This week, our first place winner on the insightful side comes from our post about the Romanian government shutting down a journalism project by abusing the GDPR. One commenter insisted it was wrong to treat this as an argument against the law itself, and an anonymous commenter offered a response to that idea:
Granted, this government would have looked for any way to stop RISE.
In this case, they’ve picked GDPR. Reasons for doing so are likely that it affords them the easiest and most punishing method to attack RISE.
Now. Since GDPR is awesome, please advise what meaningful protections it has against being abused in this fashion. Is there a way to throw it back in the Romanian government’s face? Some penalty for bad actors? What is RISE supposed to do when faced with the actions against under the GDPR?
In second place, we’ve got Thad with a response to a commenter who, regarding the CNN lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s press pass, claimed “I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit” (a telling statement if there ever was one):
The judge didn’t.
Guess which one of you gets to make legal decisions?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ll start by continuing with that particular exchange, where the original commenter responded that judges can be wrong, with Thad noted is true, but…
Judges can be wrong, but their opinions are legally binding. Yours aren’t.
Further, “judges can be wrong” is a worthless statement. Yes, it’s true. In the same way that, to borrow an analogy from Ken White, “some snakes are poisonous” is true.
If you’ve been bitten by a snake, and you ask a doctor if it was poisonous, “some snakes are poisonous” is a useless, ridiculous answer.
Similarly, if you’re discussing a legal decision, and you ask if it was correct, “some legal decisions are wrong” is a useless, ridiculous answer.
Unless you can explain why this judge was wrong in this case, you are not making a relevant argument.
(Note: “Show me in the rulebook where it says a dog can’t play basketball” is also not a relevant argument.)
All the judge did was grant a temporary order returning the credentials while the case moves forward.
That is the effect of the order, yes. It is not the substance of the order.
Judges don’t just issue orders without explanation or legal justification. The judge granted a temporary restraining order based on the constitutional justification that the White House failed to follow due process in its decision to revoke Acosta’s press pass. Further, he outlined a list of steps that due process would entail.
The judge’s order was not the simplistic difference of opinion that you’re making it out to be.
The judge issued an order. It was specific and it was grounded in case law. “I think it’s bullshit” does not refute the argument, and your “show me in the Constitution where it says…” deflection demonstrates that you’re either being disingenuous or have a child’s understanding of how constitutional law works.
Put up or shut up, Mr. Coward. Address the actual arguments in the legal case and why you believe they were decided incorrectly, or be quiet and let the grownups talk.
Next, we’ve got an anonymous response to the all-too-frequent refrain that complaining about the government is pointless and if you don’t like it your only option is to vote differently:
I did vote differently, bro. The election being over doesn’t mean the winners get a free pass, regardless of who voted what. If an administration does something stupid, they should be called on it, regardless of the fact that they somehow won the election.
Winning the election does not afford the winning party the right or privilege to be free of criticism. Ever.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner comes in response to Timothy Geigner’s post about a Soundcloud troll impersonating copyright holders to get music taken down. Timothy Geigner showed up in the comments with a rebuttal:
Impersonation on the internet is not a problem.
It’s easy to verify identities online and falsification is unheard of.
I don’t know why Tim would dispute his own post, or why everyone thought it was so funny, but here we are.
In second place, we’ve got Stephen T. Stone commenting on the idea that the government can’t expect to get away with abusing its power:
Nah, it can. It does, probably. It just hates when its expectations meet with reality.
? Government Man, Government Man
? Government Man meets Reality Man
? They have a fight; Reality wins
? Reaility, Man
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more nod to Thad for a comment on our post about Corel managing to accuse a totally legit customer of piracy:
Another outlier! God damn there sure are a lot of these outliers!
And finally, we’ve got nasch pulling an obligatory-xkcd to resolve a discussion about whether “pedantonymously” is correctly labelled a portmanteau, or a protologism, or…
Maybe it’s a malamanteau. https://xkcd.com/739/
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon