7 ms·

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supe

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

mandmandam 2y ago
[flagged]
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Actually it's not true of both sides. Hunter Biden was tried and convicted and nobody is up in arms about it, because he did the crimes and should do his time. If his father has done any crimes he should do the time as well. Most people still think this. The only people who don't are those in thrall to one particular cult of personality.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    What about using the New York election interference law to prosecute people who suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story?
    - vaidhy 2y ago
      That action did not happen in New York.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        It involved suppression of an article published by a New York newspaper, by social media companies with a large presence in New York. You could indict the social media companies as part of a conspiracy charge under New York law, even if other relevant events happened elsewhere. Also, do other jurisdictions have obscure election interference laws they never use? Does Delaware? I bet they do.
        intended 2y ago
        Great! Go ahead and bring the case! Is your objection satisfied though? Do you recognize that dems don’t have an issue with prosecuting people fairly? Or is there another objection.
        hn_acker 2y ago
        Do you mean to argue that the social media websites were legally required to allow links to that article? I don't think that's how the First Amendment works.
        Phrodo_00 2y ago
        Section 230 kind of requires them to do so. Systematically removing links like that could be considered publishing.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        How can a “requirement” be “kind of”?
        hn_acker 2y ago
        No, Section 230(c)(1) [1] protects users and websites sharing user generated content against liability for relaying other users' generated content. Section 230(c)(1) protection is not conditional on whether such websites remove some legal content while keeping other legal content up. > (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker > 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. Section 230(c)(2)(A) separately disclaims the relayer (whether website or user) of liability arising from actions of "good faith" restrictions of access to online third-party content (such as removal thereof) that the relayer considers to be "otherwise objectionable". Content that violates terms of service falls under "otherwise objectionable", and so does content that the would-be relayer is biased against. Section 230(c)(2)(B) disclaims the relayer of liability for actions of granting someone the technical means to restrict access to online third-party content. Nowhere does Section 230(c)(2) act as a legal condition on which Section 230(c)(1) protections depend [1]. > (2)Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or > (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). The authors of Section 230 were Senators Ron Wyden and Chris Cox in 1996. Here's Ron Wyden in 2023 explaining the function of Section 230 [2]: > I wanted to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on why Section 230 remains vital to a functioning internet - and how the Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs in Gonzalez v. Google helped make the case for 230. > First of all, Section 230 is a law that Chris Cox and I wrote. It essentially says that the person who creates a piece of content online is the one responsible for it. > As a result of 230 and the First Amendment, websites are able to take down posts they don’t want — stuff like hate speech and violent content and other muck — and elevate other posts. > So much of the focus on Section 230 is on the big social media companies. But my goal with 230 is protecting two groups: First, users, who want to be able to speak online and to access interesting content. And second, the startups and small sites that want to compete with the incumbents — whether that’s going up against big cable or big tech. Everyone from Wikipedia to Reddit to a knitting message board. > It’s what allows sites to host controversial content without fear of being deluged with lawsuits. Later on regarding proposed changes to Section 230, Wyden says [2]: > There may be ways to change Section 230 to make it clearer about what the law is supposed to protect, and what it isn’t. I’m constantly evaluating ways to make the internet a better place for users. But as the son of a journalist I can’t support any bill that narrows the First Amendment in the process, or that discourages moderation. So far, the proposals on offer violate one or both of those principals. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-remarks-at-section-230-briefing-hosted-by-eff https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-remar...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      I don't know anything about it, but if fraud - or some other crime - was committed by someone in a conspiracy to benefit a campaign, then it seems like that may well be a case that could be tried under New York's laws. If a prosecutor brings that evidence to a grand jury, they indict one or more people, and then those people are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, then I think justice will have been done.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - michtzik 2y ago
    > The left is very happy to hold anyone accountable for breaking the law. Bob Menendez is still in the Senate.
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      And the left has no issue with him being tried, convicted and held accountable.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      He's currently on trial, too.
    - nirav72 2y ago
      Menendez has not been convicted yet.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - the_gastropod 2y ago
      And half of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate have urged him to step down. The two sides are not the same. https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3 https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senat...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kaba0 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kaba0 2y ago
      > Besides, Joe Biden is currently incredibly complicit in atrocities and war crimes Sounds pretty standard US foreign policy, but interestingly it only matters now.
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mandmandam 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        Again, what the hell is 'your point', since it is not related to the thread above you?
        dang 2y ago
        Posting like this is not allowed here and will get your account banned, so please don't post like this—no matter how wrong or provocative someone else is being, or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
lolinder 2y ago
And the other half wholeheartedly endorses convicting a certain candidate of something, anything to keep him out of office. I happen to agree that he should be kept out of office, but I'd rather that be done by putting him up against an electable opponent than by giving his base yet more fodder for their belief that they're being collectively persecuted.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  > And the other half wholeheartedly endorses convicting a certain candidate of something, anything to keep him out of office. There's a strong argument that the candidate in question shouldn't be in the position he was in is because he acted inappropriately. Not just in demeanor and professionalism, but he has several ongoing criminal trials going right now. There is a real possibility that he committed treason. But even so, no one is really opposed to him gaining office if that's what truly people want. At that point, the concern is what the hell is wrong with the people that voted him in, and what the hell happened to get the population to that point. My guess is Reagan.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > No no no. Enough of this 'both sides' nonsense. No, not enough. The lack of 'both sides' is what got us here. You want to know what the hell is wrong with the people who voted him in? They have felt alone, disenfranchised, and cut off by the coastal elite (both sides!) for decades. One party took their vote for granted, the other wished that they didn't have a vote at all. They got sick of being ignored and condescended to, and a freaky sociopath named Donald Trump realized that they were the key to "winning" his perverted game and he finally successfully courted them. They fell over themselves for Trump because no one else spared them a second thought. So no, I'm not going to be done with 'both sides'. The Left thinks that if they just prosecute Trump and get him convicted these people will just go away and we can go back to business as usual, but this populist movement has found its voice and it's not going anywhere. The only thing that's going to stop this from turning tragic is for the Left to figure out that these people exist and have a vote and find a way to speak to them. And the only way I have to help is to cry "both sides". Trump voters are normal people with very real needs, and our only hope to avert catastrophe is to see them and hear them.
paulddraper 2y ago
> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  [flagged]
- dudinax 2y ago
  That's irrelevant since he's committed a number of serious crimes.
- lannisterstark 2y ago
  Except he committed those crimes. There's nothing wrong with punishing people for crimes they committed, especially when entrusted with so much.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  Nonsense. The other half wants him tried fairly. We just expect he will be convicted because his guilt is more obvious than OJs was.

