JCaldin
@jaldeez.bsky.social
Are you pippen? No? Then you just popped right up calling him a genocide supporter. Like I said davey boy, you make your ilk look pretty fucking awful and I encourage you to keep it up.
December 17, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Are you pippen? No? Then you just popped right up calling him a genocide supporter. Like I said davey boy, you make your ilk look pretty fucking awful and I encourage you to keep it up.
Coming from a guy who never brought an argument to begin with and just went right to the insults. Keep it up. You just make you and your ilk look worse and worse.
December 17, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Coming from a guy who never brought an argument to begin with and just went right to the insults. Keep it up. You just make you and your ilk look worse and worse.
So many hours I’m just going to start billing in billable years.
December 17, 2025 at 3:21 PM
So many hours I’m just going to start billing in billable years.
But have considered the impact of products liability torts on the Brandenburg test?
December 17, 2025 at 3:18 PM
But have considered the impact of products liability torts on the Brandenburg test?
What does this have to do with incitement or the Brandenburg test? It’s not even tangentially related. Are you just going to start flinging your shit at the wall to see what sticks now?
December 17, 2025 at 3:16 PM
What does this have to do with incitement or the Brandenburg test? It’s not even tangentially related. Are you just going to start flinging your shit at the wall to see what sticks now?
So you can see different standards being applied for different crimes? You think that somehow helps you? Are you serious?
Defamation requires a false statement of fact so incitement must also require a false statement of fact! This is fun!
Defamation requires a false statement of fact so incitement must also require a false statement of fact! This is fun!
December 17, 2025 at 2:59 PM
So you can see different standards being applied for different crimes? You think that somehow helps you? Are you serious?
Defamation requires a false statement of fact so incitement must also require a false statement of fact! This is fun!
Defamation requires a false statement of fact so incitement must also require a false statement of fact! This is fun!
Moreover, removing 230 makes this worse, not better. Because incitement is such a high bar, most statements will be protected meaning companies will be less likely to take heinous but probably legal statements down, resulting in more hate and “inciting” speech being left up.
December 17, 2025 at 2:48 PM
Moreover, removing 230 makes this worse, not better. Because incitement is such a high bar, most statements will be protected meaning companies will be less likely to take heinous but probably legal statements down, resulting in more hate and “inciting” speech being left up.
By ignoring the word “imminent” in the Brandenburg test? I suppose that counts as citing.
December 17, 2025 at 2:39 PM
By ignoring the word “imminent” in the Brandenburg test? I suppose that counts as citing.
That’s why it’s so hard to come up with a slam dunk social media incitement case. The facts to support it have to be so insanely specific.
December 17, 2025 at 2:24 PM
That’s why it’s so hard to come up with a slam dunk social media incitement case. The facts to support it have to be so insanely specific.
Incitement requires imminence. Imminence requires immediacy. A riot hours later? Not immediate, not incitement.
Should I be held liable for saying “I hate Charlie Kirk and we’re better off without him” the day before he was shot?
Should I be held liable for saying “I hate Charlie Kirk and we’re better off without him” the day before he was shot?
December 17, 2025 at 2:16 PM
Incitement requires imminence. Imminence requires immediacy. A riot hours later? Not immediate, not incitement.
Should I be held liable for saying “I hate Charlie Kirk and we’re better off without him” the day before he was shot?
Should I be held liable for saying “I hate Charlie Kirk and we’re better off without him” the day before he was shot?
No their contention was that what you posted has nothing to do with brandenburg. Which it didn’t. Try again.
December 17, 2025 at 1:59 PM
No their contention was that what you posted has nothing to do with brandenburg. Which it didn’t. Try again.
Neither do I, and I, much like the OP clearly, don’t like kids very much. But I don’t go around ranting about how minor inconveniences caused by them are this decadent privilege ruining the youth of the country. Welcome to the insane blueskylum
December 16, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Neither do I, and I, much like the OP clearly, don’t like kids very much. But I don’t go around ranting about how minor inconveniences caused by them are this decadent privilege ruining the youth of the country. Welcome to the insane blueskylum
Traffic is because privilege. Peak discourse.
December 16, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Traffic is because privilege. Peak discourse.
Is that why you have the big shoes, red nose, and makeup on? To piss people off?
December 16, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Is that why you have the big shoes, red nose, and makeup on? To piss people off?
I know, it’s just so annoying when someone comes along screeching about how completely normal things like owning earbuds is privileged and going on a judgy rant about it. Maybe this is a lesson we can apply elsewhere, hm?
December 16, 2025 at 8:17 PM
I know, it’s just so annoying when someone comes along screeching about how completely normal things like owning earbuds is privileged and going on a judgy rant about it. Maybe this is a lesson we can apply elsewhere, hm?
Certainly not Fresh Prince of Donair, Alvaro, or me. You on the other hand appear very mad both at your earbuds and getting called out for the decadence of owning earbuds.
December 16, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Certainly not Fresh Prince of Donair, Alvaro, or me. You on the other hand appear very mad both at your earbuds and getting called out for the decadence of owning earbuds.
Sorry getting called out on your own privilege upset you like this. Oh wait. I’m not sorry at all, this is quite funny.
December 16, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Sorry getting called out on your own privilege upset you like this. Oh wait. I’m not sorry at all, this is quite funny.
Have I ever told you the definition of insanity…
December 16, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Have I ever told you the definition of insanity…
It was 20 degrees outside this morning. Even a 1 mile walk would’ve been unpleasant, and when it gets colder it could be dangerous. But yeah, a heated 4 minute ride is over parenting. That extra commute time makes me a “slave”
December 16, 2025 at 2:26 PM
It was 20 degrees outside this morning. Even a 1 mile walk would’ve been unpleasant, and when it gets colder it could be dangerous. But yeah, a heated 4 minute ride is over parenting. That extra commute time makes me a “slave”
Yeah I’m calling you a liar. You never coordinated fighting them off because if you did, you’d understand how important of a tool 230 is in that process. It’s 230 that takes away the benefit and point of the suit by guaranteeing dismissal as early as possible.
December 16, 2025 at 2:09 PM
Yeah I’m calling you a liar. You never coordinated fighting them off because if you did, you’d understand how important of a tool 230 is in that process. It’s 230 that takes away the benefit and point of the suit by guaranteeing dismissal as early as possible.
That’s not to say they are bad. Toy regulation is necessary to maintain basic safety standards for instance. You need to weigh those pros and cons. A barrier to completion in that case is worthwhile to protect kids.
December 16, 2025 at 1:59 PM
That’s not to say they are bad. Toy regulation is necessary to maintain basic safety standards for instance. You need to weigh those pros and cons. A barrier to completion in that case is worthwhile to protect kids.
Pretty sure it’s the standard “getting rid of 230 will destroy tech monopolies” bullshit. If anything it will increase monopolies as larger entities are more able to weather lawsuits and snap up smaller firms when they are in legal trouble.
December 16, 2025 at 1:53 PM
Pretty sure it’s the standard “getting rid of 230 will destroy tech monopolies” bullshit. If anything it will increase monopolies as larger entities are more able to weather lawsuits and snap up smaller firms when they are in legal trouble.
Damn shame. She hadn’t fully delaminated yet. Feels like an unfinished job.
December 15, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Damn shame. She hadn’t fully delaminated yet. Feels like an unfinished job.
Why are you so aggressive? He was just joking? What’s with you taking everything so seriously?
December 15, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Why are you so aggressive? He was just joking? What’s with you taking everything so seriously?