|
That SovCit judge Douchette has some AMAZING friends on FB;quote:Susan Walker
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
I'm going to write to my senator. The letter will simply say "No crushing."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm going to write to my senator. The letter will simply say "No crushing." Depending on the office you might get a reply regarding your senators efforts to quash internet videos where women step on small animals sexily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Depending on the office you might get a reply regarding your senators efforts to quash internet videos where women step on small animals sexily. Or a sext.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm going to write to my senator. The letter will simply say "No crushing." "...amen."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
So, looks like ACLU Oregon has come down on the side of Pete Santilli: http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/aclu-oregon-pete-santilli-malheur-refuge-occupier-defense/ The ACLU's statement is here. Can't say that I agree with them here - even if it were just a case of cheerleading (and I don't think that it is), Santilli was a full-on propagandist for the occupiers. The fact that journalists are somewhat protected ought to mean that people who are just pretending should be dealt with firmly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:That SovCit judge Douchette has some AMAZING friends on FB; Is this a transcription of a telegram?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Can't say that I agree with them here - even if it were just a case of cheerleading (and I don't think that it is), Santilli was a full-on propagandist for the occupiers. The fact that journalists are somewhat protected ought to mean that people who are just pretending should be dealt with firmly. The most important thing, from my reading, is that he constantly threatened to shoot agents who would show up to his home - which they might, if he decided to pull a David Fry and bunker up when it came time for him to see trial - with his guns, which they found he had, illegally, at his home. It's not about him being an rear end in a top hat, it's about him being a risk. The ACLU should fight for his innocence of the charges, not for his monitored release before trial. It's a better argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
"Support the people who are standing up!" - seated militant in 2/9/16 - Sean & Sandy speak
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:So, looks like ACLU Oregon has come down on the side of Pete Santilli: It's a really bad argument, given his material involvement. Heck, in their own (massively selective, as is ACLU's style) article: quote:And when he urged others to join the protest he regularly told them to come unarmed. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Wtf is wrong with the aclu of Oregon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Wtf is wrong with the aclu of Oregon? Nothing's wrong, it's a statement they probably should make regardless of the situation. Their principals don't involve nuance. And that's ultimately a good thing. Notice how they don't go around taking over buildings, they just make press releases and arguments in courts? They do it the right way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Wtf is wrong with the aclu of Oregon? I think they are right in their argument, it just doesn't apply to Santilli. If was just some shock jock saying outrageous things while covering the stand off they would have a good point. But he's not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Yeah let's not forget Santilli literally livestreamed himself participating in a kidnapping.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
ACLU is just playing the long con. They're viewed as a turbo liberal Obama arm of the federal government so them coming in on the side of stinky Pete just means that he's going to get abandoned even harder than he already is by the movement
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I think it's good that the ACLU is going to defend Santilli because free speech. It means he will get a good defense, and also he will probably still lose. The FBI will make the strongest case possible and win really good against the best defense he could get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Im glad the ACLU will defend people that most others won't even if I think some of the people they defend are terrible, id rather live in a world where they exist than a world without an organization like them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:I think it's good that the ACLU is going to defend Santilli because free speech. It means he will get a good defense, and also he will probably still lose. The FBI will make the strongest case possible and win really good against the best defense he could get. The upside is Justice will probably be served in this case by not allowing weakness on either side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
The ACLU is wrong as hell, but they're erring in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The upside is Justice will probably be served in this case by not allowing weakness on either side. Yeah, from what I understand of the FBI's win ratio, Santilli's odds don't look good no matter who defends him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:The ACLU is wrong as hell, but they're erring in the right direction. And in all honesty that's the ACLU's job. I would much rather they try to win these cases when it's pretty obvious that they'll loose so that (a) precedence gets set to further journalist guidelines in future cases (which needs to happen with how that industry is going these days) and (b) they're not waiting around to try and win when it's obvious the government is actually in the wrong because it would be bad if they ended up loosing for pretty much everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
The ACLU has represented NAMBLA before, and i'm not talking about the Marlon Brando lookalikes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:The ACLU has represented NAMBLA before, and i'm not talking about the Marlon Brando lookalikes. i find that more sad and hosed up then representing some rightie loon like Santilli
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i find that more sad and hosed up then representing some rightie loon like Santilli Strangely enough that case was the one that made anything on the internet just as protected by the first amendment as if it were written in any other form of media, especially when it comes to sexuality. I guess in a way, every time we post  we're actually supporting NAMBLA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:
The Manboy-Goatse Love Association 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Edit: The reason he dropped his hands, put them up, then dropped them again was probably just simple uneasiness. It takes a lot of balls (or REALLY severe mental deficiency) to just blindly start drawing a gun when you've got two cops aiming at your face. I think he was just nervous and reconsidered for a second before trying to go along with it. Plus I'm guessing that in all of his murder fantasies, the police were standing right beside each other and directly in front of him rather than having one directly behind him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Plus I'm guessing that in all of his murder fantasies, the police were standing right beside each other and directly in front of him rather than having one directly behind him. Yeah those are the other fantasies he had
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Plus I'm guessing that in all of his murder fantasies, the police were standing right beside each other and directly in front of him rather than having one directly behind him. Oh, so you read his book? (yep, that's the exact scenario the grizzled Rancher faces before gunning them all down before their smokewagons could clear leather)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
The ACLU is crazy and often wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The ACLU is crazy and often wrong. Half the point of Justice is that it is extended even to people who don't deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Half the point of Justice is that it is extended even to people who don't deserve it. Sure, but the ACLU conception of justice is fetishistic and weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MalheurDiaryquote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
A reminder that the ACLU once represented the KKK's right to march as well. They don't pick cases based on whether the individual(s) involved are horrible human beings or not, that's why they're so important. The ACLU taking this case on and losing will hopefully set precedent and guidelines for just where the line is that Pete Santilli gleefully danced across.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Also reminder: the ACLU defended Limbaugh when his drug addled self got caught with a massive supply of oxycontin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Sure, but the ACLU conception of justice is fetishistic and weird. You're in complete agreement with these reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Sure, but the ACLU conception of justice is fetishistic and weird. I am really curious what this means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:The ACLU taking this case on and losing will hopefully set precedent and guidelines for just where the line is that Pete Santilli gleefully danced across. My guess is that line was right after the Bundys got arrested, and he's on camera calling the the rest of the people at the refuge and giving them advice on who to put in charge and what to do. His defence of just being an embedded reporter who happens to agree whole heartedly only lasts until he's actually trying to tell the militia how to conduct itself. Was there an earlier incident where he was clearly giving the leadership advice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Oh, so you read his book? Just another nail in the coffin for Tarpman's defenders, I guess. As for the ACLU defending Santilli, I agree in principle and admit that he's far from the worst human scum they've defended, but it still seems strange to defend someone who was so blatantly trying to hide behind the label of "reporter " while being no different than the other loonies. Geostomp fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Honestly anything that destroys the Sov Cit's belief in magic words is cool to me. Whether it be thinking that if you say "peaceful" enough times that the law will ignore that you're all open carrying and talking about shooting government officials, thinking that if you shout "I do not consent" enough times that you'll be allowed to commit crimes, that "traveling" makes you immune to the laws of the road or in this case "reporter" means that you can be absolved of all active crimes you're involved in.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
The ACLU isn't wrong because Santili is a scumbag, defending the constitutional rights of "undesirables" is important and admirable. The ACLU is wrong because his case has no merit and involves them pushing a really hosed up interpretation of the first amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:44
|
|
