him a sexual predator and whatnot. Since Peezus now heavily moderates his blog I find it hard to believe that he could not be held responsible for such comments.

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

I would be gobsmacked if PZ's blog qualifies for safe harbor. That's normally for providers, like Dreamhost or Amazon S3. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if FTB, much less Pharyngula qualifed for that.

[welch]

But do go on and tell me how I'm wrong, and how this isn't what's really happening. While you're at it, tell me what you do for a living that gives you this awesome knowledge base, because right now I'm seeing "I don't understand it, but I know I don't like it, and therefore it's bullshit."

Call my cynical, but I expect some variant of "Careers are for chumps, man! I spit in the face of society's expectations and live free of your conformist shackles."

Dunno. But it's getting to the point where I think he's just going to circle back and forth forever between his two non-arguments.

[Za-zen]

That Knobend Mason is back on his hobby horse complete with dick carrier esque invoking of good and evil, and the fight for our souls

Wanker.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... paul-mason

[Ä uest]

Anyway, I am just relieved to learn that women are not mysterious that is difficult to understand or bring to orgasm, that it is just my own sexism.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... ysterious/

This sounds good, I am hoping Miri can provide some online/real life coursework to bring me up to speed, maybe offered via Coursera or perhaps through CAM4.

[Jan Steen]

Perhaps Peezus himself doesn't mention Shermer anymore, but in the comment threads the likes of Nerd of Redhead still happily call him a sexual predator and whatnot. Since Peezus now heavily moderates his blog I find it hard to believe that he could not be held responsible for such comments.

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

Yes, but I think comments like these could be used to support an aspect of a case.

Thanks, Tribble. Even if PZ is apparently off the hook in this regard, the commenters are not. In theory, Shermer's lawyers could go after Nerd and Jackie. They would have a stronger case, even, because the commenters' accusations of rape are clearly more reckless than those by PZ. After all, they don't know who the alleged victim is nor do they know exactly what happened when and where. And as FrankGrimes already hinted at, the selective moderation could also be held against PZ. The Freeze Peach of Nerd et al. could still cause some splash damage to Peezus if it came to a trial and the accusations could not be sufficiently substantiated.

[Za-zen]

Mason contemplates his time spent in the battle ground that is twitterverse

[youtube]p25bS4VXYq8[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Even if she hasn't been self diagnosed yet, I'd say she has PZTD. She was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen and hasn't forgiven the male race(cis).

Counting down to the days of her almost story.

Hang on, says tonight's SIWOTI warrior. Are you saying that Stephanie Zvan "was raped/taken advantage of when she was a teen"? Has she claimed this? If not, could you retract it, as it's a ridiculous game to play. I don't know, just never heard this before, and if it's been posted here by some Guest to discredit the Pit, could it piss off?

Iirc, Zvan has related that she was raped as a teen by a boyfriend in her own bedroom.

[FrankGrimes]

Well, this is what happens when you confuse reaction and popularity with being right. PZ is good at getting a reaction, and he is popular. Doesn't mean he's well-liked, or that people agree with him, but in the sense of "people know the name", he is popular. however, so was Jeffery Dahmer.

PZ, like a lot of people who suddenly find themselves in the spotlight, liked it. he liked being in a position where he was not only lauded for his vicious tendencies, but found that the more popular he got, the less work he had to do. So he didn't even have to be correct, just snotty. (His ignorant (literally) post about the low-power LED light mechanisms being used in Africa is a prime example.) He also faces no consequences. Think about it. While tenure is not the bullet-proof shield people think it is, as a tenured academic, he knows his employer will have to think pretty hard about firing him, and it won't just be for an unpopular opinion. Given that at least initially, the attention he brought UMinn was probably beneficial, his behavior is even further reinforced. (this only applies to academics mind you. I know way too many IT folk in academia who were whacked without a first, much less second thought. Sometimes for displeasing an academic who was really good at bringing in the grants.)

So he likes the attention, and wants more. I get that, I really do. There's one, sometimes two weeks a year where, in a VERY small population, I'm not just another IT guy, I'm a somebody. I get to just go to events, walk into rooms other people can't, etc. It's kind of fun. Luckily, because those periods have highly well-defined beginnings and endings, I don't have the time to start confusing it with things that they are not. PZ spends a few years in that bizarro-world where damned near anything he says or types is cheered by "millions" and fuck, I totally understand how he is now a crackhead wanting more even while he says he doesn't care about it. Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. For the folks who have never been in that situation, while it can be tiring, it's fucking AWESOME at the same time. Anyone who says it isn't is lying, to themselves, you, or both. It is really fucking sweet to be one of the "in" crowd. You get discounts on stuff that NO ONE else gets, when you aren't just getting free stuff. My accounting people are gobsmacked at how I can spend a week in S.F. and spend only 10 bucks a day on breakfast and coffee. That's the expensive days. usually, it's not even that. Why? Because I don't have to spend money on food if I don't want to.

