5 ms·

> What's left after that? We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be c

by edbob 6y ago

> What's left after that? We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be civil death [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death

cptskippy 6y ago
This isn't about people having their civil liberties taken away. The social network bans are businesses protecting themselves from people whom threaten their business. Like a fast food restaurant refusing to serve customers who smoke crack in the restaurant. The platform and infrastructure bans are also businesses protecting themselves but not from people, rather from other businesses. This is on level with U-haul banning drug cartels from renting their trucks. No one's civil liberties are being taken away
- mech422 6y ago
  Indeed, no business wants to carry unnecessary liability. Funny, Didn't see all this crying about censorship when MC & Visa cut off pornhub... edit: just to be clear, I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. Thats just capitalism.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. I can't clobber you over the head with a product I bought just like how many countries have laws to say I can't kick you out of private property that's also a public square.
    - mech422 6y ago
      >>I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property! Also, I'm not sure 'private' property can be a 'public' square. At least in New England, the town commons was public land ?
      - afuchs 6y ago
        There are instances where such freedoms are granted to individuals while on private property. However, it is limited to specific circumstances and only when a specific jurisdiction's laws require it. Quickly looking this up brings me to the supreme court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1], which involved laws that were specific to the state of California. Notably, the applicability of this ruling was narrowed over time. Despite this, it has been brought up as an argument in situations with circumstances that differed from those of the original ruling, where questions of its applicability can be easily raised. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
        mech422 6y ago
        Hmm - must have been pretty hard to narrow, since its seems to specifically target shopping centers ? edit: I seem to remember my son's class not being able to petition in front of a grocery store in California like 20 years ago...Wonder if it had been narrowed by then?
      - MrMan 6y ago
        In New England they also practiced banishment and put people in stocks for moral infractions.
        corin_ 6y ago
        Most of the world including New England still locks people up for moral infractions, even if no longer using stocks.
  - 55555 6y ago
    In my circles, there was huge backlash against the Pornhub decision by Visa and MC. It was a terrible action.
    - mech422 6y ago
      I don't recall seeing much about it? Though, I have to admit I don't do social media much.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Certain topics are stigmatized for various reasons so lots of people don't want to be seen to complain about things because they would then be associated with the topic and get the stigma too.
- edbob 6y ago
  Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful but could never be prosecuted as crimes in normal circumstances have become a justification to harass law firms until they refuse to represent a client. I say "normal circumstances" because I'm not sure how long it will be until we get show trials and mass convictions of political figures.
  - NineStarPoint 6y ago
    Do you have reason to believe that it’s harassment that is stopping these people from getting legal counsel? Many of these people, Trump especially, have shown that they refuse to listen to legal council and will lie for no good reason at all, then throw their legal council under the bus if it seems like it will advantage them. There are many good reasons lawyers might not want to touch the current situation with a ten foot pole besides harrasement.
    - edbob 6y ago
      I'll give a few quick links, but a quick search turns up dozens and I think you're competent enough to search for yourself. You have public statements of "Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game" and then you have the expected harassment and law firms pulling out en masse. Maybe the client's toxicity is a factor, but that should be the only factor. [0] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/16/exclusive-lawyer-at-pa-secretary-of-states-law-firm-harassed-trump-lawyer-accused-her-of-treason-n1152353 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/1... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/law-firm-drops-trump-campaign-436418 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/law-firm-drops-trum... [2] https://thenewamerican.com/new-low-democrats-approve-harassment-of-trump-attorneys/ https://thenewamerican.com/new-low-democrats-approve-harassm...
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        If we start compelling lawyers to provide legal counsel to clients, what protections do we afford those lawyers? In several cases over the last election, Judges threatened lawyers with sanctions and loss of right to practice for bringing forth clearly baseless lawsuits and wasting the court's time. If we affirm that the right to legal counsel is a human right and that corporations also receive that right, how do we protect lawyers from clients which ignore legal counsel and file frivolous that can threaten the lawyer's right to practice law?
pmiller2 6y ago
Who's being denied the right to legal representation? I'm not talking about individual lawyers refusing to represent people, I mean literally give me an example of anyone being denied the right to legal representation.

