If you want to... you can easily craft a sudoku puzzle with more than one correct solution.
No you can't, or else it's not a Sukoku puzzle
Actually... I can...
First, because I'm not in any way bound or limited by your conception of what does or does not qualify as "legitimate" sudoku.
Second, because... no matter what you think about it... there aren't any Sodoku police who are going to show up and force me to conform my activities to stay within the limits defined by the International Society of Global Domination over Sudoku Construction rules...
Still, it has an interesting enough history... which might lead you to question the difference... between sodoku (as I used it) versus Sodoku and SODOKU... and the legitimacy of the trademarks filed ( Japan, 2006; U.S. 2010) to "protect" those uses of capital letters... when the puzzles were invented by someone else, and have been published since 1979 ?
Anyway... the number of potential solutions isn't rocket science... however... it is math.
Still, the argument only makes my point for me... as what I'd written was: If you want to... you can easily craft a sudoku puzzle with more than one correct solution. The law is a puzzle of that nature... but, when your lawyer has one solution, and mine has another... only one of them will pass muster with the judge as being the one that is most correct. That your solution to the puzzle "works" and seems to be correct... can be deceiving.
And that's what you are doing by arguing the law as written is not the law as written.
No. My point was never... "that the law as written is not the law as written"... and I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that the law as written... is easily misunderstood... and is often misinterpreted... and it is sometimes deliberately misinterpreted because doing so deliberately can cause others confusion... and that can be exploited. Then it is also true of the law as written, that the law itself can be in error... or written in error to say something other than what was intended... or it might just be flat out wrong legally by being entirely inconsistent with more fundamental legal principle. That's why we have lawyers and court processes... to sort that out.
But, you do have to recognize that "the law"... is all of those things... including the context within which it operates... and all of those elements of process... and not "just" the particular words on a specific page... to be taken out of context and misinterpreted, where and when convenient... for as long as you can get away with it ? And, in the big picture sense... in reality... the law in practice is often not a statement of truth in limits (if you get caught, etc.) anway... rather than an opening argument in a negotiation...
The law isn't unique in that way... as the ability to put some words on paper... really doesn't impose truth ? Nor does putting words on paper saying the opposite... erase truth ? What of the choice to see the words on the paper... understand what they mean... and then pretend they mean something else ? Lying about what they mean ? Did Congress intend 230 to protect backpage... like backpage said it did ?
Prior suits against Backpages.com were indeed dismissed based on CDA 230 protections. Backpages was finally nailed when it was proven that they actively facilitated crimes by, for example, themselves editing ads to relabel underage girls as adults. That made their CDA 230 protection go poof.
Yeah. And that's a perfect proof of every element of my argument... which is maybe made more obvious if you reverse the sequences in yours to put them in proper logical order rather than a strict temporal sequence... with the lie being practiced coming into our consideration before the exposure and unwinding of the lie... and not only after... like this:
Backpage... actively facilitated crimes by, for example, themselves editing ads to relabel underage girls as adults... and Prior suits against Backpages.com were indeed dismissed based on CDA 230 protections.
So... the CDA 230 protections... were used to shield Backpage... and in fact for some time they were used to successfully shield Backpages.com... even though they weren't in fact acting as that "transparent conduit" that the law intends and requires in order to extend the benefit of its protections ? And there's that Casa Blanca moment... when you are shocked, shocked... to learn that the Backpage.com guys were LYING ? Gasp. Yeah... that whole assumption of good faith thing... doesn't really work ?
In the wake of the events re Backpages.com... we're now supposed to believe that... they were the only ones found utility in seeking protection under the law... falsely... while those seeking that protection were not operating in good faith ?
