Facebook and Twitter Remove Manipulated Video From Trump's Accounts After DMCA Complaint (theverge.com) 202
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Facebook has removed a manipulated video posted on President Trump's account after receiving a copyright complaint from the rights owners. The manipulated video shows a black toddler running away from a white toddler, with a CNN chyron reading "terrified toddler runs from racist baby." The original video, which went viral last year, sees the total opposite, with the two toddlers running toward each other on the sidewalk so they can hug.
Facebook took the video down after "one of the children's parents lodged a copyright claim," according to CNN. A Facebook representative confirmed to The Verge that a complaint was received by the rights holder. It had more than four million views by the time Facebook removed it, according to CNN. Jukin Media, a third-party company that often acquires the rights from people to viral videos, told CNN that "neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the President permission to post the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized usage of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without valid fair use or other defense."
Jukin Media has also filed a copyright claim complaint to Twitter, according to a statement posted on the company's account. While Twitter labeled the video as "manipulated media," it was still active on the President's account until Friday evening. Twitter has since taken down the video due to the DMCA notice from Jukin Media. "Per our copyright policy, we respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives," a Twitter spokesperson told The Verge.
Facebook took the video down after "one of the children's parents lodged a copyright claim," according to CNN. A Facebook representative confirmed to The Verge that a complaint was received by the rights holder. It had more than four million views by the time Facebook removed it, according to CNN. Jukin Media, a third-party company that often acquires the rights from people to viral videos, told CNN that "neither the video owner nor Jukin Media gave the President permission to post the video, and after our review, we believe that his unauthorized usage of the content is a clear example of copyright infringement without valid fair use or other defense."
Jukin Media has also filed a copyright claim complaint to Twitter, according to a statement posted on the company's account. While Twitter labeled the video as "manipulated media," it was still active on the President's account until Friday evening. Twitter has since taken down the video due to the DMCA notice from Jukin Media. "Per our copyright policy, we respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives," a Twitter spokesperson told The Verge.
Fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both parody and political commentary are often "fair use". T has the money to fight such in courts, but most regular folks subject to dodgy copyright claim take-downs don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
Now that's an interesting argument. I'm not sure if it would qualify as an electoral ad given that the campaigns aren't really in swing yet, and that twitter could claim they weren't advertising for the opposition but merely expressing their opinion about his statement. But it sure would be fascinating to watch it play out in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the FEC can't even achieve a quorum to authorize an enforcement action [fec.gov].
You wanted an election with no rules, you've gotten an election with no rules. Stew in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a thing of beauty if Trump crushed Juukin Media. Sadly I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time someone's pulled this on one of his meme tweets and he seems to have done fuck-all about it thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
He could fight it, and possibly win, but he gains more for his reelection campaign by not doing so, and that's the whole point. A sarcastic video that points out how insane and stupid the left is, followed by the left providing irrefutable examples.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh MAN I am just in stitches. What a joker that president is! So funny and creative! Just the right wing memeing its way to excellence! How our nation yearns for such classics as "racist baby" here at this point in time. Liberals are so stupid just not getting such funny jokes from the president's fucking twitter account.
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The calls of racism based on the video are already happening.
From whom? The non-base see the video as obvious satire, while the base never see racism in anything (other than reverse-racism).
a vote for him is a vote against the corrupt establishment.
It's interesting that a vote for the incumbent is cast as a vote against the establishment. Tinges of Orwell.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, tinges of Orwell [time.com], indeed.
"What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening," Trump said.
For some, the quote immediately recalled a line from Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
Yes, just, anything you see and read is false. The entire media is out to get him.
FSM; get a grip.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
It's interesting that a vote for the incumbent is cast as a vote against the establishment. Tinges of Orwell.
You're making the mistake of assuming that the incumbent president is the establishment. This is demonstrably not so. There are far more congress critters, senators, lobbyists, and other miriad parasites than there are presidents. And the majority of them have made it quite clear that they despise him. Even many member of his own party barely tolerate him. So yeah, a vote for him is absolutely a vote against the establishment.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
I can't imagine how you could think that Canada is a swing state, but I will defer to your expertise.
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except CNN specifically did not do that, when the picture was news they focused on the two children running together.
So possibly you meant to say that" the messages behind the manipulated video is that Trump is so warped he would take a perfectly innocuous, and even uplifting video, and twist it to accuse CNN of bias.
Since I believe the rather simple facts of the matter align more with that interpretation (ie it was Trump who posted a doctor video not CNN) than yours.
