|
Well when you're a defense lawyer for a fash, you're gonna get poo poo on by twitter.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Popehat is the kinda guy who spent most of his career latching his destiny onto the backs of nazis but he finds vulgarity personally distasteful because he's one of those super religious yet social libertarian types like Liz Bruening so every so often the mask slips and his fans get freaked out. Except instead of poo poo like Liz's 'actually the temperance movement was good and cool' weird poo poo he's just a white supremacist. are you confusing him with Randazza
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Lawyers are not morally responsible for positions they take on behalf of clients. It's the client's position, not the lawyer's. a lawyer who actively seeks a client out to represent and advocate for is, though. This isn't a public defender people are making GBS threads on who got the short straw, this guy actively chose this case because he genuinely believes the free speech to say nazi things matters more than public safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Crain posted:Is there a good summary online (if it was linked in thread I missed it)? Unfortuently the best article is behind a paywall. Here is a good summary: https://www.businessinsider.com/eddie-lamperts-sears-strategy-disaster-2013-7 cheetah7071 posted:So your theory is what, that Russians somehow convinced McCain to offer her the spot after the first interview? McCain's lapse of judgment there is well-documented. He didn't spend the length of time on the decision that would be indicated if he was being pressured into it. I don't have much of a theory. But McCain was pressured into bringing her on. And maybe it was just him being an idiot. But it came out of nowhere, she was dumber than a bag of rocks, and the internet started worshiping her immediately for no clear reason. As far as I'm aware no one has ever looked deeply into her finances or connections. She was boosted up for no apparent reason very much like Trump. Maybe it's nothing, but it makes a weird kind of sense to me in retrospect. She's basically Trump. Same hosed up family, stupidity, corruptibility, love for being on tv more than governing. The difference is she had government experience and she didn't get off the launch pad. If Putin was trying to do something as bold as put a puppet into the WH and Donald Trump was the success at that, I think it's not unreasonable to look back to see if there were other attempts. And Palin really does look like exactly what a prototype would look like. Gatts posted:Peter King: "Two children dead is a good record for ICE." My record must be loving fantastic as I stand at an all time high of zero dead children under my watch and I've been around more than twice the amount of time ICE has been around. Crow Jane posted:Man, it's like he wants the people of DC to storm the White House. Seriously, this and the shutdown are gonna do a number on the city's economy. His tweets are more and more resembling taunting messages you get from a villain from his castle in a video game. What a time to be alive when Kefka from Final Fantasy is the president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Lawyers are not morally responsible for positions they take on behalf of clients. It's the client's position, not the lawyer's. There's a big difference between representing someone in court and giving them a platform in your blog. One isn't necessarily an endorsement, the other definitely is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Lawyers are not morally responsible for positions they take on behalf of clients. It's the client's position, not the lawyer's. Counterpoint: unless you have been appointed to them by the court and are legally compelled to defend Nazis, defending Nazis is collaboration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:are you confusing him with Randazza uh no because Randazza was always an infowars lunatic? Was there a time when he was considered good like Popehat is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Speech already isn't free (yelling Fire in a theatre, lying to pigs etc) so anyone mad at the prospect someone might get in legal trouble for hate speech believes on varying levels that hatespeech is actually ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Koalas Massacre posted:Speech already isn't free (yelling Fire in a theatre, lying to pigs etc) so anyone mad at the prospect they might get in legal trouble for hate speech believes on varying levels that hatespeech is actually ok. pretty much, I have to roll the dice on if I get actual government agents at my house if I say something like 'it'd be funny if Trump's plane blew up' but nazis think anyone saying 'hey maybe stop shouting 'blood and soil' at passers by who 'look jewy'?' is stomping the neck of lady liberty. Free speech already doesn't exist and probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
That Wells Fargo poo poo is infuriating. Those people should be strung up in front of their banks and left as a warning to the rest of the wealthy parasites sucking our society dry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
it's worse but dershowitz used this to defend who he represented. but you choose your clients. he choose to represent men who were obviously guilty of killing their wives. there are innocent people in this country that go to jail because they get public defenders and have to take a plea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's worse but dershowitz used this to defend who he represented. but you choose your clients. he choose to represent men who were obviously guilty of killing their wives. there are innocent people in this country that go to jail because they get public defenders and have to plea. I would argue there’s a strong moral difference between “individual who is lovely and probably did it but deserves equal treatment under the law” and “fascists” or “corporations” (this argument came up recently in a different thread).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
