7 ms·

A real doozy of an excerpt from the article: > Kavanaugh dissented from the ruling upholding net neutrality rules in 2017, arguing that the rules violate the

A real doozy of an excerpt from the article: > Kavanaugh dissented from the ruling upholding net neutrality rules in 2017, arguing that the rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content. Jesus fucking christ.

djsumdog 8y ago
I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution (or just ignores it) and supported the Bush administration in defending torture. Keep in mind statements like this are very double edged. Hosting providers are already denying the ability for people to even host platforms. Platforms are de-platforming people (and not all of them are hate groups. Just check out Carey Wedler's ban from Twitter). It's not a huge stretch to then say, ISPs should be allowed to regulate what content flows through their servers. I can't seem to find it, but isn't there another case coming up to the Supreme Court soon over just this issue? You can't deny service to someone due to their race. I really feel like we're getting to the point where that really needs to apply to speech.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution (or just ignores it) and supported the Bush administration in defending torture. Since the sexual asssault allegations came at the tail of the process, had there been attention to the other things (EDIT: or the serial misrepresentation in regard to his role in the Bush Administration detainee policy, which ought to be disqualifying for the federal bench whether or not his actual role was problematic), the sexual assault issue may never have arisen.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  There was significant criticism of him professionally before the multiple allegations of rape were made. It didn't matter. Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter. So let's not kid ourselves that there was ever any chance of stopping his confirmation. He's the political version of a made man.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    "Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter." Do you think allegations should matter to the confirmation process? If the allegations are substantiated well-enough, the DA of Maryland could still charge him, right? The confirmation process does not seem like the right venue to seek justice for a crime like that.
    - nicoburns 8y ago
      I'd argue that the standatd of proof required for "man should go to prison" should be higher than then for "man shouldn't be trusted with one of the most powerful judicial positions in the country"...
      - jeffdavis 8y ago
        What should be the standard for the latter?
        matt4077 8y ago
        It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myriad reasons: the nature of the crime matters. If they got caught with a bit too much LSD in 1975 it doesn't matter even if proven & admitted and convicted. If, however, there's just a whiff of corruption then that's Game Over, next please. Hell, if they were arrested in bar fight just last year and spend a week in jail, that might even be a plus: first hand experience of the criminal justice system from "deep inside" could at least excuse a singular transgression (perhaps depending on what side of emacs-vs-vim they so drastically defended in that bar). So it's more of a calculation, as in probability X recency X seriousness X relevancy for job +/- all other factors. ...rather than any single standard of proof. And that's fine. That's how it has always been, and how it was originally envisioned.
- my_usernam3 8y ago
  > I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault I thought there should have been more focus on his partisanship and lying. I believe the allegations, but they are just that, allegations. I rewatched Gorsuch's hearings, and you can really tell who belongs in the supreme court and who doesn't. Too bad over 90% of the votes were predetermined based on the candidates original political party, not their merit.
- spiritcat 8y ago
  > and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution no now according to constitution you don't understand constitution! you know like, after they interpreted the constitution as giving them the sole power to interpret the constitution. or however that worked out.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Which one of his decisions on the DC Circuit do you think shows he doesn't understand the Constitution?
erikpukinskis 8y ago
I appreciate the quote but I don’t appreciate your comment. It seems to serve no purpose but to be inflammatory. To signal to “your people” that you’re with them, and signal to everyone else that you think they’re an idiot. I have half a mind to flag it. I like neutral ISPs, but I think Kavanaugh is probably correct, from a strictly constitutional sense ISPs should have a right to modify traffic in any way they like. If you disagree, at least give me a hint as to your thinking.
- nrb 8y ago
  I think the hangup there is that in many cities there exists a government-sanctioned monopoly in internet access, in many areas the public actually funded the infrastructure, or in other areas collusion exists to limit customer freedom to choose a provider. Monopoly of access and absolute control over the network should be inversely proportional.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    The same argument could be made, and often is, that a few private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors etc. hold similar monopoly status, for different reasons. And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.
    - zalebz 8y ago
      "private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors" - interesting how all of those on your list require me to use an ISP first. in my town there is literally one ISP option. I have used several different providers for every service you listed. there is a big difference between a near/effective monopoly and literally one option or no service at all.
kodablah 8y ago
Out of curiosity, if the pipes were open to multiple ISPs instead of the limitations that exist now, would you still disagree with ISPs being allowed to be non-neutral? I often wonder what the net neutrality discussion would look like in an environment with many providers and easy ISP choice/creation.
- redbeard0x0a 8y ago
  Splitting up the "wire service" from the "Internet service" would be another way of dealing with the issue. Regulate the wires (making it so any ISP could start up and use the wires). Then the market could differentiate on things like net-neutrality - _as long as_ there continued to be competition.
  - berti 8y ago
    We have that situation in New Zealand. AFAIK all ISPs are neutral. It would seem like a competitive disadvantage to be otherwise in a market full of neutral ISPs.
- Retric 8y ago
  Adding a separate ISP on top of effectively a net neutral ISP creates very different incentives. IMO, in such a case you really have net neutrality by default as the wire providers would not block or prioritize content. The pseudo ISP's might prioritize traffic, but would be facing very different economic incentives.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Whatever favors the sponsors of their political ideals.
devindotcom 8y ago