It's pretty fucking nice, and I'll tell you, the day after it's over is a real letdown. Because all of a sudden, you're back to being who you were, and no one neither knows who you are, nor gives a fuck about that. Some folks can handle that better than others. While I like the attention, it doesn't fill any particular need well enough to make me do what PZ is doing to get more of it. PZ may not even be aware of this shit, (he doesn't seem to be terribly self-aware. Even when he's trying to fake it, he sucks at it), but when you look at his behavior over the rise of his popularity, it's a bit much to try to classify it as coincidence.

The problem for PZ is, at the end of the day, he hasn't done much to earn it other than being an asshole. That only takes you so far.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

This kind of thing is part and parcel of my job and it's something I think is absolutely absurd about the industry. I really don't care about the adulation (which I don't think is warranted anyway - a lot of people work way harder and have more skill in their profession than I have), and free stuff. I think it's all a bit odd but I can definitely see how it could be addictive to some people - it's easy and seems like fun at the time. But it's probably the biggest reason why pop stars end up doing ship loads of drugs and going nuts. Pz and his ilk are just wanna be rock stars who have no idea about the (un)reality of the reality of it all. If that makes sense?

[FrankGrimes]

And if Phil were here I bet he could speak way more about this than I could.

[windy]

I also tend to think the communication from the alleged victim is genuine from her perspective, and that PZ isn't consciously exploiting it, but also that PZ's subsequent actions can at least APPEAR to be more motivated by self-promotion and moral posturing than genuine consideration for the victim's best interests.

I honestly don't see how anybody can believe that PZ wasn't consciously exploiting this rape situation. Maybe not for web traffic, although I'm sure he was very well aware the post would go viral, but for selfish reasons. If he really cared, he would have raised money for counseling and encouraged the woman to file a police report, even after the statute of limitations. A police report would protect her from retribution and retaliation and set the groundwork for other women who have allegedly been victimized by Shermer to come forward and develop a case against him. This was in the best of interest of PZ, not the alleged victim.

Sure, that's what he should have done, but don't underestimate the power of self-deception.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Fuck! Thunderf00t being savaged by Bigfoot.

I am starting to wonder how many of these hard core SJWs live in bum-fuck nowhere with hardly anyone to talk to, hardly any real life friends thus leaving with the internet for just about their only social outlet...

Online crusading at echo chambers is all they do. It sounds like some are so depressed, they don't even leave their rooms for days.

[FrankGrimes]

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

Yes, but I think comments like these could be used to support an aspect of a case.

Thanks, Tribble. Even if PZ is apparently off the hook in this regard, the commenters are not. In theory, Shermer's lawyers could go after Nerd and Jackie. They would have a stronger case, even, because the commenters' accusations of rape are clearly more reckless than those by PZ. After all, they don't know who the alleged victim is nor do they know exactly what happened when and where. And as FrankGrimes already hinted at, the selective moderation could also be held against PZ. The Freeze Peach of Nerd et al. could still cause some splash damage to Peezus if it came to a trial and the accusations could not be sufficiently substantiated.

My reading was that important part was my underlined part:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

That safeguards the provider of an internet access service, understandably, and the end user, again, understandably. The problem for PZ is that the service/content he provides doesn't fall into either category. He's the guy in the middle - the guy that's responsible for content.

[FrankGrimes]

Fuck! Cunt! Fuck! Didn't underline that part.

[Tribble]

So... if you were writing the clarification, it would take you 350 pages? Is that what you're saying? That there's no way to express laws except in massive tomes or half a sentence that says pretty much nothing, and there's nothing in between? Because I'm calling bullshit on that. There's pretty much 350 pages in between, in fact. The fact that we have all this case-law and precedent stuff tells us the 350+ page tomes of "clarification" aren't working so great anyway, doesn't it? Either the law is clear and doesn't need interpretation, or the interpretation is the law and we don't need massive tomes.

I answered this. To date, a reasonable guess is that trying to define SOX into something specific and reliable has taken probably ten times that number of pages, and still failed.

You don't get it, nor, do I think you want to. The law has to be precise. You can't just say "killing people is illegal". You have to define that shit so that someone who kills someone in self-defense isn't given the same treatment as Ted Bundy. You then have to define self-defense so that it can't be used to whack your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. You seem to not only be happily and nigh-completely ignorant of what you're talking about, but defensively so, and you refuse to acknowledge that your "just keep it simple" doesn't work in Law any more than it does in Engineering. Precision is not something you can get in a fucking paragraph of one-syllable words. You think an arch is simple? Look at how many pages are involved in building one correctly so it supports its own weight, the other weight it has to carry and does so for more than a month. I know in your world all problems can be solved with a 1cm square bit of duct tape and a spoon, but in the really real world, that kind of half-assing causes far more, FAR more problems than it solves.

