C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In a normal courtroom the judge could have held Rand Paul in contempt of court, I believe. The Chief Justice, however, gave him no explicit warning.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
This is somewhat old news. It has been reported since November that YouTube and Facebook were removing content that contained the name. Breitbart reported in this in November. So they must have already known.
In other news, Alphabet is now disclosing financials for YouTube and it looks to be doing well. The last time they released financials on it was years ago when it was still only loosing money.
In other news, Alphabet is now disclosing financials for YouTube and it looks to be doing well. The last time they released financials on it was years ago when it was still only loosing money.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think he could have legally done that in this instance, being that it was the Senate floor and not a court room. I think the Senators are allowed to say literally anything they want. That said, if someone one said something that was in violation of some websites policy, public record or not, then that website would be consistent in censoring it. Right to say something is not the same as right to be heard. Breitbart has the right to post what they want on their website, not the right to tell other companies how to respond to their speech.
One of the basic tenets of our justice system has always been the right for the accused to confront the accuser. Without this, there can be no justice. Whistleblower laws exist to protect the accuser from retaliation. However, there has never been any guarantee of anonymity. This is one of the difference between trial in court and trial by media. Motive, bias, competency, and honesty must be evaluated in all witnesses. This can only be done in the open.
This anonymity is the second misstep the Democrats made, in my own opinion (the first being the impeachment). It remains to be seen if this will hurt them in the election this year.
One of the basic tenets of our justice system has always been the right for the accused to confront the accuser. Without this, there can be no justice. Whistleblower laws exist to protect the accuser from retaliation. However, there has never been any guarantee of anonymity. This is one of the difference between trial in court and trial by media. Motive, bias, competency, and honesty must be evaluated in all witnesses. This can only be done in the open.
This anonymity is the second misstep the Democrats made, in my own opinion (the first being the impeachment). It remains to be seen if this will hurt them in the election this year.
Last edited:
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Ooh, no one is allowed to say the new C-word!
What is the big deal? Everyone knew this guys name for a while now.
Ridiculous.
What is the big deal? Everyone knew this guys name for a while now.
Ridiculous.
K
KMC
Guest
We’re not allowed to say the name “Eric Ciaramella?” Is his name like “Voldemort’s?”
P
pnewton
Guest
We had best start typing it E**c C**********a, just to be on the safe side.
K
KMC
Guest
How about Cheric Aramella?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Usually working around such filtering is easy. Since it depends on speech-to-text conversion and is automated if someone shows an image of the name instead of saying it then they have communicated the word without getting filtered. That doesn’t prevent someone from flagging a video though.We’re not allowed to say the name “Eric Ciaramella?”
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Please link to that “old news” and how it involved boxing out the Congressional Record.This is somewhat old news. It has been reported since November that YouTube and Facebook were removing content that contained the name.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
You are focused on the wrong facet. The filter they have is on the name. This is the 4th calendar month for which that has been known.Please link to that “old news” and how it involved boxing out the Congressional Record.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
ThinkingSapien . . .
If I am so wrong just show it.
I recall something about withholding Ciamerella’s name until it becomes part of the Congressinal Record or something along those lines.
So just show what you are talking about so I can read it and draw my own conclusions.
.
I will draw my own conclusions.You are focused on the wrong facet. The filter they have is on the name. This is the 4th calendar month for which that has been known.
If I am so wrong just show it.
I recall something about withholding Ciamerella’s name until it becomes part of the Congressinal Record or something along those lines.
So just show what you are talking about so I can read it and draw my own conclusions.
.
You can show this too please.The filter they have is on the name.
Last edited:
R
redal
Guest
When is the last time those so shocked by such revelations read the Congressional Record, or tuned into C-SPAN anyway? The source of the linked article is Breitbart…would one expect anything else, leaving them as the authority in this?
And, are the bothered only checking one search engine, and if it doesn’t appear on that one, it must be a deep state conspiracy? Did Foxfire, Netscape, or other numerous search engines collude to keep this information out of the hands of American voters>
Try this link to get it straight from the horse’s mouth
And, are the bothered only checking one search engine, and if it doesn’t appear on that one, it must be a deep state conspiracy? Did Foxfire, Netscape, or other numerous search engines collude to keep this information out of the hands of American voters>
Try this link to get it straight from the horse’s mouth
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.