I love this argument. "CAIR is basically Hamas. The terms of service are too vague. And other people also say dumb, racist shit on here so...."
A lot of lawyers think you gotta go in with a lot of evidence and argument to prove something.
Not so. You just gotta say there's "little serious debate" that you're 100% correct.
Judges are gonna be like "Oh damn, I wanna be serious! He must be right."
Oh damn we are just gonna spend a couple of pages complaining about Ilhan Omar like a Breitbart comments section
"Ohhh Loomer said some totally reasonable stuff I won't trouble you by quoting here but by the way it's totally accurate!"
"it's also totally fine to say the hijab is oppressive because it's arguably true!"
Guys I shit you not the next hundred pages of this complaint is just calling out people who've said mean stuff on twitter but didn't get banned and "proving" that CAIR is a terrorist organization.
YOU HAVE GONE PERHAPS TOO FAR AFIELD
Coleman gives David Duke as an example of someone who should be banned, but isn't, and in the process gives us the best sentence of the brief.
COLEMAN CITES THE SPLC AS AN AUTHORITY in describing Louis Farrakhan as a hate figure.
I dunno man if you're gonna rely on the SPLC to make your case do you have to call them "notoriously corrupt?"
Ok man, this is tricky, because I am not finding these facts seem basically random, but is the argument here that twitter does CAIR's bidding BECAUSE it's a terrorist organization?
Ok, fair enough, here's at last some circumstantial evidence to support the claim that twitter banned Loomer because of CAIR rather than because, like every other online platform, it got tired of her.
Then, a boilerplate claim that Loomer had a business relationship with everyone on twitter that she lost because twitter enforced the contract she agreed to.
Like a panhandler suing a grocery store for shooing her away.
Anyway, I'm no expert on what a tortious interference claim might look like, but I believe this is currently on appeal with the 11th Circuit.
So maybe we'll get an opinion explaining this a bit better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wouldn't hate it if appellate courts had fact checkers and experts they could run opinions by for accuracy.
Not as in, "this is mandatory," but law clerks are never going to be as good at researching factual questions as, say, @RottenInDenmark. It would be cool to have someone smart on hand to look into stuff like "how does this technology work?" or "are these statistics trustworthy?"
There are some reports that Giuliani is distributing a video of Hunter Biden smoking crack and having sex. I think this may pose some problems under Delaware's revenge porn statute. /1
The statute makes it a misdemeanor to distribute images of someone engaging in sexual conduct without their consent if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I haven't viewed the video, so I don't know if Biden had that expectation, but this does seem nonconsensual. /2
The statute suggests some aggravating factors that are present here, such as including the identity of the person filmed, distributing to "annoy" that person, and possibly that the images are distributed for "profit."
I feel like I could make some brave new law on standing if I sued for an injunction requiring judges to wear flannel pajamas and terrycloth robes for zoom proceedings
"But Mr. Fleischman how are you injured by black robes?"
"Your honor the word coziness does not appear in the Constitution but a semantic analysis of the Federalist papers reveals..."
It certainly might SEEM crazy that the governor of a state can arbitrarily limit access to ballot boxes based on vague, poorly articulated security concerns. It might seem like a lot of last-minute election changes geared at suppressing turnout are, in fact, corrupt. But really/1