Lsuoma and I and many more live the results of when you try. Six words dude. Six words that created, literally, thousands of pages of documentation and none of it, none of it is authoritative beyond the walls of the building it lives in.

But do go on and tell me how I'm wrong, and how this isn't what's really happening. While you're at it, tell me what you do for a living that gives you this awesome knowledge base, because right now I'm seeing "I don't understand it, but I know I don't like it, and therefore it's bullshit."

We see this line of reasoning with the tax code all the time. Take income, it's pretty obvious to people who aren't interested in playing silly games with definionts. Only some people started saying xyz isn't income. And so the section was expanded to this point:

USC › Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 61
26 USC § 61 - Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

And then we have business deductions which suffered from the same problem:

26 USC § 162 - Trade or business expenses

a) In general
There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including—

(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;
(2) traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business; and
(3) rentals or other payments required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business, of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which he has no equity.

...

(p) Treatment of expenses of members of reserve component of Armed Forces of the United States

For purposes of subsection (a)(2), in the case of an individual who performs services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business for any period during which such individual is away from home in connection with such service.

(q) Cross reference

(1) For special rule relating to expenses in connection with subdividing real property for sale, see section 1237.
(2) For special rule relating to the treatment of payments by a transferee of a franchise, trademark, or trade name, see section 1253.
(3) For special rules relating to—
(A) funded welfare benefit plans, see section 419, and
(B) deferred compensation and other deferred benefits, see section 404.

It started as 'ordinary and necessary' but people started dropping every sort of bullshit personal expense into it and otherwise abusing the hell out it so we got more and more subsections. And the incredibly large Regulations and vast body of Court cases...

Now, why do we have all this? Because while most people can approach the problem 'what is income' and 'what are legitimate business expenses' with reasonable goodwill, there's a significant minority that will abuse holy hell out any potential wiggle-room. So Congress and the Courts have to keep playing a gigantic game of Stomp the Weasel which means, more code sections, more regulations, more Court cases.

[Dave]

Perhaps Peezus himself doesn't mention Shermer anymore, but in the comment threads the likes of Nerd of Redhead still happily call him a sexual predator and whatnot. Since Peezus now heavily moderates his blog I find it hard to believe that he could not be held responsible for such comments.

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

I would be gobsmacked if PZ's blog qualifies for safe harbor. That's normally for providers, like Dreamhost or Amazon S3. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if FTB, much less Pharyngula qualifed for that.

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

[FrankGrimes]

Still pissed that my edit button doesn't work. Lsuoma could you have a look at this?

And while I'm at it, yeah I reckon BigRed is fucking hot. The way she screams the word "fuck" so often is so sexy. Plus she has bleached then dyed red hair. So sexy.

[ThePrussian]

http://i.qkme.me/3spiq1.jpg

Yes, indeed. Welcome![/quote]

"I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call *me* master. "


Ps I am still digesting your posts from today.[/quote]

Not to worry. Except... what on earth was I thinking reposting a Star Wars pic, even by accident?

http://i42.tinypic.com/24wc4qq.jpg

Much better!

[Tribble]

[quote="Tribble
[...] Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1][/i]

But PZ is in a different situation. He might be forced to take truth as a defense strategy against Shermer's defamation/libel lawsuit. Then it is not good that he has been doing actions like:
1) Actively deleting comments that contain true, factual, pro-Shermer information, or true pro-Shermer opinions and judgements.
2) Despite heavy moderation failing to delete false, non-factual anti-Shermer posts.

Such activity in itself can proove that as a rule he is not interested in the truth, but in pushing anti-Shermer agenda. So his hopes on basing his defenses on claims that he is truthful can be gone. :rimshot:[/quote]


I wasn't talking about PZ's posts. I was addressing the forum posts. He's immune from the crap the SJW-trolls post. He's not immune from what he posts.

[Tribble]

The guy tossed up a suicide note less than a week ago, and according to Paul Myers, he was taken to the hospital. Just because he is now out of the hospital, does not mean he is on firm ground. No matter what his situation is, I don't think internet attention, controversy, questions & debate would be a good thing for him.

Leaving this guy alone for now is probably one of the few wise moves the FTB-land has done in a long time, and I suggest we do the same. I don't think anyone here or there are equip to deal with his psychological needs.

