"My Pillow" Sues Dominion For $1.6 Billion

#101
#101
ClearwaterVol said:
Nobody hands over proprietary information they spent millions to create.
Click to expand...

VW did some proprietary programming, and it passed the certifications necessary to get their cars in the showrooms, and a lot of people bought them. Then a lot of people were inconvenienced when someone caught on and the programming was proven to be rigged and should in no way have passed the original emissions test. It did, in fact, pass because when put in the test mode the emissions program ran as necessary. So, yeah, there is an argument both for and against inspecting proprietary software and hardware, and I'd argue that the right of citizens to fair and uncompromised elections should win every time. It's like buying a radio, turning it on, and sound comes out without actually looking inside to see if it's got the guts and function of a radio or just some kind of noise generator. That's all the certification did. Under controlled conditions a batch of ballots were input and the software in some mode (perhaps one of many) counted correctly - meaningless, but bureaucratically impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#102
#102
AM64 said:
VW did some proprietary programming, and it passed the certifications necessary to get their cars in the showrooms, and a lot of people bought them. Then a lot of people were inconvenienced when someone caught on and the programming was proven to be rigged and should in no way have passed the original emissions test. It did, in fact, pass because when put in the test mode the emissions program ran as necessary. So, yeah, there is an argument both for and against inspecting proprietary software and hardware, and I'd argue that the right of citizens to fair and uncompromised elections should win every time. It's like buying a radio, turning it on, and sound comes out without actually looking inside to see if it's got the guts and function of a radio or just some kind of noise generator. That's all the certification did. Under controlled conditions a batch of ballots were input and the software in some mode (perhaps one of many) counted correctly - meaningless, but bureaucratically impressive.
Click to expand...

That VW deal showed the complete stupidity of our government and the emissions regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#103
#103
VolinWayne said:
Private companies should not be able to sue you and say you are not allowed to talk about a certain subject and if you do we will put you out of business. That is basically what Dominion has done. I feel fairly confident Mr. Dershowitz probably knows more about the law then me and you put together.
Click to expand...

So defamation, slander, and libel should be removed from the statutes of every state and the federal level? Dominion isn't saying that Wood, Powell, and Crackhead Mike can't talk about the election. They're saying that they can't peddle a bunch of nonsense that they know is false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#104
#104
RockyTop85 said:
That’s wildly authoritarian considering the politician isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless he’s a party to one of its cases.
Click to expand...
You think politicians should be able to weigh in on the verdict before it comes out? How is that not jury tampering? Or an abuse of power. The judicial branch should be neutral. Meaning politicians need to stay the eff out of it. Imo, but also I am inclined to believe legalistically as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#105
#105
VolinWayne said:
Private companies should not be able to sue you and say you are not allowed to talk about a certain subject and if you do we will put you out of business. That is basically what Dominion has done. I feel fairly confident Mr. Dershowitz probably knows more about the law then me and you put together.
Click to expand...
Private companies, such as Dominion, have a right to protect themselves from false and defamatory allegations through civil litigation. If Mike Lindell has been telling the truth about their company, then he and his legal team will have a chance to prove that through the process of discovery.

Alan Dershowitz definitely knows more about the law and the United States Constitution than even most attorneys across the country know... but in this one instance, he is arguing a point which has no merit. Private companies are NOT prohibited from restricting free speech. Only the government is bound by the confines of the First Amendment.
 
#106
#106
AM64 said:
Don't "journalists" sidestep responsibility by claiming what they print is opinion? Does that change the perception of people who read their commentary?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with a site labeling itself "the voice of free speech" while also listing speech that will get you banned?
 
#107
#107
LouderVol said:
You think politicians should be able to weigh in on the verdict before it comes out? How is that not jury tampering? Or an abuse of power. The judicial branch should be neutral. Meaning politicians need to stay the eff out of it. Imo, but also I am inclined to believe legalistically as well.
Click to expand...

Politicians have the right to express their opinions just like anyone else. If they use their political office/power to influence the judge/lawyers or jury that's another story. The judge in this case was either an idiot (or worse) had an agenda when he decided against sequestering the jury.
 
#108
#108
McDad said:
it is silly to think voting, recording, and tabulating the votes is some complex endeavor.

I can pay my monthly payroll deposits by phone to the IRS (they've never struck me as on the cutting edge of tech and innovation).
Click to expand...

Agreed, and hardware/software for emissions control in cars works most of the time ... as far as we know. VW simply proved that with a simple command you can change how a certified system actually works. One way during certification and another in normal use, but without step by step analysis of the software it's impossible to know that there is no backdoor and no means to diddle with the count. IF you actually have the old fashioned paper ballots so that you can hand count, any discrepancy should be obvious enough; so screwing with the software should be risky business ... if you know an independent hand count will likely happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#110
#110
hog88 said:
Politicians have the right to express their opinions just like anyone else. If they use their political office/power to influence the judge/lawyers or jury that's another story. The judge in this case was either an idiot (or worse) had an agenda when he decided against sequestering the jury.
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of the sequestration argument. I'm not really sure how it's even possible to truly sequester a jury these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#111
#111
hog88 said:
Politicians have the right to express their opinions just like anyone else. If they use their political office/power to influence the judge/lawyers or jury that's another story. The judge in this case was either an idiot (or worse) had an agenda when he decided against sequestering the jury.
Click to expand...
How is it not interference for Maxine to call for more confrontation than the on going riots if they find not guilty?

