November 4, if they want Harris in the WH
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP Dad. Or is it actually a flawed report?
- Status
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Perish the thought!:woman_facepalming:t2:
P
Petra202
Guest
Oh yes it was printed without naming sources and DT and his team denied that it was a true representation! JB has just retired to his home not denying, just calling it a smear campaign!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
JonNC . . .
. . . HUNTER’S COMPUTER back.
(Notice Biden’s attorney did NOT ask for “Putin’s computer”.)
You don’t run around asking for someone else’s computer claiming it belongs to your client.
Rather bad move by Hunter’s attorney.
Here is JP Sears (political satirist) making that same point . . . .
https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=jrjI2X9TIZA&end=284
.
This is actually very thoughtful satire. Apparently the Babylon Bee is hitting too close to “home” for the left too as they have been getting “nuked” by the corporate left (Facebook) too.
.
The other thing is, it is no longer Hunter’s computer as he forfeited it
when Biden cheated and stiffed the repairman.
He had 90 days.
And a tacit admission was when Hunter’s lawyer asked for . . . .
. . . HUNTER’S COMPUTER back.
(Notice Biden’s attorney did NOT ask for “Putin’s computer”.)
You don’t run around asking for someone else’s computer claiming it belongs to your client.
Rather bad move by Hunter’s attorney.
Here is JP Sears (political satirist) making that same point . . . .
https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=jrjI2X9TIZA&end=284
.
This is actually very thoughtful satire. Apparently the Babylon Bee is hitting too close to “home” for the left too as they have been getting “nuked” by the corporate left (Facebook) too.
.
The other thing is, it is no longer Hunter’s computer as he forfeited it
when Biden cheated and stiffed the repairman.
He had 90 days.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
What will work with YouTube and Twitter and possibly Facebook is the fact that they have built their clientele based upon a contractual promise of freedom of expression that these companies have now unilaterally reneged upon. Their banning of content has not been fair nor consistent and has resulted in pulling the rug out from under individuals that helped them build their business BECAUSE of the promise that these people would have freedom of expression as stipulated by the First Amendment. That promise has been broken and the terms of service have been unfairly applied without a justifiable warrant and have selectively deprived only some of their customers of a livelihood.JonNC:
That won’t work.
In the USA, free speech rights are codified as a negative right; it is a constraint against the government.
The reason Steven Crowder is back on and no longer being de-platformed by YouTube is because his lawyer has threatened YouTube with precisely this kind of lawsuit which YT understands could open a flood of similar suits. Crowder definitely has standing because he was one of the original successful content producers on YouTube and helped build its popularity.
Justice Thomas seems to have signaled that the SC is open to this line of argument because it correctly defines the legal issue as far as big tech is concerned.
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Prager tried presenting a variation of that argument in PragerU v YouTube, which was dismissed in February. PragerU tried to argue for false advertising under the Lanham act.
From the court
Src
Stipulated by the promise that the government will not take action abridging ones speech?
Not sure what you are referencing. I know that he was removed from the YouTube Partner Program for a period of a year, but they did not prohibit his ability to publish videos. He was able to continue to enjoy his other revenue streams from his videos. Are you referring to some incident in which he was unable to publish?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
ThinkingSapien . . .
I thought you told me that PragerU merely had (some of) their content restricted–observers need to be adults (and sign in on those selected videos) and the block was selective?
I thought you told me PragerU wasn’t banned!?
I thought you told me that PragerU merely had (some of) their content restricted–observers need to be adults (and sign in on those selected videos) and the block was selective?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The argument isn’t one of false advertising. It is an argument of a unilateral breach of contract - changing the terms of a contract to unjustly deny the benefits of that contract to a co-signer. It is the near monopolistic power of the social media companies that allows them to arbitrarily alter terms of service with no recourse for the other party.HarryStotle:
Prager tried presenting a variation of that argument in PragerU v YouTube, which was dismissed in February. PragerU tried to argue for false advertising under the Lanham act.
There are other issues that need to be flushed out here, but it is not the simple matter that you are assuming it is.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
They tried that argument too. It is reference in the court documents. Gotta read those ToS though. It has that covered, and the court expressed an opinion on the argument.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Yes they did. De-platforming does not necessarily imply complete banning. It can also mean unfairly restricting someone’s ability to create or present content, especially when that content does not infringe any current terms of service or unfairly targets some creators but not others. There is a case here and YouTube knows it, which is why they reinstated Crowder’s content and monetization, at least in part.
In Crowder’s own words…
Changing terms of service on the fly is what opened Patreon to numerous lawsuits after losing its case with Owen Benjamin’s backers.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This is why Thomas issued his opinion on the Writ of Certiorari - i.e., to signal a possible opening for future litigation.HarryStotle:
They tried that argument too. It is reference in the court documents. Gotta read those ToS though. It has that covered, and the court expressed an opinion on the argument.
See the Viva Frei video I posted above - start at 20:48 or so.
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m familiar with that case. Something unique to it is that they updated the terms after a law suit had been filed, and then tried to use the new terms that were not in place as part of their argument for a case that was filed prior to the change. This is a different matter.
ToS can be renegotiated and are not guaranteed to be the same in perpetuity for all of time. This is why many ToS have conditions that allow the terms to be updated and a user to agree or not agree to the new terms. In the YouTube ToS, one of the terms that has been an obstacle to some arguments is that the service on YouTube can be terminated at any time for any reason including for no reason. Since most usages of YouTube are free, the use of the service also hasn’t ben subject to commerce laws.
He’s talking primarily about a alleged copyright claim violations. That has the affect of muddling his claims a bit.
I’ve seen it. I actually subscribe to him on YouTube . Most of my opinions are based on arguments that have been presented to the courts. Cases of this nature go back as far as MySpace. There is a large body of opinions rendered by the court. When an argument such as the one discussed in the video reaches a court and they render an opinion on it, it will be added to that body.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The problem with “exemplars” is that most of us do not have the expertise to properly assess handwriting.
But here they are comparing his signatures from two driver’s licenses and a corporate document to the work order…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Speaking for myself, the two signatures on the licenses seem quite different from each other, so “exemplar” doesn’t seem apt.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The work order doesn’t seem the same as any of the exemplars, but, frankly, that’s not really a “good” signature.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
The signature don’t match.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Are you an expert?
My point was that the authentic ones from the driver’s licenses don’t superficially match either, but it would require an expert to analyze them.
The opinion of random Internet commenters with clear political bias are not quite sufficient to establish a verdict, but good of you to register your opinion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It is a matter of expert opinion. No question about that.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Anybody with good eyes can tell there are significant differences.
N
Naga
Guest
Differences? Yes. Significant (i.e. evidence it may have been written by a different person)? Unknown. I am not an expert on handwriting analysis, so I will not make an opinion on this.
I will say that I have been questioned by an elections official when going to vote due to my ID signature and in-person signature looking different from one another (at least, to the elections official), so it wouldn’t surprise me if all three pictured signatures were from the same person.
I will say that I have been questioned by an elections official when going to vote due to my ID signature and in-person signature looking different from one another (at least, to the elections official), so it wouldn’t surprise me if all three pictured signatures were from the same person.
- Status