I don't give a fuck why he operates the way he does, he's supposed to be the president of the god damn United States, not self aggrandizing turd thrower but apparently he has succeeded in making his particular brand of insanity appear normal, so much so that others are now at fault for not 'rolling with it'. Yeah pass.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's clearly established now that the narrative around CNN misrepresenting reality is firmly and soundly grounded in solid fact.
It's not as though there's a shortage of evidence. For example, take just one brief exploration:
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
Perhaps the satire is intended to remind people not to trust CNN, or to upset idiots that don't recognise satire, or to create news stories about Trump attacking CNN, about Trump's campaign creating satire, about the inability of people to recogni
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals are so stupid just not getting such funny jokes
They're stupid if they don't realise it's satire, whether they find it funny or not.
Should we include you in that group?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, we should definitely police the internet and only allow *funny* jokes.
Great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
You heard that because some asshat who peddles in 5 second soundbites to gain your vote told you that.
Totally. As opposed to all the incredibly detailed and nuanced analysis we see of President Trump's statements, such as the coverage of his "very fine people on both sides" comment. Clearly the media was totally biased against Obama, but absolutely loves Trump.
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think it works that way. Just because something is used in a parody, doesn't mean you get fair use protection.
If we accept that this is actually a parody, and not just a fake video, the it is a parody of a CNN broadcast. Their use of the chyron style and CNN logo would fall under fair use.
Had they added copyrighted music, that wouldn't fall under fair use. It's the 'scary movie' series still needs to license music used in their parody films.
The video, like the music, is protected by copyright and does not fall under fair use as they're not making a parody of the video, they're making a parody of a CNN broadcast.
Fair use is complicated, but not in this case.
That's the difference between parody and satire (Score:5, Informative)
Parody is poking fun at a specific thing. In order to make fun of the thing, you have to imitate it. Therefore parody is a defense against copyright and trademark claims *by CNN*. That's because it would be impossible to parody CNN without imitating CNN.
To parody CNN it is NOT necessary to use this particular video that is unrelated to CNN. If the video of the kids were somehow tied to CNN maybe you could make a case. (For example if CNN repeatedly featured the video, gushing over it, and that's how the video became popular).
As far as I know, the original video is not associated with CNN, so parody of CNN is no excuse for copying it without permission. Whoever made the parody of CNN could made their own video of two kids, or bought rights to one for a couple hundred bucks.
So then someone says "we're doing a parody of the broader social blah blah videos of kids and cats". Poking fun of broad social trends is satire, not parody. You can't steal someone's work for satire. You have to make your own video of kids if you want to make fun of "videos of kids".
Re: (Score:2)
But that said, the babies in the original are generic enough (nothing to distinguish them from other babies) that you could've hired any two babies and made your own parody video. No need to digitally manipulate the original. I'm inclined to side with not fair use for that reason. One of the metrics used for
Re: (Score:2)
> did they put a CNN banner on the parody version or something?
Yes. The point of rhe video is that CNN will claim ANYTHING is racist.
Right. Sorta. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. Well ...
That means they don't reach fair use by that particular route, by the most obvious claim - parody, because it's parody of CNN, not parody of the kids.
That is, the fact that they are parodying CNN doesn't make it fair use of the non-CNN video. BUT it also doesn't stop the use from being fair for other reasons. One would need to consider at least the four statutory factors of fair use, which are a murky balance. Fair use is like porn - once you learn what it is (and isn't), you can normally tel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> This was not parody it was satire. There is a difference
There is indeed a difference. Parody is when you are making fun of the specific thing you are copying. In this case, they are making fun of CNN with a copy of CNN's chyron.
> although satire is still protected speech (even more so than parody
Satire is NOT protected from copyright and trademark claims, simply because you can satirize without copying another person's work. Parody *requires* copying the other person's work in order to make fun o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to tell people "learn the difference", perhaps you should.
Parody is when you mock something by making a ridiculous imitation of the thing you are mocking. See all of Weird Al Yankovich's songs for good examples.
Here, they use the CNN logo and chryron to imitate a CNN broadcast in order to mock CNN. It is a parody of CNN.
Satire comments on the state of the world generally, NOT commenting on the thing being imitated.
Because it's a parody, they are protected from claims about the copyright and
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but IIRC "Fair Use" is a defense against copyright infringement - it only really comes into play *after* you're sued, and you admit to the "crime", but claim Fair Use. So the president could still claim fair use, but he'd have to do it in court, convince a judge, and risk losing.