This isnt Biden or Maxine making an off hand comment like "things are bad", or "I would have acted differently in the accused's place". This is them making direct statements on what should be the verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#112
#112
LouderVol said:
You think politicians should be able to weigh in on the verdict before it comes out? How is that not jury tampering? Or an abuse of power. The judicial branch should be neutral. Meaning politicians need to stay the eff out of it. Imo, but also I am inclined to believe legalistically as well.
Click to expand...
You think courts should just be able to crank out contempt warrants and jail random people who aren’t even parties to a case or officers of the court? Even if they’re out of state? All because said randos stated an opinion? How is that not an abuse of power? The judicial branch shouldn’t be all powerful. Meaning they shouldn’t have the power to do that.

Wtf.
 
Last edited:
#113
#113
hog88 said:
Politicians have the right to express their opinions just like anyone else. If they use their political office/power to influence the judge/lawyers or jury that's another story. The judge in this case was either an idiot (or worse) had an agenda when he decided against sequestering the jury.
Click to expand...
This case has a jury? Didn’t it just get filed today?
 
#114
#114
Septic said:
I don't think it is hard, hell if we can 2FA banking and fly a drone on Mars - we should be able to check a box on the interwebs securely.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that drone is actually on Mars? After all, you are dependent on pics that someone else claims originated on Mars.
 
#115
#115
GroverCleveland said:
While I tend to be libertarian on issues like this, I have to ask this question:

If I, as a private citizen, coerce someone into silence, am I violating their civil rights? If I coerce a group of people as a private citizen, am I? And assume I am not breaking some law to do so, like pointing a gun or making threats such as burning down one's house with them in it, etc.

This is a grey area it seems. As an employer, if I have an employee espousing the virtues of Soviet communism, I'm probably going to want to bounce them. But what if they are espousing unionization? While I'm not a fan of unions, that kind of speech seems to have protection in some states and on a federal level. However, right to work states get around that by being able to fire for no cause, although that may not be in the best interest of the company.

But have thought of one solution to companies who use their technology to squash speech and influence elections, regardless of side;

Strip them of their patents and copyright protections of their software code. Facebook, want to pick and choose what people can say, boom, your' source is now available for anyone to use to allow those that you squelched a platform. I suspect that would halt some of this faster than one can say "boo."

I would consider an exemption if the company comes out and is open about their position and what they are doing. I lean towards punishing those who lie and claim they are neutral. But this is a slippery slope...
Click to expand...

It seems like election software should be state rather than privately owned. Then the software wouldn't be the proprietary entity of a private company. As McDad and others have pointed out earlier, tabulating votes is damn sure not rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#118
#118
AM64 said:
It seems like election software should be state rather than privately owned. Then the software wouldn't be the proprietary entity of a private company. As McDad and others have pointed out earlier, tabulating votes is damn sure not rocket science.
Click to expand...

I thought that the private sector is where we wanted things, you know - cost and efficiency? Plus, since when did you start trusting government agency's again? IRS, CIA, FBI, McRib have all been in the crosshairs of the Trumpers. Why should anyone believe that you'd suddenly be OK with a .gov agency being in charge of the voting machines? You guys have kind of shot your wad by not trusting the government or now, the private sector.
 
#120
#120
LouderVol said:
How is it not interference for Maxine to call for more confrontation than the on going riots if they find not guilty?

This isnt Biden or Maxine making an off hand comment like "things are bad", or "I would have acted differently in the accused's place". This is them making direct statements on what should be the verdict.
Click to expand...

She has the right to run her mouth just like we do. What's inexcusable is the judge not even attempting to shield the jurors from the **** show.
 
#123
#123
RockyTop85 said:
Oh. Well if people just take my approach of not taking dumbasses seriously, nobody would listen to her, anyways. This thread is as good of a place as any to ponder that (looking at you Frank/Mike).
Click to expand...

I do take that approach, that's why I rarely respond to you.
 
#124
#124
RockyTop85 said:
You think courts should just be able to crank out contempt warrants and jail random people who aren’t even parties to a case or officers of the court? Even if they’re out of state? All because said randos stated an opinion? How is that not an abuse of power? The judicial branch shouldn’t be all powerful. Meaning they shouldn’t have the power to do that.

Wtf.
Click to expand...
For randos on the internet or private conversations? No. How would anyone in the case ever find out.

These are public figures, who made public comments. I believe it's been said multiple times they give up their right to privacy as elected figures. I dont see anyway you could say these comments werent designed to influence the results, vs some random comment on some aspect of the trial.

In this case I believe the judiciary should be able to preserve its neutrality from interference from both the legislative and executive branches. Checks and balances arent being all powerful. Especially considering the courts, above the other two branches, should have no outside interference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top