Share this page!

Ari Cohn Profile picture
Twitter logo
21 Jun, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Maybe attorneys should refuse to represent you. (And lord know you probably need a few given how notoriously shitty property management companies are)
It would surprise me if @RLpmg wasn't doing this because they're engaged in some questionable practices.
Oh @pslohmann & @rlpmg, you thought you could scrub this didn't you. Too bad the Internet is forever and it's also...as you kindly pointed out...right there on your website, which has been archived just in case you try to weasel out of it: web.archive.org/web/2021062113…
Guess we can add "tweeting" to the list of things he doesn't do to lawyers

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ari Cohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriCohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture
22 Jun
1/ Florida filed its brief opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction against the state's new social media law.

I have thoughts. In this part I'll talk about what they got wrong about #Section230. In a second part, the First Amendment argument.

Image
2/ The brief: courtlistener.com/docket/5994220…

Florida desperately wants to change the conversation to #Section230 instead of the First Amendment, because that's the conversation they've always wanted this to be about; it's the political hot button they want to feverishly mash.
3/ So they frontloaded the 230 discussion.

But they get off to a bad start by claiming that 230 was prompted only by the Stratton Oakmont, which held Prodigy liable for user content because it engaged in *some* content moderation.
Read 36 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
22 Jun
Much agitation against "big tech" is misguided & First Amendmently problematic (on both sides), but I do share two concerns:

1) Giving a govt agency regulatory power over platofrms is a bad, bad idea

2) Govt communication with platforms re: what should be banned is problematic.
Damnit give me that edit button.
Point blank: the government should not be advising social media platforms about what content they should moderate. Platforms should not be asking government. And if asked, the government should not answer (haha like the government has ever missed an opportunity to exert its will)
Read 4 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
21 Jun
The Supreme Court pretty recently expressed its unwillingness to expand the state action doctrine in Halleck.

And Paul Domer was a student who wrote a law review article; he's not an expert. Marsh is inapt, and again, SCOTUS has been clear that it has no interest in expanding it
Repeat after me: "traditionally and exclusively performed by the state"
Holy cow, this part of Paul Domer's "expert" law review article:

1) Actually, they do

2) Packingham suggests *nothing of the sort*
Read 7 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
20 Jun
How to be wrong about Section 230 in one paragraph.
To explain, I suppose:

1) No, Section 230 wasn't originally designed just to let websites remove pornography. Porn was the target of the rest of the CDA, which was held unconstitutional. 230 was intended to make it easier for sites to decide what kind of place they wanted to be.
2) There's no "serious argument" that Section 230 only applies to "obscene, violent, or equally valueless content." At all. And "equally valueless" is a phrase entirely without meaning or legal import. The point is that sites can decide for themselves what content to allow.
Read 5 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
24 May
1/ Today the Texas House of Representatives votes on SB 12, a half-baked and unconstitutional "social media censorship" bill introduced by @SenBryanHughes after a similar bill failed in 2019.

This bill is no better than the last, and the house should vote it down.

#txlege
2/ The bill would forbid platforms from removing content / banning users based on viewpoint (even viewpoints expressed *not* on the platform) and allow aggrieved parties to seek a court order (backed by mandatory contempt findings for non-compliance) to reinstate the user/content
3/ Not for nothing, the whole premise of the bill is flawed: there is vanishingly little support for the claim that platforms are removing content for ideological reasons as opposed to violations of platforms' rules, as this NYU Study found: static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df95…
Read 18 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
13 May
I am personally excited for the option I can select to make sure I see posts from Shirley Phelps-Roper that provide an opposing point of view and make sure that I am not stuck in an echo chamber and failing to properly think about whether or not God does, in fact, hate fags. Image
Thanks, Martha Minow.
I'm terribly sure that QAnon folks will love the "show me things that contradict the irrational beliefs I have adopted contrary to observable reality and facts" option, or that Israel supporters will be wanting to make sure they see the "Israel is murderous apartheid" takes.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AriCohn has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AriCohn!

Read all threads by @AriCohn

:(