Welcome to Lehtos Law

you heard that in a female voice

@Gypsy I wouldn't know if he is objective, because there is no one countering

#thatstheproblem

`felt sympathetic towards the professor` rofl

he hardly covers political issues except very recently

Legal Eagle on Rittenhouse plx

haha

useful lawyers lawyer, the rest get on youtube?

@Zuluzeit whenever you use sarcasm you confuse me

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, and either way it comes off kinda bad

I'm sure you sound much better over voice

(:

yea I mean I watch the same people

its just boring without the other side

Go Fundme shutting down Rittenhouse red pilled to something

the entire bifurcation of that case in the media really changed something in me

lol

I wasn't fine, but before I was mad at the media; after I accepted and wasn't mad anymore, but just shocked

basically I consider FB, Twitter, and popnews media as simply a part of the DNC, and then write them off (now)

instead of ever expecting it to change, I now want and encourage bifurcation

this is one of the reasons I don't want "section 230 reform" or other such nonsense

I don't want to fix twitter or FB

I want them to die

and they are on the verge of being in danger of losing their natural monopoly

I've closed my FB and twitter accounts

over the last year, a dozen competitors to FB twitter and youtube have tried to compete with the big tech corps

that's fine with me

being unified just means you have the illusion of not being in a parallel system

basically it is parallel _already_ except one side has no infrastructure at all

(but I do think they will die eventually, because by having 2 systems, they no longer have a natural monopoly of social networks)

that's fine

I mean we are headed to that anyway

it is an orthogonal problem

being together won't solve it

(one side would just get censored out whenver the two sides cross paths)

here is the two things to weigh:

OTOH

A. you are basically donating money to the DNC by being on such a platform, and basically giving free ad time to the DNC


OTOH

B. you are together with the other side and mitigate some of the false caricaturing

I choose not to donate and give free ad space

it isn't worth whatever social gain there is by staying unified

:squinty eyes:

look, let me reframe this

I don't really care for a bifurcation of a censored left and a censored right

ideally the bifurcation for social media would be a censored left, and an uncensored apartisan (basically something equivalent to a "public square" minus pornography)

however, I doubt that the left would find it socially acceptable to visit the "nazi servers" to talk

so it would essentially be bifurcated anyway

1. I see the censorship by big tech as the fault of one side of the partisan divide,

2. I [now] see the big tech corps as political organizations,

3. I refuse to participate in contributing politically to them, tribalism or not. If this results in tribalism, that is Not My Problem; it is the fault of the big tech corps, and modernity (social media, the internet, large scale human networking capabilities, etc. naturally results in tribalism)

4. I don't think being on a single platform reduces tribalism; already on twitter there are people who never speak to the "other side" except in angry 200 character spats that does nothing to help the caricatures.

I don't want 230 reform for censorship

I do want 230 reform for the blanket immunity that Barnes talks about

but not for censorship

I don't think 230 is even needed to protect websites, it is unconstitutional IMO to hold websites liable for their user-contributed content

Benjamin Franklin didn't analyze every ad that was in his newspaper to see if might be defamation

@Zuluzeit later

and 230 reform, if done dumbly, can destroy the internet

basically the "public square" version of 230 reform ... what does this mean for you and your blog?


You have two choices.

1. You can either leave up all comments unmolested.

2. If you delete a single comment, you now must analyze EVERY OTHER COMMENT for legality. Which is actually IMPOSSIBLE to do, because - for example, defamation might require knowledge of facts (i.e if something said is TRUE or FALSE), and this is impossible for a site owner. Furthermore, it would basically require you to hire a lawyer and check every comment for all the laws in all the US.

say helloooo to spam

or pornography

all over your beautiful blog or forum

public square, right?

OK so that is Barnes' fix to this

most people don't event hink about this

they just talk

but the 70% fix isn't a good one either

if you have a FB page

you are a moderator

on a website

that is a 70% company

your page is a public square

hello spam

hello porn

also I detest treating differently sized companies differently

and I already made the constitutional argument

it is illegal to force companies to do this

just like it would be illegal to restrict a newspaper from deliverying you ads that might be illegal speech

or charging Fedex for delivering blackmail

@Doc pretty sure I've seen that

I didn't say anything (never helping out the) cops

I said I wouldn't speak to the FBI, even to help them without my lawyer

as for the cops, yes, follow his advice

(tldr; if you kill someone in self defense you want to point out all the evidence so the cops mark it down, and you don't want to come off as a jerk either)

ASP is great

I have Ayoob's books I think

ASP did a great analysis of the Atlanta story with Brooks

(I would speak to the cops if I thought I could help them catch a bad person)

(but I wouldn't do it for the FBI, except via a lawyer)

btw many lawyers disagree with Ayoob (IIRC he mentions that)

because people can't be trusted to say the right thing

that is why people like Ayoob basically tell people to "train" for the situation

i.e make believe shoot someone in self defense and imagine being in front of a cop, and rehearse things to say

I've read Branca's book on self defense (it's about legalities of self defense), and he says something similar IIRC

don't quote me here, but he basically tells people to train themselves to say rehearsed lines

read the book its pretty good (but IANAL)

I wonder if Robert has read it and what he thinks of it

rofl

There is a response from someone on twitter I read, it requires much more samples to converge to something reliable

Sec I'll find it

https://twitter.com/LTF_01/status/1324435666038591488

The mistake is to think of a state as a personality

The Dems spent the last two months sending people an insane number of text messages and phone calls, and they had plenty of tools to rile up their voters

They have areas that are heavily populated, and increased voter turnout

This year allowed several methods of convenience for voting that could very well have by itself changed the likely voter distribution