JasonC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (75)

• On the post: Appeals Court: Permanently Injuring A 13-Year-Old Because He Wouldn’t Take His Hand Out Of His Pockets Isn’t A Rights Violation

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2024 @ 11:43am

  You might want to check how many fingers are pointing back at yourself, first. Nothing they are alleged to have done is reasonably considered a crime. They picked up a ball in a ditch, which is not theft. They dropped it when it was alleged to own to someone else, which is again not theft. Stop defending cops for their authoritative bullshit. Someone will have to find justice another way.

• On the post: ‘Bivens Is Dead’ Says The 10th Circuit, Confirming You’re Only Wasting Your Time When Suing Federal Officers

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2024 @ 01:42pm

  When the law refuses to provide justice, eventually people will provide their own.

• On the post: ‘Cards Against Humanity’ Sues SpaceX, After ‘More Racist Billionaire’ Snuck Up On CAH’s Ant-Border Wall Property ‘From Behind’

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2024 @ 05:26pm

  Thank you for your endorsement of pro-choice.

• On the post: We Looked At All The Recent Evidence On Mobile Phone Bans In Schools – This Is What We Found

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 11 May, 2024 @ 06:39am

  You somehow don't believe the adult teacher could contact 911 with their own phone, presumably with far more clarity of information and purpose than a child?

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Upon Further Review, Fuck The First Amendment

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2024 @ 09:17pm

  You should probably check a calendar and your understanding of how they work.

• On the post: Court: You Can’t Add A Lie To An Already-Executed Warrant And Expect Everything To Be Constitutional

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2023 @ 03:54am

  Yeah, and defense lawyers are all evil too! Think before you comment next time. They are Constitutional rights, not Constitutional privileges. If they don't protect the worst of us, then the entire concept isn't worth the paper it was written upon.

• On the post: Ex-Twitter Resorts To Threatening Companies It Will Take Away Their Verification If They Don’t Start Buying More Ads

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2023 @ 01:31pm

  Mike - Choose Better Analogies

  I take issue with your "carrot and stick" reference. A "stick" requires that someone actually have leverage in the situation. When you're an impotent little bitch who's destroyed his platform market value and people are dropping off it faster than the Titanic was abandoned, there is no threat of a "stick." :) (To be clear, this is directed towards you in jest.)

• On the post: How Would The GOP Feel If Democrats In Congress Demanded Details Regarding How Fox News Or The NY Post Made Editorial Decisions?

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2023 @ 09:54pm

  How is the TD readership so dumb? I think you mean, how are you that dumb that you didn't bother to read the first paragraph of the letter to understand what you thought you should remark upon? "In furtherance of this oversight, on February 15, 2023, the Committee issued a subpoena to you compelling the production of documents related to content moderation and Meta’s engagements with the Executive Branch.1 In light of Meta’s introduction of a new social media platform, “Threads,” we write to inform you that it is the Committee’s view that the subpoena of February 15 covers material to date relating to Threads.2"

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2023 @ 02:57am

  The 10th was the only court to actually decide in favor of standing. SCOTUS did not rule on it because it wasn't argued that they lacked it. Get your facts right.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2023 @ 02:55am

  "Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative..." "No. That wasn't what was argued." Duh? That wasn't argued in front of the 10th because they couldn't do so. Speaking of bothering to read, perhaps you should do so before responding.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2023 @ 12:29am

  What part of "those things all had to happen before Colorado would've done anything" did you not understand? What part of speculative acts that may or may not even happen do you not understand? Article III standing requires far more than layered hypotheticals. Did you bother to look into the Driehaus precedent? Clearly not. There was no case here. There was no controversy. Every alleged injury was based on nothing more than hypotheticals (and a big fat lie). That's a far cry from "imminent" harm for a pre-enforcement challenge.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 10:23pm

  You're responding to a reply which wasn't even addressed to you. Did you even notice that? https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/in-303-creative-by-happily-helping-one-bigot-scotus-perhaps-inadvertently-helped-the-larger-fight-against-bigotry/#comment-3106361 Try that one. Beyond that, I have neither insulted you, nor relied upon the non-existent insult to argue that you're wrong. The District Court flatly rejected your claim of standing, as have other, more prolific lawyers. Yet all you come back with repeatedly is "they had standing." Maybe you should address the actual criticism of your analysis instead of just repeating your conclusion. What a crazy idea!

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 08:18pm

  Colorado could not argue in front of the 10th that the harm was speculative - as it absolutely was, because "Stewart and Mike" had allegedly already contacted the bigot's business. In contrast, the ADF argued in front of the District Court that 303 Creative would already be in violation of Colorado law (if they actually made wedding websites in the first place) because of the lie about having prospective clients already inquire. You can sit there and claim the lie is irrelevant, except that's complete horseshit, as it turned the speculative behavior of independent actors and hypothetical harm into an event which was already occurring. Read Unikowsky's post FFS. He literally covers this, and includes the court filing snippets proving every aspect of this argument.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 08:09pm

  Perhaps you should read what Unikowsky had to say on the matter before making the argument he easily refutes. You're a lawyer, allegedly. Do a bit of lawyering here. 303 Creative did not make websites for weddings at all. In order for CADA to have come into effect, the following would have to occur: 303 Creative would have to actually make wedding websites. They would have to specifically have a gay customer approach them - and not the thousands of other website builders (that's just counting Colorado businesses). They would have to refuse to make the website. That customer would have to believe it was based on discrimination. That customer would then have to file a complaint with Colorado. ALL of those things must occur before Colorado would have possibly taken any action. A hypothetical built upon hypotheticals and speculation, followed by more hypotheticals, does not satisfy Susan B. Anthony v. Dreihaus.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 04:56pm

  Unikowsky addresses the multiple layers of speculation required to invent standing for this case.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 03:59pm

  Legal arguments here should probably be made by lawyers.

  The standing argument presented here is just not congruous with prior precedent. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/contrived-cases-make-bad-law Among other things: 303 Creative never made ANY wedding websites. 303 Creative never turned down anyone for a wedding website, because they didn't make any. It gets much, much more speculative than that. Unikowsky is worth reading on this issue. It's pretty clear that the author of this article isn't a lawyer.

• On the post: Reddit Ramps Up Its Threats To Protesting Mods, As Ad Buyers Leave

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2023 @ 12:43pm

  Deleted my account today with "Go fuck yourself, Spez." as my reason. Reddit is replaceable.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Says A Horn Honk Isn’t Protected Political Expression Even When That’s The Honk’s Entire Point

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2023 @ 09:26pm

  If it wasn't expressive, then it wouldn't be called 'political honking.' We'd just call it honking. The court recognizes that it conveys a message, but then fails to recognize that doing so is protected by the Constitution.

• On the post: Video Game ‘The Day Before’ Dealing With Trademark Challenge Over A Calendar App

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 12:09pm

  I chose a single article out of the 'many' I mentioned. Perhaps you should do more research on your own. The game was supposed to come out in a month, and NO GAMEPLAY has been shown at all. Go check out SkillUp on youtube and see what his sources have said.

• On the post: Video Game ‘The Day Before’ Dealing With Trademark Challenge Over A Calendar App

  

  JasonC ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 09:07pm

  The game itself is a scam. Plenty of articles about the various red flags demonstrating this. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-day-before-is-definitely-not-a-scam-devs-insist

Next >>