Was I just not clear in pointing it out... that MOST of the issues we see in play today... are of the exact same nature... as the protections of the law are claimed FALSELY and as if by right... even independent of meeting the requirements in the context that the law itself creates as it defines the precedent requirements to win the benefit ? And, they claim the protection of the law... in spite of the obvious lack of good faith in making the claim ? They're not acting as "transparent conduits"... they're editing the news... censoring it... and obstructing access to information and opinions they don't want you to see. Note, as I pointed out, that is the exact opposite of the intent of the law... which is to facilitate GREATER user access to information... not to empower media companies to censor the news and control and limit public access to information ? The major media companies ARE approaching the law with the same basic morality as Backpages.com... with the same lack of good faith... while lying about it ?
And... that's all of them.
But, Facebook is a special case, still... because of how badly constructed THE REST of their crap is... ? They share the problem all of them have imposed on themselves re 230... but Facebook's entire business model is a practice of fraud...
I'm a bit lost now on what your argument is.
There are really only two paths here one can take.
There Is Not Always Just One Right Answer. Or two.
Don't think I was overly murky in describing how lawyers... or, if the lawyers aren't capable of it... corporate management... need to always see the world in terms of ranges of risks and potentials... and not as black and whites in this or that arguments. There is always more than one way to skin a cat... and you if can't see and understand the many alternate paths there are that might be followed... that's the definition of self imposed risk...
Either one can argue that CDA 230 should no longer be considered constitutional, or one can argue that various publishers of content should not fall under the law for some reason, as the case with Backpages.
There is no logical connection between those two things... that creates any this or that choices.
In the first instance... the elements are conditional... depending on interpretation. I have no problem reading CDA230 and understanding the actual intent... as "facilitating access to information"... while also understanding that it really doesn't at all intend the exact opposite in a repeal of the Bill of Rights... nor does it intend to re-allocate the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court to Internet companies... to have them determine for the rest of us... what is "objectionable"... or to have them remake society in their own image ?
So, yes... if you read it wrongly... and believe that CDA 230 does in fact repeal the Bill of Rights and does intend to empower Google and Facebook to determine, for you, that... you shouldn't be allowed to hear that speaker, or that argument... because they disagree with it and don't want you to see or think about that... so they declare it "objectionable"... and think the law will protect them for doing that ?
Are people really THAT stupid now... that they'll tolerate that simple and obvious imposition of fascism ?
Yeah... IF you interpret the goal of CDA 230 in FOSTERING information flows... as empowering internet companies to limit information flows and censor the public debate... to impose a sweeping bias in access to information that they prefer... then the NAZI's arguing for that have to be prevented from succeeding, and must be made to fail. CDA 230 should no longer be considered constitutional... in the exact degree that error in interpretation is made. And, that error... IS BEING MADE.... mimicking the backpage model.
Following that... there is no OR....
One may ALSO argue that various publishers should not fall under the law... first because the law CLEARLY doesn't intend that it will apply to publishers... rather than to "transparent conduits" of works others have published. Content originators retain the rights and the responsibility for their work... neutral transmitters of others works don't... Just like backpage editing under-aged girls into adults... internet companies that ARE acting as publishers... by exercising editorial control over the information flows, and by imposing editorial bias in the flows... have no insulation from liability under the law...
Either you're a neutral platform... or you're not. And, that's the correct application of the logic where there is a choice that must be made... as "this and not that"... where you can't have both.
Just like at backpage... those who are cheating and trying to hide behind the protections of the law while lying even about the law intending to protect them... they might not be acting in good faith ? And, they might lie about that... and pretend that what they're doing is legal... even knowing it isn't ? There's that Casa Blanca moment, again...
Or, I suppose, one might argue that there should be additional exceptions to the law, but that's more of a moral not legal discussion. So what again in a nutshell is your argument?
One issue is... those companies who are censoring internet content... not in good faith... but in order to impose a preferred bias and limits in access to information flows. And that's pretty simple. They have full unfettered liability... civil and criminal... for those acts that violate others rights...
That is also at issue at Facebook... but there is a separate set of issues at Facebook... that make them a legal train wreck waiting to happen...
A suggestion... perhaps... that Facebook is most likely to be the class representative in a backpage parallel test case... because the case is essentially already won on the basis in OTHER merits... and proving the one fraud... probably makes the other much easier to see and understand ?
|
