441 stories
·
7 followers

Beary Flavored

1 Share

Yogi Bear would hate this! Picnic baskets are just chumming the waters. I bet this was an in-tents conversation!

hey! please follow @lamebook on instagram! thank you!

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
24 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Judge tears apart Republican lawsuit alleging bias in Gmail spam filter | Ars Technica

1 Comment and 2 Shares

A federal judge yesterday granted Google's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), which claims that Google intentionally used Gmail's spam filter to suppress Republicans' fundraising emails. An order dismissing the lawsuit was issued yesterday by US District Judge Daniel Calabretta.

The RNC is seeking "recovery for donations it allegedly lost as a result of its emails not being delivered to its supporters' inboxes," Calabretta noted. But Google correctly argued that the lawsuit claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the judge wrote. The RNC lawsuit was filed in October 2022 in US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

"While it is a close case, the Court concludes that... the RNC has not sufficiently pled that Google acted in bad faith in filtering the RNC's messages into Gmail users' spam folders, and that doing so was protected by Section 230. On the merits, the Court concludes that each of the RNC's claims fail as a matter of law for the reasons described below," he wrote.

Calabretta, a Biden appointee, called it "concerning that Gmail's spam filter has a disparate impact on the emails of one political party, and that Google is aware of and has not yet been able to correct this bias." But he noted that "other large email providers have exhibited some sort of political bias" and that if Google did not filter spam, it would harm its users by subjecting them "to harmful malware or harassing messages. On the whole, Google's spam filter, though in this instance imperfect, is not morally blameworthy."

Calabretta gave the RNC partial leave to amend its complaint, but any new version of the lawsuit will have to be very different to move forward. "The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in full on the ground that it is immune from suit on these facts under Section 230 with leave to amend to establish a lack of good faith," the order said.

Judge: Gmail isn’t a common carrier

In January, the Federal Election Commission rejected a related RNC complaint that alleged Gmail's spam filtering amounted to "illegal in-kind contributions made by Google to Biden For President and other Democrat candidates." The federal commission found "no reason to believe" that Google made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions and said that a study cited by Republicans "does not make any findings as to the reasons why Google's spam filter appears to treat Republican and Democratic campaign emails differently."

The lawsuit in the US District Court "is not over" despite yesterday's ruling, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement quoted by Courthouse News Service. "The judge has given us leave to amend and re-file our complaint. This suit represents a crucial action against Big Tech's anti-conservative bias. We look forward to filing our amended complaint and continuing this fight."

While the RNC could eventually take this to a higher court, it faces a tough road in Calabretta's courtroom. Even if Google weren't entitled to Section 230 immunity, all of the RNC's "claims would still be subject to dismissal because they are either not a claim upon which relief can be granted, or because Plaintiff has failed to establish it is entitled to relief," Calabretta's order said.

The RNC, which argued that Gmail should be treated as a common carrier, conceded that its common carrier claim is barred by federal law but asked the court to apply California common carrier law to Google. "However, no court, much less a court interpreting California's common carrier law, has found an email service provider to be a common carrier. This Court declines to be the first," Calabretta wrote.

If the Republican group "were to amend its Complaint to seek injunctive relief only, the Court would likely dismiss the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," the order said. "As Plaintiff has conceded, its only federal claim is not viable, and if Plaintiff proceeded only on its claims for injunctive relief, the monetary hook required for diversity jurisdiction would not be met. In that event, the state law claims would be subject to dismissal."


Page 2

Five of the RNC's claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Those claims alleged a violation of California's Common Carrier Law, a violation of the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, negligent interference with prospective economic relations under California law, unlawful discrimination under US law, and negligence under California law.

The RNC's other two claims were dismissed with leave to amend. One alleges a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. "The RNC argues that Google's conduct is fraudulent because Google misrepresented that it would deliver emails in good faith and failed to, is unfair for the same reason, and is unlawful because it violates other laws as alleged in the Complaint," the judge wrote.

The RNC lacks standing to bring the fraud claim because it is not a Gmail user, the judge wrote. The RNC uses Salesforce and a separate email-delivery platform called Everest.

The RNC claim that Google misrepresented how it would deliver emails "does not explicitly plead fraud" and "must be premised on some separate predicate unlawful offense," the order said. "Only claims which were sufficiently plead [sic] may serve as a predicate claim. Because the Court has not found any of Plaintiff's other claims to be sufficiently pled, this claim must also fail... Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend this claim to establish a plausible theory of unfairness or unlawfulness."

