Yeah, and defense lawyers are all evil too!
Think before you comment next time. They are Constitutional rights, not Constitutional privileges. If they don't protect the worst of us, then the entire concept isn't worth the paper it was written upon.
I take issue with your "carrot and stick" reference.
A "stick" requires that someone actually have leverage in the situation.
When you're an impotent little bitch who's destroyed his platform market value and people are dropping off it faster than the Titanic was abandoned, there is no threat of a "stick."
:)
(To be clear, this is directed towards you in jest.)
How is the TD readership so dumb?
I think you mean, how are you that dumb that you didn't bother to read the first paragraph of the letter to understand what you thought you should remark upon?
"In furtherance of this oversight, on February 15, 2023, the Committee issued a subpoena to you compelling the production of documents related to content moderation and Meta’s engagements with the Executive Branch.1 In light of Meta’s introduction of a new social media platform, “Threads,” we write to inform you that it is the Committee’s view that the subpoena of February 15 covers material to date relating to Threads.2"
The 10th was the only court to actually decide in favor of standing. SCOTUS did not rule on it because it wasn't argued that they lacked it.
Get your facts right.
"Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative..."
"No. That wasn't what was argued."
Duh? That wasn't argued in front of the 10th because they couldn't do so.
Speaking of bothering to read, perhaps you should do so before responding.
What part of "those things all had to happen before Colorado would've done anything" did you not understand?
What part of speculative acts that may or may not even happen do you not understand? Article III standing requires far more than layered hypotheticals.
Did you bother to look into the Driehaus precedent? Clearly not.
There was no case here. There was no controversy. Every alleged injury was based on nothing more than hypotheticals (and a big fat lie).
That's a far cry from "imminent" harm for a pre-enforcement challenge.
You're responding to a reply which wasn't even addressed to you. Did you even notice that?
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/in-303-creative-by-happily-helping-one-bigot-scotus-perhaps-inadvertently-helped-the-larger-fight-against-bigotry/#comment-3106361
Try that one.
Beyond that, I have neither insulted you, nor relied upon the non-existent insult to argue that you're wrong.
The District Court flatly rejected your claim of standing, as have other, more prolific lawyers. Yet all you come back with repeatedly is "they had standing."
Maybe you should address the actual criticism of your analysis instead of just repeating your conclusion. What a crazy idea!
Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative - as it absolutely was, because "Stewart and Mike" had allegedly already contacted the bigot's business.
In contrast, the ADF argued in front of the District Court that 303 Creative would already be in violation of Colorado law (if they actually made wedding websites in the first place) because of the lie about having prospective clients already inquire.
You can sit there and claim the lie is irrelevant, except that's complete horseshit, as it turned the speculative behavior of independent actors and hypothetical harm into an event which was already occurring.
Read Unikowsky's post FFS. He literally covers this, and includes the court filing snippets proving every aspect of this argument.
Perhaps you should read what Unikowsky had to say on the matter before making the argument he easily refutes.
You're a lawyer, allegedly. Do a bit of lawyering here.
303 Creative did not make websites for weddings at all.
In order for CADA to have come into effect, the following would have to occur:
303 Creative would have to actually make wedding websites.
They would have to specifically have a gay customer approach them - and not the thousands of other website builders (that's just counting Colorado businesses).
They would have to refuse to make the website.
That customer would have to believe it was based on discrimination.
That customer would then have to file a complaint with Colorado.
ALL of those things must occur before Colorado would have possibly taken any action.
A hypothetical built upon hypotheticals and speculation, followed by more hypotheticals, does not satisfy Susan B. Anthony v. Dreihaus.
The standing argument presented here is just not congruous with prior precedent.
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/contrived-cases-make-bad-law
Among other things:
303 Creative never made ANY wedding websites.
303 Creative never turned down anyone for a wedding website, because they didn't make any.
It gets much, much more speculative than that.
Unikowsky is worth reading on this issue. It's pretty clear that the author of this article isn't a lawyer.
If it wasn't expressive, then it wouldn't be called 'political honking.'
We'd just call it honking.
The court recognizes that it conveys a message, but then fails to recognize that doing so is protected by the Constitution.
I chose a single article out of the 'many' I mentioned. Perhaps you should do more research on your own.
The game was supposed to come out in a month, and NO GAMEPLAY has been shown at all.
Go check out SkillUp on youtube and see what his sources have said.
The game itself is a scam. Plenty of articles about the various red flags demonstrating this.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-day-before-is-definitely-not-a-scam-devs-insist
The problem with your argument is that you're ignoring the word 'valid.'
No, the cameras cannot be used to ambush the police, because they don't deal with the cameras until the scene is secured.
Meaning nobody is around and capable of ambushing them as you suggest.
They have no right to take the recording of the search, regardless of whether it would help 'better prepare' the 'perp' next time. The 4th Amendment does not permit the government to just take or destroy whatever they want. If they want the footage, they need a fucking warrant for it.
You are wildly incorrect.
When people grow tired enough of being fucked over by corruption and unchecked power, there will be a third option discovered on how to deal with the problem.
Violence.
"But when was the last time the right wing of American politics broadly supported reasonable gun control, equality for queer people under the law, taxing corporations and the obscenely wealthy, raising the minimum wage, or literally any other policy that actually would create some lasting positive change to society?"
Wahhhh.
Conservatives don't share my policy priorities, therefore they aren't interested in helping anyone!
There are many objective reasons to dislike the current GOP. Your complaint is not one of them.
"Hurtt, who had been patted down by Officer Cannon — the officer who decided he needed to enter the vehicle while the other officer was actually doing traffic stop stuff."
Seems that whatever you wanted to say about Hurtt is missing.
You should probably check a calendar and your understanding of how they work.
