quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
I think there is a clause that if you are 'reasonably' within ear shot you can record it without any consent.

quote:

§ 23–542. Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited.
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any person who in the District of Columbia —

(1) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral communication;

(2) willfully discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication; or

(3) willfully uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication;

shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in [§ 22-3571.01] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; except that paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection shall not apply to the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.

(b) It shall not be unlawful under this section for —

(1) an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent, or employee of a communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication, in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendering of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication, or to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who, under this subchapter, is authorized to intercept a wire or oral communication, but no communication common carrier shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;

(2) a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or

(3) a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, any State, or the District of Columbia, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

quote:

Twitter said Tuesday that not even President Donald Trump is immune from being kicked off the platform if his tweets cross a line with abusive behavior.

The social media company's rules against vitriolic tweets offer leeway for world leaders whose statements are newsworthy, but that "is not a blanket exception for the president or anyone else," Twitter legal and policy chief Vijaya Gadde told POLITICO in an interview alongside CEO Jack Dorsey.

Trump regularly uses Twitter to heap abuse on his perceived enemies and at times raise the specter of violence, such as when he tweeted last year that if North Korean leaders continued with their rhetoric at the time, "they won’t be around much longer!” Critics say the tweets violate Twitter’s terms of service and warrant punitive action.

Dorsey, who's due to testify before two congressional committees Wednesday about his company's content practices, said he receives notifications on his phone for Trump's Twitter account. But asked if he would weigh in personally to remove Trump from the platform, he declined to get into specifics…

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Twitter says Trump not immune from getting kicked off

quote:

I think they know this would be a huge mistake and that CEO would soon find himself being shown the door if he actually shut Trump down

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Have any right wing protesters ever disrupted a dem nominated SCOTUS confirmation?

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Have any right wing protesters ever disrupted a dem nominated SCOTUS confirmation?

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Have any right wing protesters ever disrupted a dem nominated SCOTUS confirmation?

Not in my memory.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Have any right wing protesters ever disrupted a dem nominated SCOTUS confirmation?

Not in my memory.

And certainly not dressed as a giant penis.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Now his headline is that there is a saboteur in the White House-- based on an anonymous op-ed in the NYT. Catchy headline based on screamingly fake news.

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
Hillary is not President

Kavanaugh is going to be on the SCOTUS.

All in all I would say it's a good day!

MAGA
KAG!