Sorry to hijack but if you're curious about the specifics of this amazing argument, I wrote a long article about it a little bit ago: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-brutal-education-in-net-neutrality/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/supreme-court-nominee-bret...
sbov 8y ago
If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us? Well, it's online, user-submitted content, so CDA 230 would seem to apply, whose whole point is to allow editorial control without liability.
  - twtw 8y ago
    As I understand it, that is not the "whole point" of cda 230. CDA 230 gives providers immunity from being treated as publisher when they host user submitted content, and as such doesn't apply when the provider embraces the role of publisher by editorializing content. Perhaps I misunderstand cda 230.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      I think you do misunderstand, though in a way which is common when people forget (or never knew) the context in which it was adopted. Prior to CDA 230 (and still, in other media not subject to the CDA 230 safe harbor) exercising editorial control was what differentiates between a distributor who has notice-based liability for various unlawful content (meaning, roughly, they are responsible if they know about it and do nothing), and a publisher who has strict liability (and is therefore liable even if they don't know about it.) In the debate leading to the adoption of CDA 230 the fact that this situation discouraged hosts from making best-effort attempts to eliminate unwelcome, including unlawful, content for fear of triggering strict liability was raised, and the desire to enable this kind of best-effort elimination of “objectionable and inappropriate” content is an explicitly-stated policy goal in Section 230(b). Th actual safe harbor provision, Sec 230(c) is titled Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. The idea that it isn't to enable to the host to affirmatively take action to prevent relaying content that might be offensive is...not well supported.
marcoperaza 8y ago
Are you also opposed to Google and Facebook exercising editorial control of content as a First Amendment right? If not, why should some natural monopolies (e.g. search engines or social networks) get this privilege while others (e.g. ISPs) do not?
- JChase2 8y ago
  I mean, there's a pretty big difference between not being able to access high speed internet except through something that's subject to financial or other sorts of manipulation, and not being able to post whatever you want on facebook or use google or whatever. Facebook isn't really something I need, plus I can use any number of alternative search engines and email providers. I can't just ignore the two or so providers of internet in my area and switch to dial up or whatever because I pretty much need high speed dependable internet for work. I think that's a pretty big difference there.
  - mrlatinos 8y ago
    You depend on a company for a product/service that they provide. Therefore, you can dictate the terms of how they provide it?
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      For a utility like water or gas for which there is only a monopoly company providing it then yes, there are basic standards set by law because society recognizes the economic inefficiency of putting in duplicative physical infrastructure into that last-mile of linkage, as well as the economic difficulty of maintaining non-extractive prices without fundamental competition.
      - mrlatinos 8y ago
        But the internet is not a utility...
        8y ago
mrlatinos 8y ago
HN comments are looking more and more like Reddit comments every day. Is your only statement in a response "Jesus fucking Christ"? Great insight...
- aerovistae 8y ago
  1.) Perhaps consider that the comments on /r/The_Donald, /r/catsstandingup, and /r/personalfinance differ strongly. The idea that all of Reddit's users and all the content on all its different subreddits are generically self-similar is a pretty foolish notion. You may as well say "HN comments are looking more and more like internet comments every day" and it would mean just as much. Your comment only serves to illustrate which parts of Reddit or the internet you personally frequent. 2.) Yes, in response to current US politics, I have little to say beyond expressions of utter disgust and contempt. There is nothing I can do to change the Supreme Court situation. I have no deep commentary or rebuttal to make to Kavanough's opinions, because I think most readers here can already see what I see: that his argument is straight out of a dystopian horror story. They don't need my added pontification to make that clear. 3.) Not every comment needs to be a thoughtful essay. People frequently want to just express an opinion or emotion without wanting to dive into a conversation. Do you harp on people every time they snicker or sigh, saying is that all you have to contribute? I imagine people must be reluctant to make a sound around you.
  - mrlatinos 8y ago
    Get a grip, or get off HN
    - aerovistae 8y ago
      And you're complaining about lack of engagement! Fun stuff.
75dvtwin 8y ago
your language reflects how little you care about due process. It is your way, or else everybody else is a villain.
jeffdavis 8y ago
The actual dissent[1] seems fairly reasonable at first glance. It's based on two objections: * "First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule." * "Under the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in [cites 2 precedents], the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market." It really disturbs me how few people bother to look -- even a cursory glance -- before developing a profanity-laden opinion on the subject. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836722&q=U.S.+Telecom+Association+v.+FCC&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836...
- wool_gather 8y ago
  The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject. Official link (PDF) for those who don't like Google: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 8y ago
    GP might or might not, but that isn't relevant - presumably everyone on HN could already mount a decent argument in favour of net neutrality, even without reading the opinion of legal experts. Law is a highly technical field that is full of detail, nuance and far-reaching consequences. There is a good reason why legal opinions are usually long written documents - the issues are complex. Anyone who selects one sentence as a soundbite and holds it up as the thing itself is (in an inconsequential way) undermining the integrity of the legal system. Judges write opinions that are about the length they need to be to express their reasoning. To criticise the opinion, it is necessary to have separate evidence of the result of the ruling or to have read the opinion. Quoting one sentence of the opinion from an article is not sufficient.
dang 8y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially not ranty ones, regardless of how much you disagree with some quote from an article. It leads to markedly lower-quality, flamier discussion.
- aerovistae 8y ago
  Agreed. Although I suspect that if I had posted the quote with the comment <<"Interesting.">> beneath it and nothing else, nobody would have complained despite it being no more substantive.

