When you're using Zoom or similar remote video services, you can turn your video on or keep video off. When you turn video off -- or when you would like to, but can't -- what's the most significant reason why?
And no, this wasn't prompted by anything in particular. It just occurred to me that we have a new set of social practices and norms re cameras, without a clear sense of what the practices/norms are doing and why. Curious about the range of reasons.
As an example, say I'm in a small group meeting from home and I want to get a cup of coffee in the kitchen. I have three options: (1) Keep video on and just don't get the coffee until after the meeting, (2) Keep video on and let everyone watch as I get the coffee, or ...
(3) turn off the camera while I get the coffee, and then turn the camera back on after I'm done.
Now, in the physical world, we have norms about what is rude or weird in terms of getting up to go get something in the middle of as meeting.
If there's coffee in the room for the meeting, for example, it's considered okay to quietly go get some mid-meeting. If it's not in the room, leaving the room to go get coffee would be considered a bit rude. You know your choices.
Do we have equivalent norms yet for the Zoom version? I would say (2) is out: It's distracting watching someone tote a computer around as they make coffee. So you'd make a judgment about whether turning your camera off for a few minutes would, in the context of that call,
be considered odd. You'd pick (1) if it would be, or (3) if it wouldn't be. But I'm not sure we yet have a social consensus about turning cameras off. Do we see that as totally fine, as there are lots of good reasons to have cameras off for a bit?
Or do we see turning cameras off as something that is a bit rude itself, like, "ha ha, I can see you but you can't see me," that maybe is fine but perhaps needs some kind of explanation?
Or maybe it depends on the type of meeting, how well people know each other, what camera expectations were set at the outset, how many people are in the room, etc. I'm not sure. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
CA4: Plaintiff using pseudonym "Hester Prynne" survives 12(b)(6) motion in her Ex Post Facto challenge to being put on Va sex offender registry based on conviction about sexual act before registry existed. (2-1, unpublished, per Gallagher by designation) ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/19195…
Whether you agree with the panel or the dissent, seems frustrating that this is only an unpublished opinion. With a divided panel, and a prior unpub op going the other way, I would think an answer would be helpful one way or the other.
Oh, and on an entirely parochial front, cool to see an op by my law school classmate Stephanie Agli. :)
The Supreme Court will hold argument in Lange v. California, a 4th Amendment case on the hot-pursuit exception, on Wednesday morning.
I haven't focused much on this case, but here are some tentative thoughts for those interested. supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…
And my apologies: I know this will be hard to follow for those not already steeped in 4th Amendment law, but it's 3am and I don't have the time to bring everyone up to speed on the context. On the theory it's better to speak to a small audience than not speak at all, here goes.
Lange considers the "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement applies to a misdemeanor crime. Is it it judged on a case-by-case basis, or should there be a bright line rule that hot pursuit searches of a dwelling where a misdemeanant has entered is reasonable?
For anyone familiar with "true threat" doctrine under the First Amendment, I'm interested to know if you think the video below amounts to a "true threat."
I'll put up a poll so you can vote mediately below this tweet.
Minor question about the Jeffrey Clark DOJ story: Does it matter to our assessment of Clark's culpability if he genuinely believed the conspiracy theories of the 2020 election?
Like a lot of readers, I was astonished by the Clark story. My immediate reaction is to think (a) Clark is obviously smart enough to realize that the conspiracy theories were total BS, and (b) using them as cover was an outrageous affront to the rule of law.
And maybe it's that simple. But I wonder about another possibility.
If you're wondering if the Senate has the power to order social media to preserve online accounts in response to the Capitol Riot, I have just the article for you: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Here Warner seems to be acting as a single Senator, though, not as an agent of the Senate as a whole. Can he do that? The 2703(f) authority is granted to any "governmental entity," defined in relevant part as "a department or agency of the United States." Can 1 Senator do that?
As I read Warner's letter, though, he's probably not trying to formally invoke 2703(f): It's more an informal request to help the (likely already issued) formal requests from law enforcement.
A few thoughts on Twitter's suspension of Trump's account, a thread.
Twitter is a private company and it can do what it wants. Twitter is selling a product in a free market, and it's up to Twitter what the product is like. If they want to enforce certain rules, even unfairly, that's their call. They're a company, not the government.
True, companies like Twitter impact what today's media
environment is like. As a citizen, it's easier to reach a large audience if you play by the rules of the big tech companies. So the inevitable editorial decisions of the providers will shape that media environment.