I would tend to agree and I was not suggesting anyone needs to go ragging on him. But on the other hand, if he's steeped in this culture where BELIEVE THE VICTIMS is everything, and he does this and suddenly there's hardly a peep from those folks? I'm not sure if that's healthy either.

I'm unsurprised. The FTB lot has been very vocal and clear: when talking about rape, it is only a woman's problem. Male victims of rape don't count (and to some, don't even exist) and if a guy who has been raped/molested/assaulted tries to say shit from HIS perspective, he's told to shut the fuck up and stop with the WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ.

If they start giving this guy's story equal attention, then they have to admit rape is not a woman's problem, it's a human problem, and that maybe they have been wrong to say otherwise.

Not going to happen.

They can't. Remember, they've redefined rape from 'sex' motivated to 'political power patriarchy' motivated. Male rape can't and doesn't fit their worldview. That 20% (if I remember the figure right) of non-prison rapes are men just flies in the face of their idiotic theory.

So it must be discounted, dismissed and all mention of it swept under the rug.

[JudgeFudge]

Crochet needs to imitate the vanguard in needlepoint:

rosey-grier.jpg

OH GODS DAMNIT TO HELL!

I know have that fucking song he wrote, to help men not feel so macho all the time, "It's all right to cry" stuck in my head. I only know of it because my elementary school music teacher thought the little maniacs might be helped by it. EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH...Rosie Grier singing "It's all right to cryyyyyy"

It worked. We were all crying every time she played it.

No, really, it's as horrible as it sounds, from the opening up-pants shot:

[youtube]Y52bs0aX6v8[/youtube]

Holy shit, Welch! I didn't know who he was until you put up that video. Thought he was just some random dude who liked needlepoint. Greer was a football player who was Robert Kennedy's bodyguard, and disarmed Sirhan Sirhan during his assassination. :shock:

[FrankGrimes]

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

I would be gobsmacked if PZ's blog qualifies for safe harbor. That's normally for providers, like Dreamhost or Amazon S3. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if FTB, much less Pharyngula qualifed for that.

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

Not sure but that seems to suggest that service providers and individual users are immune but content providers aren't. PZ is a content provider. It could easily be argued that, since PZ himself actively moderates comments and has actively allowed a free flow of comments on that very blog post (grenade), he is actively enabling defamation via his status as a content provider.

But then I think about something like YouTube. Obviously they aren't getting sued because of the disgusting and disgraceful comments people leave in the comments section of say, any fucking video that has ever been put up there. But then they don't take an active role in doing so. PZ obviously does. Hmmm....

[Ä uest]

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

I would be gobsmacked if PZ's blog qualifies for safe harbor. That's normally for providers, like Dreamhost or Amazon S3. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if FTB, much less Pharyngula qualifed for that.

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

Thanks, that was informative. The salient piece seems to be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act

What I don't get from that is a useful understanding of who is the "information content provider". Is it the person that sent PZ a private, non-published email, or is it PZ who published it? the CDA page is vague on that, and the examples they give all seem to be redistribution of material that had already appeared on the net and/or was published on the net, even if accidentally, by someone other than the defendant in the suit.

[ThePrussian]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

[Ä uest]

Still pissed that my edit button doesn't work. Lsuoma could you have a look at this?

And while I'm at it, yeah I reckon BigRed is fucking hot. The way she screams the word "fuck" so often is so sexy. Plus she has bleached then dyed red hair. So sexy.

BigRed has been fucking hot in the past but that was pounds ago, and that's not just my own fat hate speaking, that's her personal implementation of gaining weight giving her a mouth and face that is just no longer attractive (well to me at any rate.)

Regardless, if you ever read her blog at stfueverything.tumblr.com for any amount of time, it would be difficult to be in the same room with her for more than a minute or two, if she didn't have some sort of ball gag stuffed in her pie hole. (Pie might work.) This is a person who, when it was pointed out they had sung "Cry Me a River" over the tale of a man that had committed suicide, was not able to apologize or express regret for that in any manner, but proceeded to double down.

A very ugly person (and the evidence is that she is downright stupid as well.)

[Dave]

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

Thanks, that was informative. The salient piece seems to be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act

What I don't get from that is a useful understanding of who is the "information content provider". Is it the person that sent PZ a private, non-published email, or is it PZ who published it? the CDA page is vague on that, and the examples they give all seem to be redistribution of material that had already appeared on the net and/or was published on the net, even if accidentally, by someone other than the defendant in the suit.

Under the law as it was generally understood pre-Barrett, PZ would likely have been considered a content provider. Under Barrett, it is likely that PZ is protected as a user. Rosenthal was in a very similar situation to PZ, in that she republished an email by a third party on her website. The Cali SupCt held she was not liable.

