Been to Lynn many times growing up, pretty much all of my dad's family lived there -- he was one of 11 kids I think? Some very large number 😂 High likelihood y'all are related somewhere
IMO the "value" of it fluctuates too much for it to ever be a replacement for fiat currency, and until it becomes something one can exchange for real-world goods and services (without being at the mercy of exchanges freezing $$ withdrawals), it's functionally worthless
👤: If Spiderman wanted to sue someone for defamation would he first have to prove he was Spiderman, and could he rely on others to prove he was Spiderman? Does the fact that there are shapeshifters/magic users/etc make it impossible?
Unfortunately it's going to depend on what exactly was conveyed to the responding officers and whether there was any indication (or should have been an indication) that it was a SWATting attempt. Def recommend talking with a §1983 atty, but qualified immunity makes it tough
That one would really vary by how a state has worded its laws on both ballistic weapons and on jamming equipment
You'd also run into issues w/ federal firearms laws too, which is "any weapon ... which will or is designed to ... expel a projectile by the action of an explosive"
Oh it'll be awhile. You've still got the remand for the bonus sanctions hearing, then the appeal of that, then the request for en banc review when the ruling is affirmed again, etc etc etc
My recollection is that the FCC's jammer regs only relate to interfering with over-air radio communications. I guess most "robots" would be radio-enabled, but didn't interpret the initial tweet that way
Not yet. It's 45 days from denial of the motion for reconsideration. That order was entered on September 29th IIRC, which would put 45 days at November 13th, and since that's a Sunday they'll instead have until November 14th
Silly sh*t. The federal government and most state governments allow unsworn declarations in lieu of notarizations (see, e.g., the federal version at 28 USC §1746: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28…)
Your tweet would be 1A-protected speech, you actually shouting it would be actionable (because you'd now meet the Brandenburg test for intent + likelihood + imminence!), and the protected tweet would still be admissible evidence of intent
Brandenburg says that speech is protected unless all 4 things happen:
1️⃣ the speech is intended to cause
2️⃣ and reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
In your hypothetical, you already hit 1, 3, and 4. That only leaves 2 as a question mark
It's still illegal, the question is just whether someone prosecutes
Using the FIACT hypo, for example: there's no requirement people *actually* panic and stampede. A judge / jury just has to decide it was "reasonably likely" to happen based on the circumstances
A basically-lawless judge (who'd rubber-stamped #SilentSham) decided "do something, bitch" and "you only got one eye, bitch" were illegal words, even though the words themselves didn't produce any conduct
I'm trying to figure out if it's dumber that you thought a 2020 tweet was a gotcha of some kind, or if you thought this particular tweet was a gotcha when it's of a cop car on a sidewalk running over pedestrians on a sidewalk (which is where pedestrians walk)
In any event, foodraiser.info redirects to a GitHub repo where I'll be adding Foodraiser details over time -- that'll continue to exist for the foreseeable future ☺️