Also IIRC using the work for commercial gain (in this case, the 2020 presidency) counts against fair use, so perhaps the copyright holder could argue commercial gain, and try to convince the judge of it. The defendant would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
Parody use has to be clear. In this case, many T supporters very likely believe it's a legitimate video, which would mean it doesn't qualify
That's a ridiculous argument. There are millions of people who take articles from The Onion at face value. According to you, the onion therefore doesn't qualify as parody/satire.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is indeed ridiculous, but we should also remember that in most cases we usually have a context attached to something that tells us that it's parody/satire.
The Onion Onion only do parody och satire articles, so it should be obvious to anyone - but if there are millions of people who take their articles at face value humanity is doomed.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
but if there are millions of people who take their articles at face value humanity is doomed.
It isn't as bad as it seems. I was spitablling, but let's assume that "millions" means 3 million. Out of a total internet connected population of 4.6 billion, that's a mere 0.6%
I suspect that the actual percentage of people who would mistake onion articles for truth is far higher, while their readership is far lower. Still, it nicely demonstrates how large numbers can be misleading without context. A good lesson for anyone discussing statistics.
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parody [merriam-webster.com] requires that you imitate the work of the original author to absurd effect. Here, the original author is not CNN, and the original work is simply a video of the two children hugging. It's a poor fit.
Satire [merriam-webster.com] is what you're going for, but satire is generally not fair use [copyrightalliance.org].
I don't know why you people are harping on fair use to prevent a DMCA takedown. It's a hollow claim [eff.org] that can't prevent the takedown and as a practical matter can't be used to punish the DMCA claimant. So good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or [cornell.edu]
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
From your own article:
"Satire, on the other hand, even when it uses a creative work as the vehicle for the message, offers commentary and criticism about the world, not that specific creative work. "
The video in question is not a commentary on "the world"; it is a commentary on the works of CNN. Granted, it's not a commentary on their coverage of the SPECIFIC video in question, but it still isn't a commentary on social trends, politics, or the world at large. Ergo it doesn't fit neatly into either of the
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the source video is not the work of CNN. It cannot be a parody of that video by the terms of the very contrast that you cite, "offers commentary and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm still not 100% sure you're correct, but both of your comments were intelligent and informative, and made me consider aspects of the issue which I would not otherwise have thought of. You probably won't get an informative mod, but you absolutely should.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to argue that video (already broadcast in countless memes)... is protected by copyright
You're confusing copyright with trademark. You can lose trademarks by failing to defend them. No so with copyright. You can allow a billion people to use your copyrighted material without attempting to enforce your rights, then prohibit the billion-and-first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to argue that video (already broadcast in countless memes)... is protected by copyright
You're confusing copyright with trademark. You can lose trademarks by failing to defend them. No so with copyright. You can allow a billion people to use your copyrighted material without attempting to enforce your rights, then prohibit the billion-and-first.
One clarification: If you publicly announce that your content is free for anyone to use, you may not then bar the billion-and-first from using it, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. But just failing to stop them from doing it doesn't imply that you've stated an intention to allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
To wit, Stairway to Heaven. Published in 1971. Copyright infringement suit brought in 2014 against Led Zeppelin [npr.org]. Copyright lawsuit concluded in 2020 on grounds that had nothing to due with the 43 years of intervening use. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) [wikipedia.org] put that sor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that means I can use Linux without worrying about copyright
Do you worry about copyright? How has copyright stopped you from using Linux? Pretty much the only thing the GPL stops you from doing is copying linux and changing the name to tlhInganux, then claiming you wrote it. Bad example.
Re: (Score:2)
(already broadcast in countless memes)
Irrelevant - for instance, films are broadcast in thousands of cinemas and into millions of homes, but retain their copyright.
(where the supreme court has already ruled there is no expectation of privacy)
Irrelevant, the expectation of privacy is entirely orthogonal to copyright.
I'd say good luck enforcing a copyright you never bothered about before because "I don't want Trump to use it but everyone else can".
Choosing not to enforce your rights again random anonymous meme creators on the internet in no way prejudices your right to prevent others from using your material.
Plus of course you don't know whether the rights have previously been enforced or not - it's quite likely that they have, for instance in charging
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, making a fair use occurs after, and only after, a judge rules the one specific instance as a fair use.
That said, the judge will rule based on the Four Factor test. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be clear how a judge will rule.
