Buffalo white supremacist terrorist attack update: authorities investigating whether a retired federal agent had advance knowledge of plan

[Keyser_Soze]

@GeneticBlueprint's favorite band released a song just for this occasion

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

He's referring to the Dem that tried to amend the bill to allow platforms to block content created by or in support of terrorists and/or acts of terrorism that was shot down by Republicans.

 

 

I guess it comes down to whether you believe a terrorist live streaming their acts of terrorism counts as promotion. I think that's a pretty simple yes.

The law outlines the requirements for companies to publish their content restrictions. There is nothing in it that would disallow companies from banning content like Holocaust denial or terrorist acts.

 

The entire point of offering the amendments was so people would fall for exactly what you just did. This is very common trick, particularly in state legislatures.

 

There are certainly problems with the law, but the notion that Twitch’s published content restrictions are invalidated by a law that explicitly allows for content restrictions is simply false.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Do not trust the legal opinions of either people included in the linked tweets. Removing acts of violence from your platform is decidedly not viewpoint discrimination, including under the language of the law in question.

His acts of violence are inherently, explicitly, and inexorably a political viewpoint. It might be an exception in that it

Quote

directly incites criminal activity or consists of 

 specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group 

 because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin 

 or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge

but it’s a very lawyerly point to make a distinction between inciting violence against a racial group and live streaming your own actual violence against a racial group. It’s just a viewpoint that even conservatives don’t like (the murders, not why he did it they love that shit)

 

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

@GeneticBlueprint's favorite band released a song just for this occasion

 

 

I respect the hell out of their musicianship but this album is a bit of a snoozer tbh

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

His acts of violence are inherently, explicitly, and inexorably a political viewpoint.

Actions aren’t viewpoints, though actions often flow from viewpoints. The law certainly allows for content moderation, like “no videos of crimes” for example. Twitch’s content restrictions, which were the basis of the removal, very clearly fit the requirements of the law and anybody who is trying convince you otherwise either doesn’t understand it or is trying to manipulate you.

[mclumber1]

When an 18 year old white male does bad, they are a teenager.  When an 18 year old black male does bad, they are a man.  Although I don't think AP had any ill-intent here, it is interesting how we sometimes label criminals.

 

 

[Kal-El814]

31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

When an 18 year old white male does bad, they are a teenager.  When an 18 year old black male does bad, they are a man.  Although I don't think AP had any ill-intent here, it is interesting how we sometimes label criminals.

 

 

Not having overt ill intent is irrelevant, implicit bias is a thing.

 

Anyway love to see the Buffalo police bring this guy hale and whole after dashing an old man’s skull against the concrete during BLM protests. A coincidence I am sure. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The terrorist was on the "radar" of the authorities.

 

Gunman who killed 10 in Buffalo supermarket attack was on authorities' radar

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

New York authorities on Sunday were investigating how a white 18-year-old, who the governor said had been on the radar of authorities since high school, was able to shoot 10 people to death in a Black...

 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Not having overt ill intent is irrelevant, implicit bias is a thing.

This is true, and the AP style guide was actually changed in the years since the Brown shooting to decrease bias. I actually dislike the change to using teenager in all cases as it equates a thirteen year old and a nineteen year old. Just say how old the people are, it’s not that hard.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

OF COURSE HE WAS!

 

 

 

[FreezingColdTakes]

18 hours ago, Brick said:

 

And Ben Shapiro. 

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

When an 18 year old white male does bad, they are a teenager.  When an 18 year old black male does bad, they are a man.  Although I don't think AP had any ill-intent here, it is interesting how we sometimes label criminals.

 

 

My good friend works in this field of study and it's ABSOLUTELY a thing that happens. Minority children, particularly black ones are always portrayed and seen as being older than they are in this society. Wonder why 

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

This is true, and the AP style guide was actually changed in the years since the Brown shooting to decrease bias. I actually dislike the change to using teenager in all cases as it equates a thirteen year old and a nineteen year old. Just say how old the people are, it’s not that hard.

To be fair, there's not much difference in the teenaged brain between 13 and 19. Brains don't fully mature until the early 20's I believe... especially in males.

 

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

Under most laws, young people are recognized as adults at age 18. But emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25. Guest host Tony Cox discusses the research and its implications with Sandra Aamodt, neuroscientist and co-author of the book Welcome to Your Child's Brain.

 

[Ghost_MH]

5 hours ago, sblfilms said:

The law outlines the requirements for companies to publish their content restrictions. There is nothing in it that would disallow companies from banning content like Holocaust denial or terrorist acts.

 

The entire point of offering the amendments was so people would fall for exactly what you just did. This is very common trick, particularly in state legislatures.

 

There are certainly problems with the law, but the notion that Twitch’s published content restrictions are invalidated by a law that explicitly allows for content restrictions is simply false.

 

You're skipping over the important part here. This right here is the meat of the actual bill as written...

