Whenever I speak about Section 230, I always use the chat site Omegle as the prototype of a site that should not be immune for third-party posted content. I am so glad *someone*--the redoubtable @cagoldberglaw--is finally testing whether 230 really protects Omegle.
I have my doubts that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss under current law. But if you can read it without seething rage, and an overpowering sense that it *should* survive such a motion, I would love to hear a coherent argument that what Omegle...
…other haters on their toes, I try to keep a stream of new dog shirts coming on the show—a stream of ever-escalating offensiveness to the anti-dog-shirt aesthetic.
I was bouncing dog shirt ideas off of @eve_gaumond (who is a young AI scholar you should follow). We both…
Good question. Answer: No.
We did not publish it.
We made sure it was in appropriate hands. (It is a matter of public record that I gave it to Jim Comey after he already had it.)
And we published a VERY cautious piece on @lawfareblog about it when it became public.
I have only had a chance to scan the indictment quickly, but on first glance, it appears to me carefully crafted to deal with the issues that @jshaub and I flagged in our article yesterday. lawfareblog.com/why-justice-de…
Specifically, note that the indictment does not take issue with any previous DOJ position with respect to the scope of executive privilege.
A word about each of them to begin my campaign: @BryceKlehm does an incredible Donald Trump impersonation, which we featured on the “After Trump” podcast.
@jacob_r_schulz has turned himself into an expert on French counterterrorism and knows a shocking amount about this history of prosecutions under the seditious conspiracy law.