djsumdog 8y ago

I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution (or just ignores it) and supported the Bush administration in defending torture. Keep in mind statements like this are very double edged. Hosting providers are already denying the ability for people to even host platforms. Platforms are de-platforming people (and not all of them are hate groups. Just check out Carey Wedler's ban from Twitter). It's not a huge stretch to then say, ISPs should be allowed to regulate what content flows through their servers. I can't seem to find it, but isn't there another case coming up to the Supreme Court soon over just this issue? You can't deny service to someone due to their race. I really feel like we're getting to the point where that really needs to apply to speech.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution (or just ignores it) and supported the Bush administration in defending torture. Since the sexual asssault allegations came at the tail of the process, had there been attention to the other things (EDIT: or the serial misrepresentation in regard to his role in the Bush Administration detainee policy, which ought to be disqualifying for the federal bench whether or not his actual role was problematic), the sexual assault issue may never have arisen.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
There was significant criticism of him professionally before the multiple allegations of rape were made. It didn't matter. Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter. So let's not kid ourselves that there was ever any chance of stopping his confirmation. He's the political version of a made man.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  "Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter." Do you think allegations should matter to the confirmation process? If the allegations are substantiated well-enough, the DA of Maryland could still charge him, right? The confirmation process does not seem like the right venue to seek justice for a crime like that.
  - nicoburns 8y ago
    I'd argue that the standatd of proof required for "man should go to prison" should be higher than then for "man shouldn't be trusted with one of the most powerful judicial positions in the country"...
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      What should be the standard for the latter?
      - matt4077 8y ago
        It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myriad reasons: the nature of the crime matters. If they got caught with a bit too much LSD in 1975 it doesn't matter even if proven & admitted and convicted. If, however, there's just a whiff of corruption then that's Game Over, next please. Hell, if they were arrested in bar fight just last year and spend a week in jail, that might even be a plus: first hand experience of the criminal justice system from "deep inside" could at least excuse a singular transgression (perhaps depending on what side of emacs-vs-vim they so drastically defended in that bar). So it's more of a calculation, as in probability X recency X seriousness X relevancy for job +/- all other factors. ...rather than any single standard of proof. And that's fine. That's how it has always been, and how it was originally envisioned.
my_usernam3 8y ago
> I wish there had been less focus on the alleged sexual assault I thought there should have been more focus on his partisanship and lying. I believe the allegations, but they are just that, allegations. I rewatched Gorsuch's hearings, and you can really tell who belongs in the supreme court and who doesn't. Too bad over 90% of the votes were predetermined based on the candidates original political party, not their merit.
spiritcat 8y ago
> and more focus on the fact that Kavanaugh doesn't understand the constitution no now according to constitution you don't understand constitution! you know like, after they interpreted the constitution as giving them the sole power to interpret the constitution. or however that worked out.
jeffdavis 8y ago
Which one of his decisions on the DC Circuit do you think shows he doesn't understand the Constitution?

