- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DOJ coming after TD posters soon because of... MEMES?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:09 am to HubbaBubba
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:09 am to HubbaBubba
I regret that I have yet one meme to give for the cause..
Well, actually I’ve got a bunch of Memes but let them come.
Are they going to come after us as hard as they did Kathy Griffin?
Well, actually I’ve got a bunch of Memes but let them come.
Are they going to come after us as hard as they did Kathy Griffin?
0
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:10 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Especially when Joe Biden doesn’t have the unilateral power to pass the $2,000 checks.
Do stupid people know this? Do rando's on Twitter have unilateral power to submit a vote in a federal election?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
I sometimes struggle with whether or not you’re a real person
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
These are federal prosecutors, but essentially yes.
I think they are applying loosely interpreted law on purely political lines which is a greater threat to liberty than a goddamn prank meme.
ETA: I'd be waaaaayyyyy less bitchy about this if they were applying this interpretation equally. The fact that they arent makes the left's argument in favor of it soooo empty.
I think they are applying loosely interpreted law on purely political lines which is a greater threat to liberty than a goddamn prank meme.
ETA: I'd be waaaaayyyyy less bitchy about this if they were applying this interpretation equally. The fact that they arent makes the left's argument in favor of it soooo empty.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:21 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:15 am to HubbaBubba
Whoops!
I'm pretty vulnerable there.
Guess I'll have to buy a set of blue drapes to hide in front of.
I'm pretty vulnerable there.
Guess I'll have to buy a set of blue drapes to hide in front of.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:19 am to AggieHank86
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/21/21 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:22 am to HubbaBubba
It's not because of the meme, its the content. It equates to election fraud.
If someone created a meme that said "you can vote for Trump by texting this number" and people believed it, that would also be a crime. This is a scam that duped people out of voting by believing they already had.
Its fraud. Just like the Nigerian bank scam etc.
If someone created a meme that said "you can vote for Trump by texting this number" and people believed it, that would also be a crime. This is a scam that duped people out of voting by believing they already had.
Its fraud. Just like the Nigerian bank scam etc.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:25 am to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
OK, then why arent dems who did the exact same thing being arrested? Is it only fraud when republicans do it because Trump is literally Hitler?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:27 am to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
quote:You mean like birddogging the opponents campaign? or claiming Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax, or the Steele Dossier was not a Russian hoax, or Antifa doesn't exist, or the 2020 election was fraudfree .... that kind of fraud?
It equates to election fraud.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:31 am to efrad
quote:I read somewhere that he did, but I do not recall where I read it.
I agree with you that if he did set up that number, it makes him look a hell of a lot more guilty than if he just made memes. So I would like to see where it says he actually set that number up, or not.
So I simply looked at the ToS for iVision, and it does not look like they record and tabulate data unless you register for the service. The fact that the DoJ had specific data on the number of texts and their content indicates to me that they tabulated the data and thus that he registered for the service.
It is certainly possible that the article I read was in error and that I am misinterpreting the ToS, but I don't think so.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:35 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:32 am to NC_Tigah
I think you could make a fine legal argument that this is fraud. The issue remains; selective application along political lines, and of course precedent. Sorry dems, but you dont get to throw your hands up and say "those dems should have been prosecuted too!" its too late for that, and if I'm Mackey's lawyer, I'm making it known that cases of voter intimidation -much more egregious than this- were dropped.
I'll add that the idea that memes are not political satire and should be policed this way is a very slippery slope.
I'll add that the idea that memes are not political satire and should be policed this way is a very slippery slope.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:33 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:36 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I'd be waaaaayyyyy less bitchy about this if
quote:
I think you could make a fine legal argument that this is fraud.
I think someone is throwing a tantrum from his hurt feelings instead of analyzing what the law provides, but it’s not me Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:37 am to AggieHank86
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/21/21 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
So I simply looked at the ToS for iVision, and it does not look like they record and tabulate data unless you register for the service.
I guarantee iVision have a record of texts received from by that number. They probably just don't supply that information to the user unless the user registers.
quote:
The fact that the DoJ had specific data on the number of texts and their content indicates to me that they tabulated the data and thus that he registered for the service.
Or, iVision has the information and provided it to the DOJ through a subpoena.
It seems odd that the DOJ would not include in the charging documents that this guy signed up for the service, no?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:46 am to boosiebadazz
Are you really trying to "he mad" me in this thread? lol Are you 2? No one is throwing a tantrum.
People are very diplomatically pointing out that you are going to have a hard time proving "injury, oppression, threats, or intimidation" when application is happening on political lines or when bigger cases were dropped by the same legal minds who want people like Mackey under the jail.
This stuff should be troubling to everyone. Who is next? The Bee? Comedians? Was Kathy Griffin's bloody severed head effigy a "threat" to Trump's constitutional right to life? Was Snoop's video mimicking Trump's assassination not artistic expression? Why arent they all in jail like Mackey? I thought we were "liberal".
People are very diplomatically pointing out that you are going to have a hard time proving "injury, oppression, threats, or intimidation" when application is happening on political lines or when bigger cases were dropped by the same legal minds who want people like Mackey under the jail.
This stuff should be troubling to everyone. Who is next? The Bee? Comedians? Was Kathy Griffin's bloody severed head effigy a "threat" to Trump's constitutional right to life? Was Snoop's video mimicking Trump's assassination not artistic expression? Why arent they all in jail like Mackey? I thought we were "liberal".
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:48 am to efrad
quote:There is a big difference between a wild assumption and a reasonable inference from known facts.
you are making a complete assumption.... if it turns out he really did set up the number, I agree. He's culpable. You just have to show me where it says he actually did.
The DoJ has access to far more data than you or I. Given that the charge is (at best) a close call under the statute upon which they rely, I just don't believe that they would have pursued the case if they did not have pretty strong evidence on the "intent" element.
We will see.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:51 am to UpToPar
quote:Not at all. Charging documents are almost ALWAYS kept to the bare minimum in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. They are not required to include all of the evidence that the prosecution intends to submit.
It seems odd that the DOJ would not include in the charging documents that this guy signed up for the service, no?
I agree that the case becomes far less tenable if he did not register for the service.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:52 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:55 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
This dude gets arrested because a couple thousand people texted to a number. How does this possibly get proven to be voted stealing? How is this NOT a free speech issue?
Apparently there's a secret clause in the First Amendment that allows it to be overridden if enough of the masses are stupid enough to believe it.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:57 am to HubbaBubba
Imo I think where this goes beyond a simple meme is in the fine print. "Paid for by Hilary for president".
That does very fraudulent when the graphic is acting as if it was an official ad sent out from Hilary's campaign team. I could definitely see her team wanting to take legal action here.
If this was just a simple meme telling people to vote by text to the random number, and it wouldn't have been acting as if this was an official ad by the candidate's team. I think the guy doesn't really get in any trouble.
But then again I'm just a guy on the internet. I don't work in law, so I don't know for sure.
That does very fraudulent when the graphic is acting as if it was an official ad sent out from Hilary's campaign team. I could definitely see her team wanting to take legal action here.
If this was just a simple meme telling people to vote by text to the random number, and it wouldn't have been acting as if this was an official ad by the candidate's team. I think the guy doesn't really get in any trouble.
But then again I'm just a guy on the internet. I don't work in law, so I don't know for sure.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:18 am to QJenk
if I'm on a jury, and its proven that he set up some level of fake infrastructure to intentionally syphon votes, I'm more likely to convict. Otherwise, the legality of a joke cannot defined by the dumbest person in the crowd. I'm not willing to go there.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News