mandmandam 2y ago

[flagged]

sanderjd 2y ago
Actually it's not true of both sides. Hunter Biden was tried and convicted and nobody is up in arms about it, because he did the crimes and should do his time. If his father has done any crimes he should do the time as well. Most people still think this. The only people who don't are those in thrall to one particular cult of personality.
- rayiner 2y ago
  What about using the New York election interference law to prosecute people who suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story?
  - vaidhy 2y ago
    That action did not happen in New York.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      It involved suppression of an article published by a New York newspaper, by social media companies with a large presence in New York. You could indict the social media companies as part of a conspiracy charge under New York law, even if other relevant events happened elsewhere. Also, do other jurisdictions have obscure election interference laws they never use? Does Delaware? I bet they do.
      - intended 2y ago
        Great! Go ahead and bring the case! Is your objection satisfied though? Do you recognize that dems don’t have an issue with prosecuting people fairly? Or is there another objection.
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        Do you mean to argue that the social media websites were legally required to allow links to that article? I don't think that's how the First Amendment works.
        Phrodo_00 2y ago
        Section 230 kind of requires them to do so. Systematically removing links like that could be considered publishing.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        How can a “requirement” be “kind of”?
        hn_acker 2y ago
        No, Section 230(c)(1) [1] protects users and websites sharing user generated content against liability for relaying other users' generated content. Section 230(c)(1) protection is not conditional on whether such websites remove some legal content while keeping other legal content up. > (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker > 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. Section 230(c)(2)(A) separately disclaims the relayer (whether website or user) of liability arising from actions of "good faith" restrictions of access to online third-party content (such as removal thereof) that the relayer considers to be "otherwise objectionable". Content that violates terms of service falls under "otherwise objectionable", and so does content that the would-be relayer is biased against. Section 230(c)(2)(B) disclaims the relayer of liability for actions of granting someone the technical means to restrict access to online third-party content. Nowhere does Section 230(c)(2) act as a legal condition on which Section 230(c)(1) protections depend [1]. > (2)Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or > (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). The authors of Section 230 were Senators Ron Wyden and Chris Cox in 1996. Here's Ron Wyden in 2023 explaining the function of Section 230 [2]: > I wanted to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on why Section 230 remains vital to a functioning internet - and how the Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs in Gonzalez v. Google helped make the case for 230. > First of all, Section 230 is a law that Chris Cox and I wrote. It essentially says that the person who creates a piece of content online is the one responsible for it. > As a result of 230 and the First Amendment, websites are able to take down posts they don’t want — stuff like hate speech and violent content and other muck — and elevate other posts. > So much of the focus on Section 230 is on the big social media companies. But my goal with 230 is protecting two groups: First, users, who want to be able to speak online and to access interesting content. And second, the startups and small sites that want to compete with the incumbents — whether that’s going up against big cable or big tech. Everyone from Wikipedia to Reddit to a knitting message board. > It’s what allows sites to host controversial content without fear of being deluged with lawsuits. Later on regarding proposed changes to Section 230, Wyden says [2]: > There may be ways to change Section 230 to make it clearer about what the law is supposed to protect, and what it isn’t. I’m constantly evaluating ways to make the internet a better place for users. But as the son of a journalist I can’t support any bill that narrows the First Amendment in the process, or that discourages moderation. So far, the proposals on offer violate one or both of those principals. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-remarks-at-section-230-briefing-hosted-by-eff https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-remar...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I don't know anything about it, but if fraud - or some other crime - was committed by someone in a conspiracy to benefit a campaign, then it seems like that may well be a case that could be tried under New York's laws. If a prosecutor brings that evidence to a grand jury, they indict one or more people, and then those people are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, then I think justice will have been done.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