But make no mistake, even if it qualifies plain as day under the four factor test, it is still not a fair use until after a judge says so.
So it isn't a fair use now, but if taken to court, here are the factors a judge will use:
1) the purpose and chara
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a lawyer, but have been watching copyright for a long time, and is often discussed since the beginning of Slashdot really.
When possible, the Supreme has given wide latitude (usually) to the notion of fair use. Also note SCOTUS has consistently protected free speech rights.
The questions that will be asked is that is the copyright holder been deprived of any income from the use? I think not because it's a grainy small video used that otherwise would be unknown to everyone. Also the clip has been molded into a news parody announcement from CNN. Couple that with that it is political speech in normal times it would be political speech and a likely slam dunk for the case for fair use.
I say in normal times, because this week we saw a couple of decisions from the Robert's SCOTUS that seems to play more to the crowd outside and not conservative logic. In that light it's entirely possible that the court finds a way to squash the President's video.
My thoughts on this is Trump will just let go of it at this point. But if the media spends two weeks and blows it up into how Trump is a copyright lawbreaker then he would take it on. Then suddenly everyone gets a lesson about copyright.
This would not necessarily.be a bad thing(TM). I clap with glee at this prospect because we might would see real copyright reform. Trump is exactly the type of person who would pull us out of onerous term lengthening copyright treaties if he felt the process is slanted wrong. Not to mention the DMCA would be put under a microscope.
This is another thing people should put in their calculations about Trump. Rather than universally dismiss everything about him, ask the question about Biden. Would Biden post a funny clip with two toddlers to Twitter? Would Biden sign into law on some Friday night DMCA 3.0 that can be used against creators of dumb funny memes that would send them to jail, under the guise of protecting copyright but really to silence an opponent?? In a fashion like what happened to Dmitry Skylarov??
I know that's been a top priority for me is free speech. Along with many other early Slashdotters. People need to ask themselves if those groups marching around truly believe in free speech. I think not with the amount of "cancellations" we have going on now. Not to mention everything being demolished in order to "not offend."
Messed up (Score:2, Interesting)
As seen from the EU, your country looks much messed up by the division into countless groups that hate each other so much. It's never going to work.
Trump supporters are so deep into the failure that is his politics that they cannot admit their mistake. They have to keep doubling down at an increasingly absurd cost (like their job, their health, their education). And on the other side, it's a big game of being more catholic than the pope. Everything is now racist and is the pretext for virtue signaling (like
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't ever export that shit to Europe, we don't need that.
We got it from Europe. Thanks for that.
Re:Messed up (Score:4, Interesting)
We got it from Europe. Thanks for that.
You did indeed, or rather Europe sent it all over to you. It all stems form the puritans and their mindset.
The puritan mindset is that there is Right and Wrong. Sin is Wrong and if you Sin you are going to hell. Mass murder is on the same footing as as stealing to feed your hungry family, it's a sin so you're going to hell to be tortured for eternity. The mindset removes ALL shades of grey, though interestingly it has a different manifestation on the crazy right and loony left.
On the crazy right, it's the party that's RIGHT. If you disagree with the party it's a sin and you'll burn in hell. This is why to the crazy right Trump and the party can do no wrong no matter how awful they are and how much they swing around.
On the loony left it's the idea that's RIGHT. If you disagree with the idea it's a sin and you'll burn in hell. This is why the loony left attack each other when they aren't using the "correct" minute variation of whatever the current idea is.
This is why "RINO" is a term (you need to exclude someone from the party before attacking them because the party is RIGHT) but "DINO" isn't because it's fine to tear into people in the same party with subtly different views because according to Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, the council of 1879 are heretics.
To prove my point, I'm very likely to get down modded by some people on the crazy right because I have sinned, gonna burn in hell and blasphemy must be suppressed (I don't agree with the party). Whereas the loony left don't mind this particular sort of thing (the looniest lefties I knew thought the People's Front of Judea was hilarious; self awareness or lack of it, you decide).
Sure, but... (Score:2)
I absolutely don't disagree with you that America has it's dysfunctions but maybe look to your own backyard for your own as well. Every time something vaguely controversial happens in France you have throngs of people hitting the streets as if only they can stave off the end of civilization. What the people in France will protest over (and cause massive economic disruptions over) most other countries take in stride as the democratic process.
Shit, France recently had massive protests allot like what the US i
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my point didn't need massive exaggerations and outright false hoods to back it up thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
We've left the EU.
We're out of the EU.
