@trolleyjoe.bsky.social
what does that even mean lol
December 19, 2025 at 12:51 AM
what does that even mean lol
its totally different between disrupting a street arrest because the whole point is you dont know if theres a warrant for the person. If there's a street arrest then theres a warrant or probable cause, at least in theory
December 18, 2025 at 11:02 PM
its totally different between disrupting a street arrest because the whole point is you dont know if theres a warrant for the person. If there's a street arrest then theres a warrant or probable cause, at least in theory
needed to know as an element of the crime or needed to know for some other reason?
December 18, 2025 at 10:51 PM
needed to know as an element of the crime or needed to know for some other reason?
The strength of Bernie is he was somehow a unifier. Regular dems liked him and trotksykist parties who dont cooperate with the dems in any circumstances also campaigned for him. It is hard to see AOC recapturing that
December 18, 2025 at 10:00 PM
The strength of Bernie is he was somehow a unifier. Regular dems liked him and trotksykist parties who dont cooperate with the dems in any circumstances also campaigned for him. It is hard to see AOC recapturing that
what i dont get is how this ever even happens at a big firm. Theres so much redundancy and there a big staff of paralegals, associated, etc, not to mention the partner. How does it not get caught somewhere along the line
December 10, 2025 at 2:07 AM
what i dont get is how this ever even happens at a big firm. Theres so much redundancy and there a big staff of paralegals, associated, etc, not to mention the partner. How does it not get caught somewhere along the line
the sanctions by the court are distinct from the consequences from the bar association
December 10, 2025 at 2:04 AM
the sanctions by the court are distinct from the consequences from the bar association
the primary lawyer overseeing the case has a responsibility to make sure stuff like this doesnt happen-they are probably the person chicago signed a retained with, and some person under them is who made this error
December 10, 2025 at 2:03 AM
the primary lawyer overseeing the case has a responsibility to make sure stuff like this doesnt happen-they are probably the person chicago signed a retained with, and some person under them is who made this error
if a video of me is my speech, it must mean i have some right to video versions of me. it cant simply be that restricting the uploading of video of me is wrong because its restricting my expression. if my expression extends to video reproductions of me, which every video is, why does that stop at AI
December 6, 2025 at 9:06 PM
if a video of me is my speech, it must mean i have some right to video versions of me. it cant simply be that restricting the uploading of video of me is wrong because its restricting my expression. if my expression extends to video reproductions of me, which every video is, why does that stop at AI
i think that programs of governmental mass deception like COINTELPRO and also the extensive use of informants/undercover agents absolutely implicate constitutional rights, which i do not think i am alone in thinking even if that would not win in any court
December 6, 2025 at 9:02 PM
i think that programs of governmental mass deception like COINTELPRO and also the extensive use of informants/undercover agents absolutely implicate constitutional rights, which i do not think i am alone in thinking even if that would not win in any court
if a video of me expressing myself is my speech, why is a video that looks identical to me not my speech? if the government can't force me to upload a video of myself saying something, why can it do so with AI? both a real video of me and an ai video are simply images
December 6, 2025 at 8:58 PM
if a video of me expressing myself is my speech, why is a video that looks identical to me not my speech? if the government can't force me to upload a video of myself saying something, why can it do so with AI? both a real video of me and an ai video are simply images
the gov is clearly free to criticize carpenter, to parody her etc, but to make it look like she said something she didnt as part of promoting a political message she disagreed with? again, as i said in the very beginning 50 messages ago i dont think these arguments would win, but theyre not crazy
December 6, 2025 at 8:50 PM
the gov is clearly free to criticize carpenter, to parody her etc, but to make it look like she said something she didnt as part of promoting a political message she disagreed with? again, as i said in the very beginning 50 messages ago i dont think these arguments would win, but theyre not crazy
if a video that looks like you saying something is not you saying it, why isnt all video censorship ok? every video, real or not, are just pictures of you and not your actual speech. Your intention to make the speech clearly matters, as does you claim to electronic representations of you
December 6, 2025 at 8:49 PM
if a video that looks like you saying something is not you saying it, why isnt all video censorship ok? every video, real or not, are just pictures of you and not your actual speech. Your intention to make the speech clearly matters, as does you claim to electronic representations of you