[flagged]
- michtzik 2y ago
  > The left is very happy to hold anyone accountable for breaking the law. Bob Menendez is still in the Senate.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    And the left has no issue with him being tried, convicted and held accountable.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    He's currently on trial, too.
  - nirav72 2y ago
    Menendez has not been convicted yet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - the_gastropod 2y ago
    And half of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate have urged him to step down. The two sides are not the same. https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senator-booker-resignation-9d17cbf4520627be01d4969f05cce3a3 https://apnews.com/article/menendez-bribery-new-jersey-senat...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kaba0 2y ago
[flagged]
- mandmandam 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kaba0 2y ago
    > Besides, Joe Biden is currently incredibly complicit in atrocities and war crimes Sounds pretty standard US foreign policy, but interestingly it only matters now.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - remram 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mandmandam 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        Again, what the hell is 'your point', since it is not related to the thread above you?
        dang 2y ago
        Posting like this is not allowed here and will get your account banned, so please don't post like this—no matter how wrong or provocative someone else is being, or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

lolinder 2y ago

And the other half wholeheartedly endorses convicting a certain candidate of something, anything to keep him out of office. I happen to agree that he should be kept out of office, but I'd rather that be done by putting him up against an electable opponent than by giving his base yet more fodder for their belief that they're being collectively persecuted.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
> And the other half wholeheartedly endorses convicting a certain candidate of something, anything to keep him out of office. There's a strong argument that the candidate in question shouldn't be in the position he was in is because he acted inappropriately. Not just in demeanor and professionalism, but he has several ongoing criminal trials going right now. There is a real possibility that he committed treason. But even so, no one is really opposed to him gaining office if that's what truly people want. At that point, the concern is what the hell is wrong with the people that voted him in, and what the hell happened to get the population to that point. My guess is Reagan.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > No no no. Enough of this 'both sides' nonsense. No, not enough. The lack of 'both sides' is what got us here. You want to know what the hell is wrong with the people who voted him in? They have felt alone, disenfranchised, and cut off by the coastal elite (both sides!) for decades. One party took their vote for granted, the other wished that they didn't have a vote at all. They got sick of being ignored and condescended to, and a freaky sociopath named Donald Trump realized that they were the key to "winning" his perverted game and he finally successfully courted them. They fell over themselves for Trump because no one else spared them a second thought. So no, I'm not going to be done with 'both sides'. The Left thinks that if they just prosecute Trump and get him convicted these people will just go away and we can go back to business as usual, but this populist movement has found its voice and it's not going anywhere. The only thing that's going to stop this from turning tragic is for the Left to figure out that these people exist and have a vote and find a way to speak to them. And the only way I have to help is to cry "both sides". Trump voters are normal people with very real needs, and our only hope to avert catastrophe is to see them and hear them.

paulddraper 2y ago

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
[flagged]
dudinax 2y ago
That's irrelevant since he's committed a number of serious crimes.
lannisterstark 2y ago
Except he committed those crimes. There's nothing wrong with punishing people for crimes they committed, especially when entrusted with so much.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
Nonsense. The other half wants him tried fairly. We just expect he will be convicted because his guilt is more obvious than OJs was.