no doubt they deserve equal treatment but the guys he helped out were very obviously guilty (and ended up getting away with it) when there are countless people that need representation that didn't actually commit the crime. he doesn't help his case now that he goes on tv to lie about the law to defend trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:one of his partners was revealed to be a straight up 1488 type and there's zero way he didn't know There was another “____hat” guy he used to collaborate with (clarkhat?) who he got rid of and who started getting very into the dark enlightenment dorks and then the nazi dorks. Was that him?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Did the Nazi who murdered Heather Hayes not deserve legal representation? He’s a Nazi and couldn’t have been caught more red handed so his guilt was never in question. The answer is yes he deserved legal representation. The loving Nuremberg defendants had legal representation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did the Nazi who murdered Heather Hayes not deserve legal representation? He’s a Nazi and couldn’t have been caught more red handed so his guilt was never in question. Being assigned a public defender is technically legal representation. Ken's buddy is a Nazi enabler and he's trash too. Pretty much every other first world country puts legal limits on free speech, except here in the United States, where only sufficiently violent leftist speech is taken seriously before an actual crime happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
If we're lucky he'll go the same way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did the Nazi who murdered Heather Hayes not deserve legal representation? He’s a Nazi and couldn’t have been caught more red handed so his guilt was never in question. He deserves legal representation in the form of a court appointed defense attorney who does the bare minimum to establish competent defense and avoid censure and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:He deserves legal representation in the form of a court appointed defense attorney who does the bare minimum to establish competent defense and avoid censure and nothing more. That's the same as saying "he doesn't deserve legal representation."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did the Nazi who murdered Heather Hayes not deserve legal representation? He’s a Nazi and couldn’t have been caught more red handed so his guilt was never in question. I have to ask if you just don't read what people say or if you have some other reason to be super into 'but you HAVE to agree nazis deserve lawyers right???' when literally no one has taken the other side there? Like, again, they deserve representation, that rep should probably be a public defender and people should not judge a public defender for getting assigned a case and doing their constitutional duty by giving them as good a defense as they can. This is literally nothing like that, like you might as well ask if alien warlords who blow up a city deserve lawyers because that has as much link to this case as this convo does. Pope's friend hunted out the nazi to defend and is giving him space on his blog to keep doing nazi poo poo so yes I feel secure saying 'actually gently caress this guy, he's probably down with nazis'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Koalas Massacre posted:There's a big difference between representing someone in court and giving them a platform in your blog. Yeah that's the difference to me. I'm all for just punching Nazis in the street and have that be the end of it. Once it gets into the courts nazis should be given fair representation because if we start deciding who is and is not worth getting a fair shot at defending themselves in court it's going to escalate quickly and the people who end up not having fair representation sure ain't going to be the nazis. I realize that's already happening, but it's alarming to see people jump on the bandwagon of "gently caress this person they shouldn't have a lawyer" because that road leads to bad places. Giving them a platform is just lovely. It's similar to some stuff I've seen in this thread about free speech and how there shouldn't be free speech for some views. I get it, but once you start chipping away at that right I think it ends up with free speech being restricted for those with less political clout and that right now is unfortunately not nazis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Also the Nuremberg movie invented the fun relationship between Goering and his defense lawyer. There was no quirky pokey grandpa, it was a very straight affair that ended with his suicide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:That's the same as saying "he doesn't deserve legal representation." No, it is not. But I am in fact arguing that fascists don’t deserve the same treatment as everyone else, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I have to ask if you just don't read what people say or if you have some other reason to be super into 'but you HAVE to agree nazis deserve lawyers right???' when literally no one has taken the other side there? I’m not even talking about whatever the gently caress this Popehat drama is. I’m responding to this post Lightning Knight posted:I would argue there’s a strong moral difference between “individual who is lovely and probably did it but deserves equal treatment under the law” and “fascists” or “corporations” (this argument came up recently in a different thread). Which straight up implies a belief that Nazis shouldn’t have legal representation and should in fact be classified under an entirely different legal definition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