The UK is not in the EU.
I've campaigned for that since the '90s, I voted for that and too fucking right I'm celebrating it.
I'm going to enjoy reminding you of it too. We told the EU to fuck off and they're not happy about it, and that's bloody fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, you fucked us. I'll remind you of that every time some brexit induced calamity befalls us.
Re: (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/despitebre... [twitter.com]
Read it and weep.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping to recover some of the money I've lost already if there is a no deal at the end of the month and the Pound crashes. It will only be a small fraction but still...
Pro tip for humorless jerks (Score:2)
For you humorless jerks who don't know when you're being trolled, I have this advice. The video was a satire to show how outlets like CNN can twist and creatively edit a video to mean something completely different. Note that at the end of the video, this fact was revealed. This isn't a matter of anyone trying to pass it off as genuine and then claiming it was a joke. It's made crytstal clear right there in the video that it's a joke! If you're too thick to figure this out on your own or are so gullibl
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same lame excuse used by the racist/misogynist guy who tells an offensive joke in front of a minority person and then attempts to justify it by saying "you're too sensitive, can't you take a joke?" That crap doesn't work any more.
Oh wait, you are that guy! I knew I smelled something rotten when I read your post...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Just another part of his plan (Score:2)
That his video also violates copyrights must have been part of the plan as it obviously gets him another free ride on the media's merry-go-round.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That must be a very big portrait.
Re:Che Guevara portrait is copyrighted too (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is no longer under copyright -- look at the date on the article.
What's more, at the time of the ruling the copyright term actually had expired The ruling was based on the legal doctrine called moral rights [wikipedia.org], which protect an artist's reputation and artistic intent *even after the normal copyright has expired or been transferred*.
Re: (Score:2)
Photograph: First use + 25 years
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd actually read what I'd written you'd know that legally recognized "moral rights" do not expire when the conventional copyright does.
In most countries, if a copyright on the work of a living artists expires others are free to reproduce that work, but not use it in a way that disparages the artist.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that "moral rights" are just about the most anti-free speech concept I've ever heard of.
Then you've never heard of many anti-free speech concepts.
Free speech isn't about speech you like, it is about speech you don't like.
Possibly, but this has nothing to do with free speech, but with copyright laws. Try to argue with free speech in a copyright case in the US; we'll see how it influences the judgment in the US.
He lacks a STFU neuron (Score:2)
He enjoys poking sticks into social and political beehives regardless of topic. Sex, politics, religion, racism, underwear brand, baby ugliness, you name it; he'll go there if he spots an active beehive.
Re:He lacks a STFU neuron (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, because it stops people from noticing that his daughter committed the same offence that he accused Clinton of doing. [washingtonpost.com]
Ask Kara Young (Score:2, Insightful)
> Jesus, how much of a fucking low life would you have to be to vote for this racist?
Ask Kara Young (his GF before Melania).
I'm curious though. Why is it that for forty years, when he was a very high profile person donating a lot of money to liberals, did we never hear a peep about this "racism"? It's not like he's me to spotlight.
Maybe after 40 years he suddenly became a racist when he said:
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumven
PS - fuck Trump (Score:2)
PS - fuck Donald Trump. He's totally unqualified for the office. He lacks the knowledge, lacks the moral character, and lacks the unifying spirit that the country needs right now. If you haven't guessed, I don't like Trump.
And when you go around calling everyone you don't like a racist, pretty soon people figure that out. They figure out that when you say "racist", that means "somebody I don't like". Which then robs us of the ability to confront actual racists. When you say "racist" when you really mea
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe after 40 years he suddenly became a racist.
Like it took Harvey Weinstein 40 years to become a rapist.
Maybe people are just paying more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this "we"? YOU might not have heard about Trump's racism but it was in the news several times, especially related to his rental policies. It has been more broadly reported since he took the presidency, but so what? That's what you would expect since he moved up from carnival barker.
Re: Trump is such a racist clown (Score:2)
What is your motivation for doing so?
Re: Trump is such a racist clown (Score:2)
Re: Womp womp (Score:2)
This is a story about how they did do that.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN issued a copyright strike...
You're already wrong.
Re:haha fuck drumpf (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the old and tired "I was only joking" excuse after a fuckup.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part of this is that Trump actually thinks it's funny. By itself, the video isn't funny. 'A white baby chasing a black baby' isn't actually funny. It's the context (today's racial problems cropping back up all over again) that makes anyone look at this at all. But, to me, that's the worst part of this. In light of all that's going on with racial descrimination (not just white people descriminating), the leader of the free world choses to post something to stoke the fire.