[FrankGrimes]

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

Thanks, that was informative. The salient piece seems to be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act

What I don't get from that is a useful understanding of who is the "information content provider". Is it the person that sent PZ a private, non-published email, or is it PZ who published it? the CDA page is vague on that, and the examples they give all seem to be redistribution of material that had already appeared on the net and/or was published on the net, even if accidentally, by someone other than the defendant in the suit.

Under the law as it was generally understood pre-Barrett, PZ would likely have been considered a content provider. Under Barrett, it is likely that PZ is protected as a user. Rosenthal was in a very similar situation to PZ, in that she republished an email by a third party on her website. The Cali SupCt held she was not liable.

Really? Well, who on the internet is a content provider?

And somewhat relevant, in answer to my own question, more than likely individual owners of YouTube channels are content providers.

[welch]

Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.[1]

I would be gobsmacked if PZ's blog qualifies for safe harbor. That's normally for providers, like Dreamhost or Amazon S3. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if FTB, much less Pharyngula qualifed for that.

Dunno. This appears to be playing out under California law and so Barrett v. Rosenthal would apply. Under that standard, PZ gets safe harbor.

Hmm. Could be. Then again, if he's also running FTB, he could also be a publisher.

It would be interesting to see if they use Antislapp

[Ä uest]

Under the law as it was generally understood pre-Barrett, PZ would likely have been considered a content provider. Under Barrett, it is likely that PZ is protected as a user. Rosenthal was in a very similar situation to PZ, in that she republished an email by a third party on her website. The Cali SupCt held she was not liable.

If I understand the wiki link you provided, in the case, Rosenthal redistributed an email published to a mailing list by Bolen.

The case concerns an e-mail sent by Tim Bolen, a publicist for alternative medicine practitioners.[3] While working for Hulda Clark, Bolen distributed a missive online that attacked Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy, medical doctors who publicly criticize what they consider quackery.

But PZ didn't do that. He published a private email.

The link at the wiki to the Section 230 page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_23 ... ecency_Act doesn't to my understanding provide a robust definition of Information Content Provider answering is PZ the Information Content Provider, or is the user that sent him the unpublished email?

If PZ is the ICP, he would seem to be liable.

[Sending out a mini signal to Popehat]

[welch]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

lol.

you do realize that there are rather a lot of people here not terribly fond of SIN, for a variety of reasons, including SIN's treatment of Justin V., right?

[FrankGrimes]

Still pissed that my edit button doesn't work. Lsuoma could you have a look at this?

And while I'm at it, yeah I reckon BigRed is fucking hot. The way she screams the word "fuck" so often is so sexy. Plus she has bleached then dyed red hair. So sexy.

BigRed has been fucking hot in the past but that was pounds ago, and that's not just my own fat hate speaking, that's her personal implementation of gaining weight giving her a mouth and face that is just no longer attractive (well to me at any rate.)

Regardless, if you ever read her blog at stfueverything.tumblr.com for any amount of time, it would be difficult to be in the same room with her for more than a minute or two, if she didn't have some sort of ball gag stuffed in her pie hole. (Pie might work.) This is a person who, when it was pointed out they had sung "Cry Me a River" over the tale of a man that had committed suicide, was not able to apologize or express regret for that in any manner, but proceeded to double down.

A very ugly person (and the evidence is that she is downright stupid as well.)

Yeah I was kinda hoping she wasn't really as bad as she came across in the videos but obviously that goes out the window. Just for the record though, I was being sarcastic :)

[ThePrussian]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

lol.

you do realize that there are rather a lot of people here not terribly fond of SIN, for a variety of reasons, including SIN's treatment of Justin V., right?

I'll entirely believe it. I've told Justin - you can look it up - he's always welcome at my pad, but that was nothing I had anything to do with. I suppose I'll have to ask for your confidence that I'm telling the truth here.

[Tulip Eater]

This is the kind of comment that Peezus still gives a pass:

http://i.imgur.com/V11um5z.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-673657

That whole line of argumentation is sickening. PZ was the first to lay it down and the peanut gallery are just regurgitating it. Your belief in the "rape culture" needs to be a pair of thick blinders before you can say in honesty that some missed sales and fewer fucks are the only result of a major rape allegation.

Even more appalling was PZs insistence HE wouldn't care if people accused him, he'd just grin and bear it because the consequences would be so tame and it was enough he knew it was a lie (feeding into the idea that if Shermer used lawyers to defend himself, it would be a sign of guilt).

But don't you dare suggest that the consequences are even slightly more serious in a comment, that's blasphemy and will get you banned.

[ERV]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

Erm, if youre talking about SIN, this is 'what he is really dealing with':
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UarSegyzAx8/U ... 3%A8ne.jpg

I like individual bloggers at SIN very much (including your posts, Prussian), but I am none too pleased about 1) the way Justin was treated, and 2) SINs eagerness to be The Replacement Skepchicks for TAM*.