the fact that the beef producers paid money was only relevant (to this claim which SCOTUS didnt address but suggested had merit)to the extent that it meant they could be construed as endorsing something they didnt, which is pretty much exactly what theyre doing to carpenter here
December 6, 2025 at 8:44 PM
the fact that the beef producers paid money was only relevant (to this claim which SCOTUS didnt address but suggested had merit)to the extent that it meant they could be construed as endorsing something they didnt, which is pretty much exactly what theyre doing to carpenter here
i feel like if the government can't force people to have messages on their listen plates (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)) its not implausible they cant make an ultrarealistic audiovisual representation of someone saying something they never did
December 6, 2025 at 8:40 PM
i feel like if the government can't force people to have messages on their listen plates (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)) its not implausible they cant make an ultrarealistic audiovisual representation of someone saying something they never did
I dont think the issue is so clearcut: "there might be a valid objection if 'those singled out to closely linked with the expression' ... in a way that makes them appear to endorse the government message." Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, (2005) at 2065 n. 5 or Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
December 6, 2025 at 8:36 PM
I dont think the issue is so clearcut: "there might be a valid objection if 'those singled out to closely linked with the expression' ... in a way that makes them appear to endorse the government message." Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, (2005) at 2065 n. 5 or Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
very far up the chain of this rabbithole i said i did not think these arguments would be successful - nonetheless I think the government posting like this is extremely concerning, and not just for the policy ideas it promotes. Government shouldnt be able to hijack private speech
December 6, 2025 at 8:26 PM
very far up the chain of this rabbithole i said i did not think these arguments would be successful - nonetheless I think the government posting like this is extremely concerning, and not just for the policy ideas it promotes. Government shouldnt be able to hijack private speech
if i am a youtube political commentator, can the government really upload videos of an ai version of me saying the opposite of what i said in every video, that the real version of me is fake and ai, that i don't agree with the things im actually saying?
December 6, 2025 at 8:24 PM
if i am a youtube political commentator, can the government really upload videos of an ai version of me saying the opposite of what i said in every video, that the real version of me is fake and ai, that i don't agree with the things im actually saying?
ofc the gov can post parody ai videos that are obviously fake, but if the gov is promoting an ai video of a person saying something they didnt say but could have, that seems like censorship. Imagine them doing this to journalists, posting ai videos of them saying the opposite of what they reported
December 6, 2025 at 8:19 PM
ofc the gov can post parody ai videos that are obviously fake, but if the gov is promoting an ai video of a person saying something they didnt say but could have, that seems like censorship. Imagine them doing this to journalists, posting ai videos of them saying the opposite of what they reported
i think theres a good argument that gov speech of deceptive ai-videos of a real people restricts someone's freedom of speech & so isnt allowed. the gov cant stop you from saying something on the internet-surley it cannot also force you to say something, or actively make it look like you did
December 6, 2025 at 8:15 PM
i think theres a good argument that gov speech of deceptive ai-videos of a real people restricts someone's freedom of speech & so isnt allowed. the gov cant stop you from saying something on the internet-surley it cannot also force you to say something, or actively make it look like you did
they had (close)to 0% interest rates and did quantative easing-what else was there to do?
December 6, 2025 at 7:46 PM
they had (close)to 0% interest rates and did quantative easing-what else was there to do?
again, i'm not saying this would be a winning argument, but it does seem hard to articulate what is the official duty being carried out by posting tweets with clear hostility but absolutely cryptic meaning-what is being communicated to the American people by the part of the post involving carpenter?
December 6, 2025 at 7:38 PM
again, i'm not saying this would be a winning argument, but it does seem hard to articulate what is the official duty being carried out by posting tweets with clear hostility but absolutely cryptic meaning-what is being communicated to the American people by the part of the post involving carpenter?
1st off, i am not saying my arguments would be successful, 2nd off I'd know I'd lose but I think its hard to make a reasonable argument that shitposting, at least in this form, is an official duty
December 6, 2025 at 7:34 PM
1st off, i am not saying my arguments would be successful, 2nd off I'd know I'd lose but I think its hard to make a reasonable argument that shitposting, at least in this form, is an official duty