And if their tool doesn’t address your issue you just need to adjust your task to fit the tool

I loved peeking past blocks to watch a few of them discuss how they always knew you were incomprehensibly stupid

this is defamation against a box of rocks

but what if we *do* want a world where the court faces even the minor accountability of public criticism?

what if we *don't* want a world where people like Stephen village the ethics rules to punish protected speech?

but I do want a world where the courts are subject to real scrutiny, and I don't want a world where people use blatant lies and 1A violations in the political fight. your objective here is openly corrupt.

the show was usually better when it didn't deal with the legislative side

let's take a step back and note that the conduct doesn't actually violate any rules, so Stevo's examination is 'interesting' for a very different reason

nah, the people who read that article/buy that underwear can pack of month worth of clothes in their pocket

If nothing else “we can’t punish people when they didn’t even violate a rule” is really fucking basic shit

Your inability to read isn’t my issue, dipshit

lol

Again, the Sachs article is about a *journalist*

Both you and Josh are so hyped on academics that you won’t even do the reading. You’d both be pissed if a student tried to pull this shit, but for some reason you both think it’s fine to lecture people from ignorance

huh?

huh?

She divorced him because…?

Christ, a while back we had legal academics saying that we shouldn’t challenge profs when they made bullshit arguments against birthright citizenship. Now it’s that we shouldn’t criticize arguments against the 1A

It’s discussion of an attorney being punished for 1A protected speech, what the ever loving….

Even more so when the non expert is openly calling for punishment of an attorney for speech

jfc the rest of us can speak up without academics saying “well, not my thing so I won’t even look at whether a non expert is making merited claims”

It’s a discussion of his article, which Josh said he wouldn’t bother even challenging the merits of.

At some point there fucking has to be consideration of what Sachs said

I try in my half assed way to not be, but I just am a lot of the time and the world makes more sense when I remember that

Right, there’s a demand that we treat Sachs as acting in good faith when any reasonable analysis of what he wrote requires recognition of his bad faith

We shouldn’t ignore the bad acts of our friends!

Fair enough, but you can see the opposite reading?

I can own being the asshole 🤪

The thing I called Josh out on was his initial “I don’t know about ethics, so I’ll defer to Sachs”

So it’s bad to simply defer to a non expert, right?

Yep, namely me

Especially since *quick skim of bio* Sachs doesn’t really seem an expert

“Well, he’s my friend so l won’t look” is BAD

Ok, but I’d not expect deference on any subject to an individual