 

Spoiler

Sec. 143A.002.  CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a)  A social media

 platform may not censor a user, a user's expression, or a user's

 ability to receive the expression of another person based on:

              (1)  the viewpoint of the user or another person;

              (2)  the viewpoint represented in the user's expression

 or another person's expression; or

              (3)  a user's geographic location in this state or any

 part of this state.

        (b)  This section applies regardless of whether the

 viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or through any

 other medium.

 

So a platform can say "Holocaust denial is against of ToS", but they can't actually stop users from expressing that they don't believe the Holocaust ever happened. This is nothing but both sides bullshit. Basically, Facebook can't ban Holocaust denial, but it can ban any talk of the Holocaust because the latter is not a viewpoint.

[Jason]

Apparently the chuds are already trying to handwave this guy away as a leftist nutcase.

[SaysWho?]

So he believes in the Great Replacement Theory.
 

Reminds me of Everyman/Engel who both believed it. Good riddance.

[Guest]

Just now, Ghost_MH said:

 

You're skipping over the important part here. This right here is the meat of the actual bill as written...

 

  Hide contents

Sec. 143A.002.  CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a)  A social media

 platform may not censor a user, a user's expression, or a user's

 ability to receive the expression of another person based on:

              (1)  the viewpoint of the user or another person;

              (2)  the viewpoint represented in the user's expression

 or another person's expression; or

              (3)  a user's geographic location in this state or any

 part of this state.

        (b)  This section applies regardless of whether the

 viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or through any

 other medium.

 

So a platform can say "Holocaust denial is against of ToS", but they can't actually stop users from expressing that they don't believe the Holocaust ever happened. This is nothing but both sides bullshit. Basically, Facebook can't ban Holocaust denial, but it can ban any talk of the Holocaust because the latter is not a viewpoint.

Holocaust denial is not a viewpoint either. It is helpful to understand what these words mean in the legal sense because we are talking about laws. You certainly could ban false claims about the Holocaust (“6 million Jews weren’t actually killed, it was typhus”) but probably can’t ban awful opinions about the Holocaust (“Hitler was right”). 
 

Like I said, there are problems with the law but the idea that Twitch would be in violation of the law by removing this guy’s stream of the murders is rather obviously incorrect.

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

So he believes in the Great Replacement Theory.
 

Reminds me of Everyman/Engel who both believed it. Good riddance.

Tucker Carlson has made the replacement theory a regular feature of his show.

 

Opinion | Tucker Carlson's favorite conspiracy theory

WWW.MSNBC.COM

---

How Tucker Carlson revived and supercharged the white supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy.

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

To be fair, there's not much difference in the teenaged brain between 13 and 19. Brains don't fully mature until the early 20's I believe... especially in males.

 

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

Under most laws, young people are recognized as adults at age 18. But emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until...

It is true that a brain at 19 is not fully developed. Brain development is not a light switch, where you go from adolescent to adult instantaneously. The same brain at 19 is significantly more developed than the brain at 13, even though an average brain is not fully developed until in your early 20s.

 

But your brain development isn’t the only thing that makes being 13 and 19 substantively different. 50% more years of life experience makes a difference in the level of accountability young people have in the choices they make. 
 

We probably should treat older teens more like younger teens as the delta between them is not as large as the legal responsibilities will give older teens but withhold from younger teens would suggest, but there is pretty notable differences still.

 

I think most of us can recognize this even in our own experiences.

[Ghost_MH]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Holocaust denial is not a viewpoint either. It is helpful to understand what these words mean in the legal sense because we are talking about laws. You certainly could ban false claims about the Holocaust (“6 million Jews weren’t actually killed, it was typhus”) but probably can’t ban awful opinions about the Holocaust (“Hitler was right”). 
 

Like I said, there are problems with the law but the idea that Twitch would be in violation of the law by removing this guy’s stream of the murders is rather obviously incorrect.

 

Twitch could likely get away with banning the actual murders, but not the racist manifesto.

 

Either way, you're wildly underestimating what counts as a viewpoint. Conspiracy theories count as viewpoints here and I don't see how the line could be drawn at Holocaust denial but not, say, COVID misinformation or bigoted views of trans persons being sexual predators or everything revolving Q. I don't see the legal difference between saying the Holocaust didn't happen and saying Trump didn't lose the election or COVID isn't real or 9/11 was an inside job or the Earth is flat or the moon landing was a hoax. These are all easily proven falsehoods, but there are whole communities built around them.

 

In your eyes, what is a type of speech that this law protects? Or do you think this law is specifically designed to not protect anything while sounding like it actually does?

 

To me, the law reads like both sides BS. This site could ban ALL COVID speech, but not only COVID misinformation. Reddit could ban all political speech, but can't ban only Q-related stuff.

 

If that's not what this law does, I'd love to hear a better explanation of it.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Either way, you're wildly underestimating what counts as a viewpoint.

No, I am using actual legal definitions instead of whacky ideas like “videos of murders are viewpoints too” that certain persons are floating  

 

14 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

In your eyes, what is a type of speech that this law protects? Or do you think this law is specifically designed to not protect anything while sounding like it actually does?

