Justin
@justinlawguy.bsky.social
2.2K followers 390 following 4.6K posts
Civil rights lawyer. Passionate defender of what he believes the Constitution says. He/him
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Shout out to all the Germans in 1933 who muttered "oh my god this is unbelievably stupid"
justinlawguy.bsky.social
That decision is probably correct, and yes, we need a federal antislapp law.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Either numbers are slightly off, but at least before the war there were about 7 million Jews in Israel and about 2.2 million Arabs in Israel plus another 5.2 million Arabs in the occupied territories, and math was my strong suit back in grade school soooo.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
And because the Uighers are a minority, giving them equal rights wouldn't mean the end of the existence of the state of China as it is currently populated.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
The Chinese do not identify themselves through the subjugation of Uighers.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Hispanics are part of this country and we don't always treat them great but they're not subjugated. The Uigher genocide Is a human rights catastrophe but it is not essential to the existence of China.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Surprised silwa isn't winning it.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
The existence of *this* Israel absolutely does. Look, the unfollow button is right f****** there.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Oh, I guess you can be a liberal Zionist if you pretend that the people of Gaza and the westbank don't exist. I guess that makes sense, since you're actively trying to make that happen.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
justinlawguy.bsky.social
I don't enjoy and don't think useful the conversations about settler colonialist ideology. The Jews of Israel are there and they are going to continue to be there. But Zionism is no longer just about the right of those people to exist...
justinlawguy.bsky.social
The United States, Saudi Arabia, and China, all have their flaws, don't get me wrong, and no liberal would consider themselves supporter of the current ruling regimes either. But that's neither here nor there of the subjugation of Palestinians.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
No other state's existence requires at its core The subjugation of a majority by the minority.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
... That is not and can never be liberal. You can be in favor of a two-state solution, or you can be in favor of a multicultural secular greater Palestine. But supporting the current state is opposing both of those outcomes.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
..... Even aside from the violence and mass killing and blockade, It's fundamentally about the right of a minority to impose their will on a majority, to subjugate.....
justinlawguy.bsky.social
I don't enjoy and don't think useful the conversations about settler colonialist ideology. The Jews of Israel are there and they are going to continue to be there. But Zionism is no longer just about the right of those people to exist...
justinlawguy.bsky.social
There is no such thing as liberal Zionism. There are just liberals on all issues other than Israel.
mehdirhasan.bsky.social
"I have trouble with the term 'liberal Zionism'"

Anti-Zionist Jewish Hollywood star Hannah Einbinder on the "settler colonialist ideology" and "apartheid" of Zionism, in the new Zeteo podcast 'Beyond Israelism with Simone Zimmerman'.

Full show: zeteo.com/p/beyond-isr...
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Yes they won't be the ones targeted by a permanent regime, but they will still be scarred by it, dehumanized by it.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
I don't know, maybe I'm privileged, but I look at my kids, and I can't afford not to be fearless.
daralind.bsky.social
This, and also: if your answer is “I can’t afford to be fearless,” ask yourself at least once if you are sure.

You don’t owe it to anybody else to offer a defense but you do owe it to yourself.
rlspang.bsky.social
The title verse of “We Shall Overcome” and most of the others are in the future tense. One verse is in the present: “We are not afraid TODAY.”

That is the most important message for our current moment. If you can “afford” to be fearless, do it.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
And if that were true then there would be no expectation of truth and therefore no defamation in the first place.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
That is not what malice means.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
They're not saying it's f***** up because they know theyre next. Everyone is complying in advance.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Why are you risking his health in a cupcake game?
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Me too, except I'm just reading the news.
justinlawguy.bsky.social
Anyway, if the judge wanted to avoid all of this, the judge could have just said "assuming a provable statement of fact, there's no malice, case dismissed"