erikpukinskis 8y ago

I appreciate the quote but I don’t appreciate your comment. It seems to serve no purpose but to be inflammatory. To signal to “your people” that you’re with them, and signal to everyone else that you think they’re an idiot. I have half a mind to flag it. I like neutral ISPs, but I think Kavanaugh is probably correct, from a strictly constitutional sense ISPs should have a right to modify traffic in any way they like. If you disagree, at least give me a hint as to your thinking.

nrb 8y ago
I think the hangup there is that in many cities there exists a government-sanctioned monopoly in internet access, in many areas the public actually funded the infrastructure, or in other areas collusion exists to limit customer freedom to choose a provider. Monopoly of access and absolute control over the network should be inversely proportional.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  The same argument could be made, and often is, that a few private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors etc. hold similar monopoly status, for different reasons. And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.
  - zalebz 8y ago
    "private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors" - interesting how all of those on your list require me to use an ISP first. in my town there is literally one ISP option. I have used several different providers for every service you listed. there is a big difference between a near/effective monopoly and literally one option or no service at all.

kodablah 8y ago

Out of curiosity, if the pipes were open to multiple ISPs instead of the limitations that exist now, would you still disagree with ISPs being allowed to be non-neutral? I often wonder what the net neutrality discussion would look like in an environment with many providers and easy ISP choice/creation.

redbeard0x0a 8y ago
Splitting up the "wire service" from the "Internet service" would be another way of dealing with the issue. Regulate the wires (making it so any ISP could start up and use the wires). Then the market could differentiate on things like net-neutrality - _as long as_ there continued to be competition.
- berti 8y ago
  We have that situation in New Zealand. AFAIK all ISPs are neutral. It would seem like a competitive disadvantage to be otherwise in a market full of neutral ISPs.
Retric 8y ago
Adding a separate ISP on top of effectively a net neutral ISP creates very different incentives. IMO, in such a case you really have net neutrality by default as the wire providers would not block or prioritize content. The pseudo ISP's might prioritize traffic, but would be facing very different economic incentives.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

Whatever favors the sponsors of their political ideals.

devindotcom 8y ago

Sorry to hijack but if you're curious about the specifics of this amazing argument, I wrote a long article about it a little bit ago: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-brutal-education-in-net-neutrality/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/supreme-court-nominee-bret...

sbov 8y ago

If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us? Well, it's online, user-submitted content, so CDA 230 would seem to apply, whose whole point is to allow editorial control without liability.
- twtw 8y ago
  As I understand it, that is not the "whole point" of cda 230. CDA 230 gives providers immunity from being treated as publisher when they host user submitted content, and as such doesn't apply when the provider embraces the role of publisher by editorializing content. Perhaps I misunderstand cda 230.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I think you do misunderstand, though in a way which is common when people forget (or never knew) the context in which it was adopted. Prior to CDA 230 (and still, in other media not subject to the CDA 230 safe harbor) exercising editorial control was what differentiates between a distributor who has notice-based liability for various unlawful content (meaning, roughly, they are responsible if they know about it and do nothing), and a publisher who has strict liability (and is therefore liable even if they don't know about it.) In the debate leading to the adoption of CDA 230 the fact that this situation discouraged hosts from making best-effort attempts to eliminate unwelcome, including unlawful, content for fear of triggering strict liability was raised, and the desire to enable this kind of best-effort elimination of “objectionable and inappropriate” content is an explicitly-stated policy goal in Section 230(b). Th actual safe harbor provision, Sec 230(c) is titled Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. The idea that it isn't to enable to the host to affirmatively take action to prevent relaying content that might be offensive is...not well supported.

marcoperaza 8y ago

Are you also opposed to Google and Facebook exercising editorial control of content as a First Amendment right? If not, why should some natural monopolies (e.g. search engines or social networks) get this privilege while others (e.g. ISPs) do not?