* Skepchicks were actually The Replacement Rational Response Squad. I would have never have guessed it would have all gone downhill from Kasey/Kelly/whatever... I miss her boobs...

[Ä uest]

Still pissed that my edit button doesn't work. Lsuoma could you have a look at this?

And while I'm at it, yeah I reckon BigRed is fucking hot. The way she screams the word "fuck" so often is so sexy. Plus she has bleached then dyed red hair. So sexy.

BigRed has been fucking hot in the past but that was pounds ago, and that's not just my own fat hate speaking, that's her personal implementation of gaining weight giving her a mouth and face that is just no longer attractive (well to me at any rate.)

Regardless, if you ever read her blog at stfueverything.tumblr.com for any amount of time, it would be difficult to be in the same room with her for more than a minute or two, if she didn't have some sort of ball gag stuffed in her pie hole. (Pie might work.) This is a person who, when it was pointed out they had sung "Cry Me a River" over the tale of a man that had committed suicide, was not able to apologize or express regret for that in any manner, but proceeded to double down.

A very ugly person (and the evidence is that she is downright stupid as well.)

Yeah I was kinda hoping she wasn't really as bad as she came across in the videos but obviously that goes out the window. Just for the record though, I was being sarcastic :)

True friends of hers would do an Intervention before she becomes Melissa McEwan.

[ThePrussian]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:


Erm, if youre talking about SIN, this is 'what he is really dealing with':
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UarSegyzAx8/U ... 3%A8ne.jpg

Oh I know, but having posted some Star Wars stuff, I thought it was an appropriate point of contrast.

I like individual bloggers at SIN very much (including your posts, Prussian), but I am none too pleased about 1) the way Justin was treated, and 2) SINs eagerness to be The Replacement Skepchicks for TAM*.



* Skepchicks were actually The Replacement Rational Response Squad. I would have never have guessed it would have all gone downhill from Kasey/Kelly/whatever... I miss her boobs..

.

Sweet of you to say. I'm sorry about JV, and I can only say that I had nothing to do with that - I found out he was gone one day. This was round about my Viva, so I was largely absent from the site.

[welch]

Because i'm that much of a cock, my prayer for the day:

Dear God,

Again, I know I'm not much of a follower. But I try to leave you alone, unless i see something fucked up that a small nudge from you would make more lulzy.

Today...please, please let Ann Coulter publicly state that she knows what Rebecca Watson, Melody Hensley, Ophelia Benson, Jen McCreight and all the other women on FTB and Skepchicks are going through. Please O Bountiful Lord, in thy mercy, please let Ms. Coulter publish some of her hate mail and threats. Please let her talk about the stress this constant stream of hate creates and how it affects both her, and her family.

Then let us all make some popcorn, and watch the response.

Thank you,

john

P.S. If you want to do a solid, please arrange for video of their faces as they read Ms. Coulter's statements. Maybe some audio if that's not over the top.

thanks dude. You abide.

[yomomma]

What about cyber harassment/bullying. I think California has newly drafted legislation on that. It could be shoehorned as a legal maneuver.

[ThePrussian]

Edit: that is, reposted.

[JackRayner]

Although having seen the following tweet, I think I have determined that the second "p" in popehat is silent:

I don't follow elevatorgate, so I am not familiar with his behavior.

I wanted to ask this at Scalzi's blog, but Scalzi closed the comments and didn't reopen them.

Is elevatorgate storifying:

• a single person
• a single woman
• a few people
• a few women
• random people
• random women
• only feminist women
• any feminist men
• specific feminists
• specific skeptical feminist atheists
• various leaders of skeptical feminist atheism?
• all tweets of various leaders of skeptical feminist atheism and a sample of the other twitters they come in contact with to provide context?

As he storifies, does he add commentary?

• Is his commentary salacious?
• Is his commentary relevant to the skeptical feminist atheism movement or the greater skeptical atheist movement?
• Is his commentary criticizing or commenting on the tweets in order to teach others about an event, or provide context?

Has he ever doxed, libeled, defamed, threatened someone he storifies? (Or anyone?)
What behaviors in real life or online are present to indicate that elevatorgate’s focus on atheismplus adherents is real life threatening in any manner?

If for two years, elevatorgate has done nothing but storify tweets how can that be harassment?

• Would it be harassment to storify everything the NYPD tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything Republican Caucus tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything the Tea Party tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything Scientology tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything the Vatican tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything the Paris Hilton tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything the David Brooks tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything the Rush Limbaugh tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything NOW tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything Gloria Steinem tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything Amanda Marcotte (Slate writer) tweets?
• Would it be harassment to storify everything CFI, or JREF tweets?