What a complete, and i
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, screeching in polorized, finger-pointing fool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you couldn't figure out it was satire on our own, you need a keeper for our own safety.
(And satire is protected fair use, but at this point, the reelection campaign benefits more from letting it be removed and letting the TDS [wikipedia.org] suffers whine about how stupid they are because they can't recognize satire when it's on its knees giving them a blowjob.)
Folks like you are Trump's guarantee of being reelected. So keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:3)
The sad thing was the he found it laughable that anyone would vote outside their racial identity - I don't think of him as an "identity politics progressive" guy.
He was basically falling back on his experience of what works in Wilmington.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tough one though. On one side you have probable copyright infringement and Trump, and on the other you have Jukin Media.
How do we engineer a loss for both sides?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple rule: Never post footage of children if you don't have the explicit permission of their parents or custodians!
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. The parents allowed that video to go viral, they could've stopped it then.
Can't go bitching about it now.
Disclosure: I've got videos on Youtube of children without the permission of their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
More proof the Left Can't Meme.
Maybe the POTUS shouldn't be creating fucking memes especially ones which divide the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? We abandoned the idea that a president should be dignified way when Bill Clinton played the sax on MTV. That was a long time ago now. The is America! The president is supposed to be a man of the people, not a fucking aristocrat. Damn, Trump is at least more dignified than the modern British royals.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it to be an excellent satire of today's media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you under the impression that there exists out there, somewhere on the internet, video that has not been manipulated?
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Informative)
It most certainly shows that you don't understand a single word of dutch, otherwise you would never have made such a silly post with these links. At the very least you could have used google translate, but I suppose it was too complicated...
Re: (Score:2)
I was well aware of how Antifa was trying to use the symbol before the recent news events came up, no need for Google translate. You could also say they are trying to use the symbol ironically, to take it away from the Naziâ(TM)s or that they are using it as political opponents of the administration. Antifa has cells all over the world that have used that symbol for years and they donâ(TM)t all march in lockstep.
The point is that they use it. More to the point they it use knowing full and well wha
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, then I'm going to translate them for you. And I don't even speak dutch, but just trying to read the actual thing made it obvious that you could
First link: Commemorative site of what the nazis did to political opponent during WW2 and why it's important to fight again right wing extremists. Here is a translation of the first 2 paragraphs of that website:
The red triangle is today the symbol of resistance to fascism, racism and division. Anyone who wears a pin with the red triangle indicates that he is opposed to any upsurge of the extreme right. On this website you can order the red triangle and find more information about the fight against the extreme right.
The symbol of the red triangle comes from the time of Nazism. In the concentration camps, prisoners were branded on the basis of a symbol. Political prisoners had to wear a red triangle. These included resistance fighters, syndicalists, political militants,
So it's basically a website saying "use the symbol that was used in concentration camps to remember that we have to fight against right wing extremism and prevent history from repeating itself". It's a memorial thing, it has loads of photos of old people surviving the concentration camps. Don't you see that using this very symbol to identify your political opponents would be a pretty bad idea? What's make it you look like, if not like the guys who used it for the very same purpose? Are you telling me that these guys (old political prisoners surviving the concentration camps) are the bad guys?
Second link: it's a fucking online store that sells any kind of shitty stickers. Left wing, right wing, bands, memes, and even hentai. What's the fucking political statement of an online store? How is a fucking cash grab relevant to anything any political party is saying?
Third link: This is a book about communism, with a guy telling the story of his great grandfather who was deported to the gulag during soviet Russia. What's the fucking link with the whole antifa story?
I get it you don't like the left and you're for Trump. Good for you, I don't care, it's none of my business. What I care is the fucking intellectual laziness. You can't just believe you are right, you have to check you are right. And where you not, you have to acknowledge your errors. That's how you progress. Not by doubling down with some irrelevant crazy shit.
Believing the others are wrong dos not make them wrong. It certainly does not make you right neither. If you think you can make reality comply to your views, you're going to be hit pretty hard by it.
What I'm saying is stop being voluntarily blind, it's going to hurt you at some point. And that has nothing to do with whatever your political dieal is.
Re: (Score:2)
no need for Google translate
Amazing. let me translate: "I have my beliefs that these links in a language I don't understand somehow support my absurd claim and therefore I'm right."
I really wish the mental health problems in the USA get solved soon.