Many rioters who stormed the Capitol received long prison sentences. Sidney Powell, an architect of the effort to subvert the election, negotiated a misdemeanor plea deal and cooperation agreement....
Wow I wish there was some penalty for lawyers who deliberately made statements with this much bad faith. First off it’s State vs. Federal, so fuck off. Then we’re talking breaking into a building to prevent Congress from doing it’s job, while assaulting federal law enforcement, versus non-violent document, election, and conspiracy charges, so fuck off again. And by far most important, we’re talking about know-nothing foot soldiers who committed blatant federal felonies and had nothing to bargain with, vs Sidney the Goddamn Kraken Powell who must have hard evidence by the boatload that she forked over to score this deal, and who can directly testify about Trump’s words and actions and meetings she was in. There’s no comparison here, no equivalence, and these J6 defense lawyers trying to gin one up is just offensive.
I’d have to disagree with you on one point, which is that competing sets of facts or evidence do exist in many situations. In a murder trial, for example, the defense team may have evidence that points to innocence, and the prosecution presents evidence that points to guilt. Now weighing one body of evidence against the other, the judge or jury must decide where the line of “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence” lies. This is a matter a comparing one set of facts to another set of facts as objectively as possible against known standards and precedents, which, to me, is different than arguing pure opinions (“red is the best color” “no, I like green better”) and also different than inarguable bare facts (“12 people are in this room right now”). Idk, just my 2 cents on it, but to me there can be shades of reasonable debate on differing sets of evidence that aren’t covered by an opinion-fact dichotomy.
A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas....
It’s not easy to lose a case by default for failing to comply with discovery. You have to really work hard for the court to basically say “your conduct is so bad that you’ve forfeited your right to continue making a defense”. But due process is still a process, and if you straight up refuse to fulfill your end of the process, and turn down the many chances to comply with discovery that the judge will give you, then this happens. Alex Jones went down for the same thing in his defamation case. These turds all think they can just buck every system or break any norm that suits them, which is why they always go down for the dumbest simplest shit in these cases like perjury, discovery, and witness tampering.
Yes, if you are certain that complying with discovery is going to expose more crimes and get you and your seditious buddies in more hot water, a good soldier like Giuliani will take the L of a default judgement, simply because he’s more afraid of what his “friends” will do to him than what the justice system will do to him.
Humans who run instances are real people who have jobs and mortgages and kids. I also like having piracy communities around to balance the greedy ass corporations trying to control media and copyright…I’m glad to know they are there if I need them or feel like screwing around with it. I just wonder if the people ranting all...
I think this is the right take. Americans have Section 230 (for now) that quite broadly protects communications platforms from liability over what 3rd parties (users) post to their platform about Piracy. We also have the 1st Amendment which more or less protects anything you say short of direct, specific calls to commit crimes and some types of slander/libel. It’s why we can say goofy shit like “now I’m not saying you should do this or encouraging anyone to do this, but if you were going to anyway here’s how:…” and get away with it.
In the EU, not so much. They have “methods and means” rules that can get platform owners in trouble for 3rd parties just posting about BitTorrent clients or providing advice like “Google X if you want to find Y” on their platform if it’s smells of possible piracy. We’re so used in the US to just being able to disclaim everything we say that this is a bit shocking. But talking about tools and techniques, even if you preamble with “now don’t ever use these for piracy bros, ok, I don’t advocate for using this advice in that way” is not going to save the user or even the platform owners from trouble. It is not just about posting direct links to pirated content or hosting/torrent sites. Maybe a point that is little-understood in the threads I’ve been reading on here about this.
A shroom community was removed from lemmy.world as it was considered “illegal” content by the admins. The logic behind this is boggling, to say the least....
I wish other people were making this point as well. Certain content is illegal various places around the world, and I don’t think anyone is saying we want the admins to risk that, but entire communities are - at worst - slightly more prone than others to having users post illegal content. If I post illegal content anywhere, sure, go ahead and remove/ban. But removing discussion of entire topics, just because those communities* might* be places where people might be a little more likely try and post such content, just isn’t making sense to me. Isn’t it the content, not the name of the channel, that’s the issue, or am I missing something?
They aren’t “airtight”, that would awful. They are well-insulated and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and air exchange cooling. The way roofs and windows and orientation on the land is usually done for western homes is just terribly inefficient for capturing and releasing heat in the right ways. Just some thick walls, a bank of windows facing the sunrise ,and some proper roof vents that can be opened when it’s hot is all most passive houses really are.
Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if “I’m too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers” was a defense?
Absolutely right. “Impartial” doesn’t mean you’ve never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don’t live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven’t heard or believe things about what they’ve done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you’ve let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.
It’s a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge “the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can’t get a fair trial!!” Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as “too famous” for justice, there is no such thing as “too infamous” for justice. And there is no such thing as “the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I’ve done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts.”
Well its a good thing no famous or political person has ever been on trial then because obviously no jury on earth could handle that fairly if it ever were to happen. I think voir dire exists mainly to make sure that folks who think like that never make it on to juries. Just because some people couldn’t render an impartial verdict on a politician they had an opinion of doesn’t make it impossible for lawyers and judges to find a jury capable of doing so. People like that exist, and lawyers find them for trials all the time, I promise you.
It’s my right to have my personal computer display what I want it to display. It’s my right set my device to reject internet traffic I don’t want to receive. It’s my right to instruct my machine to download the data I want, and refuse to download the data I don’t want. If you make something publicly available online, then the public can consume that or refuse that, in part or in whole, as and when they wish. If a company or a browser wants to try and interfere with that, then they’ve chosen their fate.
Jan. 6 defense lawyers ‘gobsmacked’ by Trump ally’s plea deal (www.politico.com)
Many rioters who stormed the Capitol received long prison sentences. Sidney Powell, an architect of the effort to subvert the election, negotiated a misdemeanor plea deal and cooperation agreement....
Pro-Palestinian creators use secret spellings, code words to evade social media algorithms (www.washingtonpost.com)
From deploying “terrier” emojis to referring to “P*les+in1ans,” creators are changing up their language to evade Big Tech’s content rules.
Internet disagreements. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Artist’s instagram: www.instagram.com/rusty.creates/...
Idris Elba: Actors in video games like Phantom Liberty is 'sign of the times' (www.bbc.com)
Idris Elba, who stars in Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, sees a future where films and games converge.
Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers (www.cnn.com)
A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas....
People bitching about Lemmy.world blocking piracy instances sound like spoiled teenagers with no consideration of consequences
Humans who run instances are real people who have jobs and mortgages and kids. I also like having piracy communities around to balance the greedy ass corporations trying to control media and copyright…I’m glad to know they are there if I need them or feel like screwing around with it. I just wonder if the people ranting all...
Please fix Rule 1.
A shroom community was removed from lemmy.world as it was considered “illegal” content by the admins. The logic behind this is boggling, to say the least....
TIL about “passive houses,” building that are airtight and require barely any energy to heat or cool (en.m.wikipedia.org)
More info here: wsj.com/…/passive-home-design-massachusetts-2c89a…
How are we supposed to convene an impartial jury for a trial involving high profile political people? [USA]
Supporters of the person would just vote non-guilty and opponents would just vote guilty. It would just result in hung juries over and over.
Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible (stackdiary.com)