Why is it harassment to storify what a group of very public, very vocal, leaders in feminist and skeptical movements tweet?

Please see this post and the rest of the responses to Badger3k's post.

[welch]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

lol.

you do realize that there are rather a lot of people here not terribly fond of SIN, for a variety of reasons, including SIN's treatment of Justin V., right?

I'll entirely believe it. I've told Justin - you can look it up - he's always welcome at my pad, but that was nothing I had anything to do with. I suppose I'll have to ask for your confidence that I'm telling the truth here.

I don't doubt you are. But fair warning and all.

[welch]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg

Erm, if youre talking about SIN, this is 'what he is really dealing with':
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UarSegyzAx8/U ... 3%A8ne.jpg

I like individual bloggers at SIN very much (including your posts, Prussian), but I am none too pleased about 1) the way Justin was treated, and 2) SINs eagerness to be The Replacement Skepchicks for TAM*.



* Skepchicks were actually The Replacement Rational Response Squad. I would have never have guessed it would have all gone downhill from Kasey/Kelly/whatever... I miss her boobs...

Thanks to the internet, you can see them whenever you want. Along with every other external feature of hers, and a few internals.

[ThePrussian]

I'll entirely believe it. I've told Justin - you can look it up - he's always welcome at my pad, but that was nothing I had anything to do with. I suppose I'll have to ask for your confidence that I'm telling the truth here.

I don't doubt you are. But fair warning and all.

No worries and thanks.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

This may be the reason behind Taslima Nasreen's complaint about tiny Indian weenies:

taslima_tunnel.jpg

(22.76 KiB) Downloaded 258 times

[Dave]

Really? Well, who on the internet is a content provider?

And somewhat relevant, in answer to my own question, more than likely individual owners of YouTube channels are content providers.

By my reading of Barrett, only those who originally create the content: PZ for that which he writes, although arguably not for the "grenade" he quoted, certainly for his own words with which he surrounded the "grenade". Commentors for their own comments.

From the opinion itself:

We conclude there is no basis for deriving a special meaning for the term “user” in section 230(c)(1), or any operative distinction between “active” and “passive” Internet use. By declaring that no “user” may be treated as a “publisher” of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users.

[Parody Accountant]

Having taken to hanging around in the Pit, I offer the following tribute to my gracious hosts here:

[.img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2hn9q53.jpg[/img]

lol.

you do realize that there are rather a lot of people here not terribly fond of SIN, for a variety of reasons, including SIN's treatment of Justin V., right?

SIN's leadership ditched JV for a shot at integrating into the TAM/JREF pool of blog endorsements. For a network partially born in response to exactly that type of behavior, it was quite a shock. Also the timing couldn't have been shittier.

So they got treated like all the other networks for a few days. Which is to say, they were used to shill for JREF. And SIN's leadership sacrificed integrity for the privilege. What a pitiful reward.
http://i.imgur.com/n6roGQp.png

[Parody Accountant]

you do realize that there are rather a lot of people here not terribly fond of SIN, for a variety of reasons, including SIN's treatment of Justin V., right?

I'll entirely believe it. I've told Justin - you can look it up - he's always welcome at my pad, but that was nothing I had anything to do with. I suppose I'll have to ask for your confidence that I'm telling the truth here.

I like many of the people there, and will try not to lump the whole network together. But seriously, wtf? I wish all the bloggers there [minus ed and loftus who seemed to be driving this decision] would explain their side / take on this. Prussian, did you have the chance to say anything about the decision? Would you have?

I understand people make mistakes, and a loose-collective of bloggers are not 'pros'. It would be easier to accept 'rookie mistake' if we could see some dissent, or FFS some commentary on the subject. Please link to that post you mentioned, if you've covered it elsewhere.

[Parody Accountant]

* Skepchicks were actually The Replacement Rational Response Squad. I would have never have guessed it would have all gone downhill from Kasey/Kelly/whatever... I miss her boobs...

I believe they're available. IIRC, she's chosen a career in the sex industry. I think others were shaming her for this too, which is unfortunate.

[ReneeHendricks]

To be honest, I'm too fucking lazy to read the pages upon pages of stuff here on the 'pit. That plus I'm dealing with the day after an insomnia bout. Looks like the ShermerYPZ stuff is still ongoing and not a word from either. Hope everyone is doing spiffy. I'm back to work :)

[ThePrussian]

I like many of the people there, and will try not to lump the whole network together. But seriously, wtf? I wish all the bloggers there [minus ed and loftus who seemed to be driving this decision] would explain their side / take on this. Prussian, did you have the chance to say anything about the decision? Would you have?