 

To me, the law reads like both sides BS. This site could ban ALL COVID speech, but not only COVID misinformation. Reddit could ban all political speech, but can't ban only Q-related stuff.

 

If that's not what this law does, I'd love to hear a better explanation of it.

 

The intent is to protect things which are subjective. Factual claims are *not* viewpoints. You could remove false fact claims, and if a user wanted to sue you they would have to prove that you removed the content because of a subjective position as opposed to the truth which is that you made a false claim.

 

To give a Covid example

 

Factual claim: Covid vaccines kill more people than Covid

 

Viewpoint: Covid isn’t that big of a deal

 

The factual claim is not protected by the law, the viewpoint is.

 

Naturally, there are some pretty horrendous subjective views so that isn’t to say there aren’t many ugly things that come along with this.

[CitizenVectron]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No, I am using actual legal definitions instead of whacky ideas like “videos of murders are viewpoints too” that certain persons are floating  

 

 

The intent is to protect things which are subjective. Factual claims are *not* viewpoints. You could remove false fact claims, and if a user wanted to sue you they would have to prove that you removed the content because of a subjective position as opposed to the truth which is that you made a false claim.

 

To give a Covid example

 

Factual claim: Covid vaccines kill more people than Covid

 

Viewpoint: Covid isn’t that big of a deal

 

The factual claim is not protected by the law, the viewpoint is.

 

Naturally, there are some pretty horrendous subjective views so that isn’t to say there aren’t many ugly things that come along with this.

 

Yeah okay but the law is still stupid. 

[Ominous]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

OF COURSE HE WAS!

 

 

 

 

 

Glad the 2A allows people like this to still legally buy guns. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Yeah okay but the law is still stupid. 

[Ghost_MH]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

No, I am using actual legal definitions instead of whacky ideas like “videos of murders are viewpoints too” that certain persons are floating  

 

 

The intent is to protect things which are subjective. Factual claims are *not* viewpoints. You could remove false fact claims, and if a user wanted to sue you they would have to prove that you removed the content because of a subjective position as opposed to the truth which is that you made a false claim.

 

To give a Covid example

 

Factual claim: Covid vaccines kill more people than Covid

 

Viewpoint: Covid isn’t that big of a deal

 

The factual claim is not protected by the law, the viewpoint is.

 

Naturally, there are some pretty horrendous subjective views so that isn’t to say there aren’t many ugly things that come along with this.

 

I can't find anything in the law that says a viewpoint has to be based on fact, and that's actually the exact grounds on which social media networks were arguing about in court since last year. Viewpoint discrimination has never hinged on the factual nature of the view because first amendment and all that jazz. Have the courts ever decided to allow for the discrimination of viewpoints not based on facts?

 

If that weren't the case, how would the courts ever handle anything related to religion? Do we just treat all religious ideas as facts in court? Imagine the crazy bullshit that would wreak.

 

Again, under the law, Twitch might be able to ban the video of the crime, but not the guy's manifesto. You couldn't ban Nazism without banning all forms of political representation. You couldn't ban racial slurs without banning all talk of race.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

 

 

Glad the 2A allows people like this to still legally buy guns. 

Not that it matters, but do we know if he purchased these guns legally? 

 

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Not that it matters, but do we know if he purchased these guns legally? 

 

 

According to Hochul, gun was purchased legally in NYS but the magazine used was purchased either illegally or out of state as it is non compliant with NYS law. So…both?

[thewhyteboar]

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

According to Hochul, gun was purchased legally in NYS but the magazine used was purchased either illegally or out of state as it is non compliant with NYS law. So…both?

[silentbob]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

According to Hochul, gun was purchased legally in NYS but the magazine used was purchased either illegally or out of state as it is non compliant with NYS law. So…both?

according to the song, they do very different things

 

 

[SimpleG]

Suspect fired 50 rounds in Buffalo supermarket hate crime shooting that killed 10: Police - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

Reported mass shooting in upstate New York TOPS Friendly Markets

 

Robert Donald, 75, owner of Vintage Firearms in Endicott, confirmed to ABC News that Gendron purchased the semi-automatic Bushmaster XM-15 from his shop a couple months ago.

On Saturday night, Donald said agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives questioned him about the gun he sold Gendron.

 

"I couldn’t believe it. Nobody envisions a young man doing this," Donald said. "I mean, who would do this. I’ve been open since 1993 and this is the first time there has been any kind of a problem."

 

 

 

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, silentbob said:

according to the song, they do very different things

 

 

 

Fantastic band, I've seen them live twice. The guy's voice is unbelievable.

[Jason]

 

[SaysWho?]

The sheriff is just calling him by his inmate number

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Fuck this country. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, SimpleG said:

Suspect fired 50 rounds in Buffalo supermarket hate crime shooting that killed 10: Police - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

Reported mass shooting in upstate New York TOPS Friendly Markets

 

 

"I couldn’t believe it. Nobody envisions a young man doing this," Donald said. "I mean, who would do this. I’ve been open since 1993 and this is the first time there has been any kind of a problem."