JChase2 8y ago
I mean, there's a pretty big difference between not being able to access high speed internet except through something that's subject to financial or other sorts of manipulation, and not being able to post whatever you want on facebook or use google or whatever. Facebook isn't really something I need, plus I can use any number of alternative search engines and email providers. I can't just ignore the two or so providers of internet in my area and switch to dial up or whatever because I pretty much need high speed dependable internet for work. I think that's a pretty big difference there.
- mrlatinos 8y ago
  You depend on a company for a product/service that they provide. Therefore, you can dictate the terms of how they provide it?
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    For a utility like water or gas for which there is only a monopoly company providing it then yes, there are basic standards set by law because society recognizes the economic inefficiency of putting in duplicative physical infrastructure into that last-mile of linkage, as well as the economic difficulty of maintaining non-extractive prices without fundamental competition.
    - mrlatinos 8y ago
      But the internet is not a utility...
      - 8y ago

mrlatinos 8y ago

HN comments are looking more and more like Reddit comments every day. Is your only statement in a response "Jesus fucking Christ"? Great insight...

aerovistae 8y ago
1.) Perhaps consider that the comments on /r/The_Donald, /r/catsstandingup, and /r/personalfinance differ strongly. The idea that all of Reddit's users and all the content on all its different subreddits are generically self-similar is a pretty foolish notion. You may as well say "HN comments are looking more and more like internet comments every day" and it would mean just as much. Your comment only serves to illustrate which parts of Reddit or the internet you personally frequent. 2.) Yes, in response to current US politics, I have little to say beyond expressions of utter disgust and contempt. There is nothing I can do to change the Supreme Court situation. I have no deep commentary or rebuttal to make to Kavanough's opinions, because I think most readers here can already see what I see: that his argument is straight out of a dystopian horror story. They don't need my added pontification to make that clear. 3.) Not every comment needs to be a thoughtful essay. People frequently want to just express an opinion or emotion without wanting to dive into a conversation. Do you harp on people every time they snicker or sigh, saying is that all you have to contribute? I imagine people must be reluctant to make a sound around you.
- mrlatinos 8y ago
  Get a grip, or get off HN
  - aerovistae 8y ago
    And you're complaining about lack of engagement! Fun stuff.

75dvtwin 8y ago

your language reflects how little you care about due process. It is your way, or else everybody else is a villain.

jeffdavis 8y ago

The actual dissent[1] seems fairly reasonable at first glance. It's based on two objections: * "First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule." * "Under the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in [cites 2 precedents], the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market." It really disturbs me how few people bother to look -- even a cursory glance -- before developing a profanity-laden opinion on the subject. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836722&q=U.S.+Telecom+Association+v.+FCC&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=608357842885836...

wool_gather 8y ago
The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject. Official link (PDF) for those who don't like Google: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 8y ago
  GP might or might not, but that isn't relevant - presumably everyone on HN could already mount a decent argument in favour of net neutrality, even without reading the opinion of legal experts. Law is a highly technical field that is full of detail, nuance and far-reaching consequences. There is a good reason why legal opinions are usually long written documents - the issues are complex. Anyone who selects one sentence as a soundbite and holds it up as the thing itself is (in an inconsequential way) undermining the integrity of the legal system. Judges write opinions that are about the length they need to be to express their reasoning. To criticise the opinion, it is necessary to have separate evidence of the result of the ruling or to have read the opinion. Quoting one sentence of the opinion from an article is not sufficient.

dang 8y ago

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially not ranty ones, regardless of how much you disagree with some quote from an article. It leads to markedly lower-quality, flamier discussion.

aerovistae 8y ago
Agreed. Although I suspect that if I had posted the quote with the comment <<"Interesting.">> beneath it and nothing else, nobody would have complained despite it being no more substantive.