I wasn't asked, and I would have, and if you look at Vacula's post on the subject, you'll see me trying to smooth things over. Also tried to mail him, but he, not surprisingly, wasn't minded to reply.

That said, there are two things that I have to think about. 1) I know that, given my areas of interest (vide my most recent post) that my standard for what is "hateful" is pegged way, way out there, and 2) I can disagree, but at the end of the day, it is not my blogging community. That is, I don't own it. Clint and, formerly, Loftus do (and did), and pegged their names to it. I can have my opinions, but it's not my property.

I should also add that, in general, I can think of nothing bad to say about my fellow bloggers. They let me cultivate my garden. Enough of them are in agreement with me on essential issues, and there's live and let live with the rest, and when we've disagreed, the debates have been civil. I've recently, along with my colleague at No Cross, No Crescent, had quite a spirited disagreement with Ed Clint, but it's been civil and we still get along. I value that.

That's all I can really say. If that's no enough for the price of admission here, fine, no hard feelings, and you're always welcome on board my blog.

[Sulman]

That's all I can really say. If that's no enough for the price of admission here, fine, no hard feelings, and you're always welcome on board my blog.

I don't think there is a price of admission here. We're all adults.

[JudgeFudge]

This guy spells out the type of thinking circulating the remains of PZ Myers' brain.

[youtube]72YGgCo5-xQ[/youtube]

:o :lol:

I was waiting for the part where he was going to do this:
[youtube]01Vd8PQg25o[/youtube]

[Ä uest]

Please see this post and the rest of the responses to Badger3k's post.

Thank you!

[bovarchist]

Ted Danson, lost in the woods far far far from reality, sanity and a pair of scissors?

Is it just me, or does he look like he's dragging a body? ;)

[Rope apologist]

This guy spells out the type of thinking circulating the remains of PZ Myers' brain.

[youtube]72YGgCo5-xQ[/youtube]

:o :lol:

PZ's pro bono attorney breaks his silence.

Watch out Shermer!

Seriously, Youtube is great. I had to go out onto the streets of NYC to hear his type in the past.

I'm just wondering, is the NoR, or Caine?

[Rope apologist]

Well, "'m just wondering, is the NoR, or Caine?"

But you knew that.

[Rope apologist]

Gah, premature clicking:

Well, "I'm just wondering, is this NoR, or Caine?"

But you knew that.

[bovarchist]

The OJ Simpson case doesn't really apply here. A much better example would be the case of Richard Jewell. Essentially, Jewell prevailed in his libel suits because the media companies involved got careless in their coverage of the 1996 Olympic bombing and didn't couch their stories in terms like "allegedly" and "suspected of" thereby giving the impression of guilt before Jewell had so much as been charged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Didn't Jewell end up committing suicide despite winning? Now I'm bummed out...

[Guest]

Meanwhile, Rebecca Watson links a [business] address of one of her critics the convicted sex offender who is violating the terms of a social media site (not to mention the law http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegi ... 202.5.html) to try and harass her.

Fixed it for you.

But you go ahead and defend the guy convicted of "indecent liberties with a child" (among other things http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/vie ... listpage=4 ) all you want. I'm sure we're all a little poorer for not having his opinions about women published more broadly.

[Parody Accountant]

I like many of the people there, and will try not to lump the whole network together. But seriously, wtf? I wish all the bloggers there [minus ed and loftus who seemed to be driving this decision] would explain their side / take on this. Prussian, did you have the chance to say anything about the decision? Would you have?

I wasn't asked, and I would have, and if you look at Vacula's post on the subject, you'll see me trying to smooth things over. Also tried to mail him, but he, not surprisingly, wasn't minded to reply.

That said, there are two things that I have to think about. 1) I know that, given my areas of interest (vide my most recent post) that my standard for what is "hateful" is pegged way, way out there, and 2) I can disagree, but at the end of the day, it is not my blogging community. That is, I don't own it. Clint and, formerly, Loftus do (and did), and pegged their names to it. I can have my opinions, but it's not my property.

I should also add that, in general, I can think of nothing bad to say about my fellow bloggers. They let me cultivate my garden. Enough of them are in agreement with me on essential issues, and there's live and let live with the rest, and when we've disagreed, the debates have been civil. I've recently, along with my colleague at No Cross, No Crescent, had quite a spirited disagreement with Ed Clint, but it's been civil and we still get along. I value that.

That's all I can really say. If that's no enough for the price of admission here, fine, no hard feelings, and you're always welcome on board my blog.

You're good, man. Thanks for that blurb. I hope JV sees it, and that other SINners make or have made similar statements.

Yeah, pretty sure there is no price for admission here. There was an elephant in the room, but it left because we didn't ignore it.