Political discrimination claim rejected

The RNC was given leave to amend another claim that alleged intentional interference with prospective economic relations under California law. The judge dismissed the claim as follows:

The RNC argues that Google's conduct was independently wrongful because "(1) it is political discrimination against the RNC, (2) it is dishonest to Google's users and the public, and (3) Google repeatedly lied about it." As established above, political discrimination is not prohibited by California anti-discrimination laws and so Google's alleged discrimination would not be unlawful. The latter two reasons do not provide a "determinable legal standard" under which the Court could find the conduct wrongful; they rest on a "nebulous" theory of wrongfulness which other courts have rejected.

The RNC "has failed to establish that Defendant's alleged interference constituted a separate, independently 'wrongful act' that would be an appropriate predicate offense" but "will be granted leave to amend this claim to establish that Defendant's conduct was unlawful by some legal measure," Calabretta wrote.

Google said it is pleased about the ruling. "We welcome the Court's finding that there are no plausible allegations that Gmail's spam filters discriminate for political purposes," Google said in a statement provided to Ars. "We will continue investing in spam-filtering technologies that protect people from unwanted emails while still allowing senders to reach the inboxes of users who want their messages."

Google previously ran a pilot program that let political emails bypass the Gmail spam filter. Google said in a January 2023 court filing that "the RNC has chosen not to participate in Google's FEC-approved Pilot Program."

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
29 days ago
reply
Wasn't it the r party that got rid of common-carrier status for ISPs? Choke on the outcome of your own actions, idiots.
Share this story
Delete

A New Age

1 Comment

hey! please follow @lamebook on instagram! thank you!

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
82 days ago
reply
Best to have children when they are 0. Birthing them when they are older is very strongly not recommended!
Share this story
Delete

The armed citizen: A continuing series

1 Comment

Florida man stands his ground:

Dunedin man will not face charges after he fired 30 rounds from his AR-15 rifle at his pool cleaner whom he mistook for an intruder earlier this month, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced on Monday. . . .

Bradley Hocevar, 57, yelled at the supposed intruder to go away. Gualtieri said footage from the pool deck shows Polek went to get a flashlight from his truck while Bradley Hocevar yelled, making it likely Polek didn’t hear him.

When Polek returned to the pool deck, he used the flashlight to fill out paperwork, then turned toward the house to place the paperwork by the door. When Bradley Hocevar saw the flashlight moving toward the house, he opened fire.

The audio from the 911 call reveals Bradley Hocevar fired two rounds through the sliding glass door. Polek ran away after the first two rounds, but the Hocevars could not see because the blinds were closed and they were taking cover behind their couch.

Wouldn’t that sliding glass door shatter? My experience with a BB gun in Ann Arbor approximately 52 years ago would say “yes.”

The 911 dispatcher on the phone and Jana Hocevar repeatedly pleaded with Bradley Hocevar to put down the rifle and stop firing. But 47 seconds after the first two rounds, Bradley Hocevar fired a few more rounds. Finally, about 25 seconds later, Bradley Hocevar unloaded his AR-15′s magazine — meaning he fired 30 rounds in about 90 seconds, Gualtieri said.

Polek sustained minor injuries from shrapnel and flying glass, but was not hit directly by the bullets.

Gualtieri said Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law protects Bradley Hocevar’s right to fire on someone he believed posed a threat to him and his wife.

I just don’t have the energy to look up whether Florida’s Randomly Discharge Your Automatic Weapon if You Feel Frightened law includes some sort of reasonableness requirement.

The post The armed citizen: A continuing series appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
88 days ago
reply
Another entry in the long list of "Why I will not step foot in florida again."
Share this story
Delete

Checking in on the American pro-life movement

1 Comment

Qu’est-ce que c’est?

In a week when parts of the state are getting triple-digit temperatures and weather officials urge Texans to stay cool and hydrated, Gov. Greg Abbott gave final approval to a law that will eliminate local rules mandating water breaks for construction workers.

House Bill 2127 was passed by the Texas Legislature during this year’s regular legislative session. Abbott signed it Tuesday. It will go into effect on Sept. 1.

Supporters of the law have said it will eliminate a patchwork of local ordinances across the state that bog down businesses. The law’s scope is broad but ordinances that establish minimum breaks in the workplace are one of the explicit targets. The law will nullify ordinances enacted by Austin in 2010 and Dallas in 2015 that established 10-minute breaks every four hours so that construction workers can drink water and protect themselves from the sun. It also prevents other cities from passing such rules in the future. San Antonio has been considering a similar ordinance.

Texas is the state where the most workers die from high temperatures, government data shows. At least 42 workers died in Texas between 2011 and 2021 from environmental heat exposure, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workers’ unions claim this data doesn’t fully reflect the magnitude of the problem because heat-related deaths are often recorded under a different primary cause of injury.

Having passed laws forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, pro-life [extreme sic] Republicans are now pivoting to, er, “let them eat heatstroke.”

