[rjnwmill]

BT, should there be disclosure requirements on private companies/social media platforms when they become aware of potentially illegal activities?

If a government employee were self dealing on procurement transactions isn’t it a good thing when it sees the light of day?  Shouldn’t private actors be required to report those activities?

Your straw man suggests that the media companies were censoring content independently. That’s clearly not the case here. There was active engagement by government employees to suppress speech. My understanding is that that’s a no no for the government and I think an ethical lapse by “independent” media.

One step further, the Baker activities ant Twitter over the last week might be viewed as criminal, destruction of evidence that is potentially relevant to the review of what FBI staff has done. We’ll see when his censorship activities are clearly documented.

I also note that private censorship may damage law enforcement. The San Bernardino attack on government offices was frustrated by Apple’s decision not to unlock the perps phones. Is their position appropriate when deaths occur?  And correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t law enforcement as a matter of practice review the social media accounts of perps to better understand motives and independence of a criminal action?  Do I want private actors censoring such speech when as Neo points out, he’s perfectly able to apply his own personal screens?

I’m not at all convinced that your reliance on personal actors to impose speech restrictions universally is appropriate generally and on political speech particularly.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

👍🏻⚾️👍🏻

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

A third party telling of the tale after some independent investigation.

https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/11/30/soccer-stars-parents-sue-stanford-university-after-her-death?utm_source=express-2022-11-30&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

Let me be clear, I’m not arguing right or wrong, black or white. I’m speaking only to the make up of the jury and which argument I’d rather present. One party, the university has both monetary exposure and reputational risk, with the jury and the public telling of the tale. The other party, not so much.

As to your thought, “If “wrongful death” can mean “set off a series of events that led to despair and ultimately suicide” then I suspect a lot of companies are going to need to lawyer up, not to mention municipalities and employers of high suicide rate professions, and spouses for that matter.” let’s watch the cases that will be filed against Walmart in Virginia. But briefly I think they better lawyer up.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

Perhaps a little myopic in our justice system…see Durham results with DC juries?

Stanford is in a tough spot in front of a jury. They must convince the jury that their processing on two disciplinary cases was prudent, timely and appropriate. Their position is compromised if the jury concludes they fall short in either case.

The university has to make the case you have regarding their treatment of the soccer player, but don’t they also need to convince the jurors that they handled the football player appropriately as well, that he should have been on campus to “trigger” Katie?

From my limited understanding here, I believe the problem for the university is the circumstances around the processing of the football player. I understand he was a known bad actor. Does the timeline establish that the university acted prudently in protecting the community?  Did they exit a bad actor promptly?  Can they defend their processing of an entirely unsympathetic character?  Who can speak convincingly, sympathetically for the football player?  Who will convince the people in the box that fault lies solely on Katie?  In defending the male athlete, that he should have been admitted, that he should have remained a member of the community when he “earned” the contempt of coffee, how does the university look “good”?  Do they want to put the football player on the stand?  They want him subjected to cross examination?

I wouldn’t want to try and make that argument with the available witnesses. I’d be interested in how you might deal with the other side of the story if you were representing the University.

I don’t think you’ll get away with, “She was an adult…a 22 year old adult who was accused of assaulting another student.”  That isn’t the record the University must defend is it?

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

I’m thankful there are a handful of people that bring content and humor to our community.

All the best to you and yours.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

👍🏻

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

“I voted for Obama over McCain and for Romney over Obama.”

I did too.

And while I agree with your comfortable approach there is an element I find troubling. With Trump, you vote for a demonstrated record. His commitment to your “common sense policies” is unquestionable.

Politicians however are committed to their perceived self interest alone. Look no further than Fetterman, Hassan and Ryan. They were Trump policy mavens the last four weeks of their campaigns. Did you believe them Mick?

Tell me, who enters the Republican primary season that you trust?  They’ll all pledge fealty to Trump’s policies. Yet they’re all hoping to tap the same money and the money guys weren’t too wild about Trump.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

Ps:  I read that Republican house candidates received 6 million more votes nationally than their democrat counterparts. Yet relatively few seats flipped.

The power of gerrymandering front and center. Do citizens have a “vote” anymore?

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

[quote quote=6610]Huh…. I guess the red wave isn’t quite what it was supposed to be. It always pays to go by the old adage: “Don’t believe the hype.”[/quote]

Welllllll, are we surprised?  The Congressional Districts were just redrawn based on the 2020 census. The pros pissed all over each others shoes hoping to gain an advantage. Can we expect change this cycle?

The red wave was Miami Dade/Florida. Republicans winning in that part of Florida? No democrats holding state wide office? Not since reconstruction?  That’s significant change that is immune to gerrymandering.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

😂😂😂😂😂

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

• “Tell me why it should be ok.”

The money is front loaded in the publisher’s advance before a single copy is sold.

Absent something like this, how do you attract top minds to the bench with the market for legal talent as it exists today?  $5-$8 million in per partner profits is tough to compete with.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

I believe book royalties are the only source of outside revenue available to those on the Federal bench?

I know leftists have been trying their best to undo ACB’s $2 million dollar book deal?

the deals are pretty public. Are you troubled by that arrangement?

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

Everyone looks for their 15 minutes of fame…Zeldin is distributing the video.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[rjnwmill]

I believe several White House Biden tweets have been annotated by the new administration at Twitter.

The tweet you shared was pulled. Musk is moving quickly.

It is reported that Biden is planning his 2024 reelection effort and is meeting with Zuckerberg, Moskowitz, Brin & Bezos. Any guesses on what he’s giving away to try to have exclusive control of the public narrative?  They’ve failed totally in 2022.

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[Author]

Posts