Yeah, and defense lawyers are all evil too! Think before you comment next time. They are Constitutional rights, not Constitutional privileges. If they don't protect the worst of us, then the entire concept isn't worth the paper it was written upon.
Mike - Choose Better Analogies
I take issue with your "carrot and stick" reference. A "stick" requires that someone actually have leverage in the situation. When you're an impotent little bitch who's destroyed his platform market value and people are dropping off it faster than the Titanic was abandoned, there is no threat of a "stick." :) (To be clear, this is directed towards you in jest.)
How is the TD readership so dumb? I think you mean, how are you that dumb that you didn't bother to read the first paragraph of the letter to understand what you thought you should remark upon? "In furtherance of this oversight, on February 15, 2023, the Committee issued a subpoena to you compelling the production of documents related to content moderation and Meta’s engagements with the Executive Branch.1 In light of Meta’s introduction of a new social media platform, “Threads,” we write to inform you that it is the Committee’s view that the subpoena of February 15 covers material to date relating to Threads.2"
The 10th was the only court to actually decide in favor of standing. SCOTUS did not rule on it because it wasn't argued that they lacked it. Get your facts right.
"Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative..." "No. That wasn't what was argued." Duh? That wasn't argued in front of the 10th because they couldn't do so. Speaking of bothering to read, perhaps you should do so before responding.
What part of "those things all had to happen before Colorado would've done anything" did you not understand? What part of speculative acts that may or may not even happen do you not understand? Article III standing requires far more than layered hypotheticals. Did you bother to look into the Driehaus precedent? Clearly not. There was no case here. There was no controversy. Every alleged injury was based on nothing more than hypotheticals (and a big fat lie). That's a far cry from "imminent" harm for a pre-enforcement challenge.
You're responding to a reply which wasn't even addressed to you. Did you even notice that? https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/in-303-creative-by-happily-helping-one-bigot-scotus-perhaps-inadvertently-helped-the-larger-fight-against-bigotry/#comment-3106361 Try that one. Beyond that, I have neither insulted you, nor relied upon the non-existent insult to argue that you're wrong. The District Court flatly rejected your claim of standing, as have other, more prolific lawyers. Yet all you come back with repeatedly is "they had standing." Maybe you should address the actual criticism of your analysis instead of just repeating your conclusion. What a crazy idea!
Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative - as it absolutely was, because "Stewart and Mike" had allegedly already contacted the bigot's business. In contrast, the ADF argued in front of the District Court that 303 Creative would already be in violation of Colorado law (if they actually made wedding websites in the first place) because of the lie about having prospective clients already inquire. You can sit there and claim the lie is irrelevant, except that's complete horseshit, as it turned the speculative behavior of independent actors and hypothetical harm into an event which was already occurring. Read Unikowsky's post FFS. He literally covers this, and includes the court filing snippets proving every aspect of this argument.
Perhaps you should read what Unikowsky had to say on the matter before making the argument he easily refutes. You're a lawyer, allegedly. Do a bit of lawyering here. 303 Creative did not make websites for weddings at all. In order for CADA to have come into effect, the following would have to occur: 303 Creative would have to actually make wedding websites. They would have to specifically have a gay customer approach them - and not the thousands of other website builders (that's just counting Colorado businesses). They would have to refuse to make the website. That customer would have to believe it was based on discrimination. That customer would then have to file a complaint with Colorado. ALL of those things must occur before Colorado would have possibly taken any action. A hypothetical built upon hypotheticals and speculation, followed by more hypotheticals, does not satisfy Susan B. Anthony v. Dreihaus.
Unikowsky addresses the multiple layers of speculation required to invent standing for this case.
Legal arguments here should probably be made by lawyers.
The standing argument presented here is just not congruous with prior precedent. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/contrived-cases-make-bad-law Among other things: 303 Creative never made ANY wedding websites. 303 Creative never turned down anyone for a wedding website, because they didn't make any. It gets much, much more speculative than that. Unikowsky is worth reading on this issue. It's pretty clear that the author of this article isn't a lawyer.
Deleted my account today with "Go fuck yourself, Spez." as my reason. Reddit is replaceable.
If it wasn't expressive, then it wouldn't be called 'political honking.' We'd just call it honking. The court recognizes that it conveys a message, but then fails to recognize that doing so is protected by the Constitution.
I chose a single article out of the 'many' I mentioned. Perhaps you should do more research on your own. The game was supposed to come out in a month, and NO GAMEPLAY has been shown at all. Go check out SkillUp on youtube and see what his sources have said.
The game itself is a scam. Plenty of articles about the various red flags demonstrating this. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-day-before-is-definitely-not-a-scam-devs-insist
The problem with your argument is that you're ignoring the word 'valid.' No, the cameras cannot be used to ambush the police, because they don't deal with the cameras until the scene is secured. Meaning nobody is around and capable of ambushing them as you suggest. They have no right to take the recording of the search, regardless of whether it would help 'better prepare' the 'perp' next time. The 4th Amendment does not permit the government to just take or destroy whatever they want. If they want the footage, they need a fucking warrant for it. You are wildly incorrect.
When people grow tired enough of being fucked over by corruption and unchecked power, there will be a third option discovered on how to deal with the problem. Violence.
"But when was the last time the right wing of American politics broadly supported reasonable gun control, equality for queer people under the law, taxing corporations and the obscenely wealthy, raising the minimum wage, or literally any other policy that actually would create some lasting positive change to society?" Wahhhh. Conservatives don't share my policy priorities, therefore they aren't interested in helping anyone! There are many objective reasons to dislike the current GOP. Your complaint is not one of them.
Editing error
"Hurtt, who had been patted down by Officer Cannon — the officer who decided he needed to enter the vehicle while the other officer was actually doing traffic stop stuff." Seems that whatever you wanted to say about Hurtt is missing.