Speaking of Abbott, he’s lucky DeSantis became a media darling among reporters who got tired of hearing about COVID, because among absolutely brutal competition there may not be a more monstrous person currently serving as a governor in 2023:

Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have expanded vote-by-mail access for people with disabilities — specifically people who are blind or paralyzed and need assistance marking their ballot.

Advocates say Abbott’s veto of House Bill 3159 is a blow for voters with disabilities who have for years called for the Legislature to grant them a way to mark their mail-in ballots without having to rely on anyone else.

Co-authored by state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, and state Rep. John H. Bucy III, D-Austin, the bill would have allowed voters who need help casting a ballot, such as people who are visually impaired or are paralyzed, to do so “privately and securely” by requesting an electronic ballot and using a computer to mark their choices. The bill still would have required those voters to print out, sign and return their ballots by mail.

I won’t try to top this punchline:

The post Checking in on the American pro-life movement appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
92 days ago
reply
The cruelty is the point.
Share this story
Delete

Alito: the Clean Water Act did not authorize the EPA to protect the bodies of water its text was specifically amended to protect

1 Comment

The latest takeover of the administrative state led by Sam Alito was so lacking in any basis in the relevant statute that he lost Brett Kavanaugh, but kept ReaSOnAbLE, mODERATe REAcTionAry John Roberts, so he got his five votes:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the nation’s wetlands by rewriting a statute the court does not like to mean something it does not mean. The court’s decision Sackett v. EPA is one of the court’s most egregious betrayals of textualism in memory. Put simply: The Clean Water Act protects wetlands that are “adjacent” to larger bodies of water. Five justices, however, do not think the federal government should be able to stop landowners from destroying wetlands on their property. To close this gap between what the majority wants and what the statute says, the majority crossed through the word “adjacent” and replaced it with a new test that’s designed to give landowners maximum latitude to fill in, build upon, or otherwise obliterate some of the most valuable ecosystems on earth.

Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the court is remarkably brazen about this approach—so brazen that Justice Brett Kavanaugh (of all people!) authored a sharp opinion accusing him of failing to “stick to the text.” Alito began with a long history of the Supreme Court’s struggles to identify the “outer boundaries” of the Clean Water Act, as if to explain why the time had come for the court to give up wrestling with the text and just impose whatever standard it prefers. The law expressly protects “waters of the United States” (like rivers and lakes) as well as “wetlands adjacent” to these waters. Congress added the wetlands provision in 1977 to codify the EPA’s definition of “adjacent,” which also happens to be the actual definition: “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” Under that interpretation—the one Congress adopted—wetlands that neighbor a larger body of water remain protected, even if they aren’t directly connected.

Why did Congress make that choice? Because wetlands provide immense environmental benefits: They filter and purify water draining into nearby streams, rivers, and lakes. They slow down runoff into these larger bodies. And they serve as vital flood control. In other words, the Clean Water Act has to protect “adjacent” wetlands to serve its overarching goal of safeguarding the broader “waters of the United States” from pollution.

Too bad, Alito wrote: We don’t like the definition that Congress used. It could lead to “crushing” fines for landowners and interfere with “mundane” activities like “moving dirt.” It interferes with “traditional state authority.” And it could give the EPA “truly staggering” regulatory authority. Five justices on the Supreme Court think all of that is very bad. So they declared that, instead of applying the statute’s words, the court would impose a different standard: Only wetlands with “a continuous surface connection” to larger bodies of water merit protection under the Clean Water Act.

This definition—which, it just can’t be stressed enough, appears nowhere in the law—is a crushing defeat for wetlands and their protectors. These ecosystems, as Kavanaugh pointed out, are frequently separated from larger bodies of water by “man-made dikes or barriers” as well as “natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like.” Such wetlands “play an important role in protecting neighboring and downstream waters,” which is why Congress included them in the statute. But under the majority’s new test, they are stripped of federal protection.

As Kagan explains in her concurrence-in-judgment-only, the majority’s move in gutting the very clear statutory authority given to the EPA by Congress is to create an ad hoc “exceedingly clear” standard that in its essence is designed to prevent Congress from making any policy choice a majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t like:

Republican complaints about federal judges “legislating from the bench” were, as with virtually all conservatiove discourse in the US, pure projection. And bad faith statutory interpretation like this and Brnovich is a particularly pernicious and anti-democratic problem, because it leaves Congress with essentially no outs. It’s very, very, very bad.

The post Alito: the Clean Water Act did not authorize the EPA to protect the bodies of water its text was specifically amended to protect appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
HarlandCorbin
121 days ago
reply
Congress. When the r party is minority in all parts again, pass an update that declares ALL wetlands in the USA under the EPA's jurisdiction.
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories