Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
@ASFleischman
Jul 13, 2021 • 7 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Sacha Baron Cohen prevails against former Alabama Supreme Court Justice and Guy Who Got Banned From the Mall for Skeeving on Children Roy Moore.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… Image
Moore lost because he signed a contract explicitly waiving his right to sue for the things he was suing for, even though he struck through another provision about waiving his right to sue for intrusion on his privacy, a cause of action he didn't bring. ImageImage
Moore argued that he was defrauded because he thought the interview would be friendly.

But he agreed, in writing, that he was not relying on representation that the interview would be friendly. ImageImage
Kayla Moore, meanwhile, loses under the First Amendment because a reasonable person would not believe Sacha Baron Cohen was actually claming to own a pedophile detector, when a real device would have blown up immediately as soon as Roy Moore entered a room. Image
It was, in fact, a pretty silly thing to claim to be defamed by. Image
Long story short, you can't sue when you sign a contract not to sue, and you can't sue for defamation when the person "defaming" you is a deliberately ridiculous character on a satirical television series.

Now let's all rewatch this glorious clip:

rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/wat…
Also, one final takeaway: this opinion could have easily been extremely cutesy and filled with Borat references. But, thankfully, the judge wrote a sober opinion about the law and the facts and didn't use this as an opportunity to try out his tight five.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Andrew Fleischman

Andrew Fleischman 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 @ASFleischman

Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Apr 10
So my client is a paraplegic. One day, a Fulton County police department asked him to come down and answer a few questions.

A woman alleged that he KICKED her door down and assaulted her.

And they were calling him down to arrest him, not talk to him.
The client had some pretty good objections. For instance, he is paraplegic. He is physically incapable of committing the crime as alleged.

Also, he had not seen the woman in ten years.

Ahhh, the police officer said, then how did she pick you out of a lineup?
The client says "yes, we did date a number of years ago, but I have been married for ten years. We did not just break up as she said"
Read 28 tweets
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Feb 17
There was a NYT op ed claiming that there's a good argument that the children of illegal immigrants don't get birthright citizenship.

Before I get into why it's wrong, first, I want to talk about all the ways we know that the 14th Amendment DOES provide such citizenship.
First and foremost, there's the text of the 14th amendment:

It says that to become a citizen, you need only be born and subject to jursidiction.

And children of illegal immigrants can indeed be sued, jailed, or taxed, as needed. Image
So if we're just applying the plain text of the amendment, and the ordinary meaning of jurisdiction, it's very strongly in support.
Read 16 tweets
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Feb 15
This is one of my favorite historical stories.

In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.

He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.Image
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.

They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in. Image
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped. Image
Read 7 tweets
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Feb 3
Threatening to prosecute people for accurately reporting information about the government violates the first amendment.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy. Image
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment. Image
Read 11 tweets
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Feb 3
When a public official is corrupt, you don't need to doxx them. Who they are is publicly available.
And yet good reporters still often find out embarrassing, newsworthy stuff about these people.
Now as for these private citizens doing public work, I think they should be subject to scrutiny.

For instance, would you want to know if someone was a dual citizenship Chinese national? Had gambling debts? Was secretly woke?
Read 4 tweets
Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Jan 22
The problem is that there's no good faith definition of "jurisdiction" under which illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction.

They have to pay taxes. They can be convicted of crimes. They can be sued. They can be deported.

That's what jurisdiction is.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.
Read 5 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(