Civil rights activist, scholar, & security and privacy sceptic. Won legal case for trans rights: https://t.co/3iQM4h5IZW. (https://t.co/SVgdaQi2N9.)
Nov 13, 2018 • 14 tweets • 4 min read
Recently, @Google has been publishing propaganda about how it allegedly values diversity, inclusion, and equality.
Meanwhile, @Google routinely violates the rights of disabled people. Official company policy proves that @Google does not intend to comply with the law. Thread:
Under both California and federal law, a person is entitled to receive accommodations for their disabilities without having to provide any medical evidence if the need for the accommodations is clear. See, e.g., 2 CCR § 11069(c)(2).
Oct 18, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Trump's novel comparison of Kavanaugh to the Saudi state nicely illustrates the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: there was direct evidence against Kavanaugh but only circumstance evidence against the Saudis. A thread:
In the case of Kavanaugh, there was a witness who says that she actually observed the sexual assault in full — namely, Dr. Ford. This was direct evidence sufficient to ground a conviction for sexual assault if Kavanaugh had been charged at the time:
In honour of #WorldMentalHealthDay, let's talk about how the Legislature of California has been passing laws to systematically limit the rights of mentally ill people for many years — largely without any public criticism. A thread:
Like most jurisdictions, California law has long allowed a person to be taken into custody and imprisoned if the person presents an imminent danger to themselves or others. This is a form of preventive detention — imprisoning somebody because of what they might do.
Sep 30, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
People have suggested that Kavanaugh cannot be found guilty in the absence of corroborating evidence, but that would be a more generous standard than is applied in the actual criminal justice system. A jury can generally convict upon the testimony of a single credible witness.
In fact, even if multiple witnesses testify that the event did not occur, the jury can still choose to "prefer the testimony of a single witness to that of many", Hourie v. State, 53 Md. App. 62, 74 (Ct Spec App 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted), and thereby convict.
