3 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2022
    1. In short, the questions about Google’s behavior are not about free speech; they do, though, touch on other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. For example: The Fourth Amendment bars “unreasonable searches and seizures”; while you can make the case that search warrants were justified once the photos in question were discovered, said photos were only discovered because Mark’s photo library was indiscriminately searched in the first place. The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Mark lost all of his data, email account, phone number, and everything else Google touched forever with no due process at all. The Sixth Amendment is about the rights to a trial; Mark was not accused of any crime in the real world, but when it came to his digital life Google was, as I noted, “judge, jury, and executioner” (the Seventh Amendment is, relatedly, about the right to a jury trial for all controversies exceeding $20).

      Ben Thompson argues that questions about Google's behavior towards a false positive case of CSAM does not pertain to free speech or to the First Amendment. But it does pertain to other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

  2. Mar 2022
  3. Jun 2015
    1. The searches capture only two terms —“ sensation ” and “ senses ”— chosen in hopes of netting published work that considers sensation and the senses as such .

      I wonder what other terms we could trace in the history of rhetoric to see histories of sensation in the field. It seems like "energy" might be another one that Hawhee has traced through animal rhetorics: "Toward a Bestial Rhetoric." What terms consider sensation without naming it as such?