rich murderers go free while we've executed 100 percent innocent people because they couldn't afford someone like dershowitz. "equal representation" like "the free market" is a farce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No, it is not. But I am in fact arguing that fascists don’t deserve the same treatment as everyone else, yes. Why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No, it is not. But I am in fact arguing that fascists don’t deserve the same treatment as everyone else, yes. So if he had the money to get a top notch attorney you are arguing he should be denied that right? I don’t see how that is equal treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Why. Cos they’re Nazis goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
if you're a lawyer and you go seeking out a client to represent it's assumed you sympathize with them in some way. That can mean a lot of things, maybe you think they're innocent, maybe you just like them personally, maybe they have something that reminds you of something close to you, whatever, people assume there's something that makes a lawyer take all their caseload and point at some rando and go 'THAT guy please!' If you're a lawyer that seeks a client out and then gives the client a platform to keep doing the thing they were busted for people are gonna assume you just agree with the thing they were busted for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Why. Because fascism is inherently dangerous and should be disrupted and undermined at every available opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Koalas Massacre posted:There's a big difference between representing someone in court and giving them a platform in your blog. Yeah this is absolutely a fair point. I'm not a free speech fundamentalist like popehat and I wouldn't have done that. Really my three points are: 1. Everyone deserves legal representation. 2. As with the ACLU, popehat's being a civil rights fundamentalist does not necessarily make him bad. His position is both consistent and morally defensible. 3. gently caress twitter mobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
jase1 posted:So if he had the money to get a top notch attorney you are arguing he should be denied that right? I don’t see how that is equal treatment. I didn’t say they shouldn’t be allowed, I said that lawyers who take them up on it are collaborators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
jase1 posted:So if he had the money to get a top notch attorney you are arguing he should be denied that right? I don’t see how that is equal treatment. gently caress em
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
I really don't get why pundits obsessively compare previous president's behavior with Trump's. Trump is an anomaly in that he is the most ignorant, stupid, narcissistic, small-minded man to ever hold office, and he surrounds himself with similarly incompetent Yes-Men. Expecting him to smarten up and pivot like his predecessors is like expecting a cat to learn to use a toilet and read the newspaper; he is completely loving physically and mentally incapable of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Society is like 99% based on agreed upon decorum and ritual where people willing behave and enact out the magic words to make it all work. So you might ask what’s the point in wasting time giving a Nazi a fair trial when we all know what the results will and should be but I believe the very act of going through the motions is the point because that’s the foundation upon which all this poo poo works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
also on a not glib response, you know you're functionally arguing that lawyers should be FORCED to take any client that can afford them, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Society is like 99% based on agreed upon decorum and ritual where people willing behave and enact out the magic words to make it all work. So you might ask what’s the point in wasting time giving a Nazi a fair trial when we all know what the results will and should be but I believe he very act of going through the motions is important because that’s how this poo poo works. The inherent problem with this is that fascists do not care about any of this and will do away with it once in power and consequently must be opposed as much as possible. This is a textbook paradox of tolerance problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
also my nuclear take for this thread, private law firms are immoral inherently
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah this is absolutely a fair point. I'm not a free speech fundamentalist like popehat and I wouldn't have done that. Really my tree points are: If you’re an absolutist about any philosophical position, you will definitely end up arguing at least one disgusting position for no reason other than a need to validate a philosophy that you want to preserve for unrelated reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If you’re an absolutist about any philosophical position, you will definitely end up arguing at least one disgusting position for no reason other than a need to validate a philosophy that you want to preserve for unrelated reasons. Picking a philosophy off a shelf and approaching it this way seems like an absolutely bizarre way to approach life Thankfully the number of people I meet who identify themselves by their chosen philosophy are extremely rare
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:00
|
|