by edbob 6y ago

cptskippy 6y ago

This isn't about people having their civil liberties taken away. The social network bans are businesses protecting themselves from people whom threaten their business. Like a fast food restaurant refusing to serve customers who smoke crack in the restaurant. The platform and infrastructure bans are also businesses protecting themselves but not from people, rather from other businesses. This is on level with U-haul banning drug cartels from renting their trucks. No one's civil liberties are being taken away

mech422 6y ago
Indeed, no business wants to carry unnecessary liability. Funny, Didn't see all this crying about censorship when MC & Visa cut off pornhub... edit: just to be clear, I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. Thats just capitalism.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. I can't clobber you over the head with a product I bought just like how many countries have laws to say I can't kick you out of private property that's also a public square.
  - mech422 6y ago
    >>I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property! Also, I'm not sure 'private' property can be a 'public' square. At least in New England, the town commons was public land ?
    - afuchs 6y ago
      There are instances where such freedoms are granted to individuals while on private property. However, it is limited to specific circumstances and only when a specific jurisdiction's laws require it. Quickly looking this up brings me to the supreme court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1], which involved laws that were specific to the state of California. Notably, the applicability of this ruling was narrowed over time. Despite this, it has been brought up as an argument in situations with circumstances that differed from those of the original ruling, where questions of its applicability can be easily raised. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
      - mech422 6y ago
        Hmm - must have been pretty hard to narrow, since its seems to specifically target shopping centers ? edit: I seem to remember my son's class not being able to petition in front of a grocery store in California like 20 years ago...Wonder if it had been narrowed by then?
    - MrMan 6y ago
      In New England they also practiced banishment and put people in stocks for moral infractions.
      - corin_ 6y ago
        Most of the world including New England still locks people up for moral infractions, even if no longer using stocks.
- 55555 6y ago
  In my circles, there was huge backlash against the Pornhub decision by Visa and MC. It was a terrible action.
  - mech422 6y ago
    I don't recall seeing much about it? Though, I have to admit I don't do social media much.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Certain topics are stigmatized for various reasons so lots of people don't want to be seen to complain about things because they would then be associated with the topic and get the stigma too.
edbob 6y ago
Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful but could never be prosecuted as crimes in normal circumstances have become a justification to harass law firms until they refuse to represent a client. I say "normal circumstances" because I'm not sure how long it will be until we get show trials and mass convictions of political figures.
- NineStarPoint 6y ago
  Do you have reason to believe that it’s harassment that is stopping these people from getting legal counsel? Many of these people, Trump especially, have shown that they refuse to listen to legal council and will lie for no good reason at all, then throw their legal council under the bus if it seems like it will advantage them. There are many good reasons lawyers might not want to touch the current situation with a ten foot pole besides harrasement.
  - edbob 6y ago
    I'll give a few quick links, but a quick search turns up dozens and I think you're competent enough to search for yourself. You have public statements of "Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game" and then you have the expected harassment and law firms pulling out en masse. Maybe the client's toxicity is a factor, but that should be the only factor. [0] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/16/exclusive-lawyer-at-pa-secretary-of-states-law-firm-harassed-trump-lawyer-accused-her-of-treason-n1152353 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/1... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/law-firm-drops-trump-campaign-436418 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/law-firm-drops-trum... [2] https://thenewamerican.com/new-low-democrats-approve-harassment-of-trump-attorneys/ https://thenewamerican.com/new-low-democrats-approve-harassm...
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      If we start compelling lawyers to provide legal counsel to clients, what protections do we afford those lawyers? In several cases over the last election, Judges threatened lawyers with sanctions and loss of right to practice for bringing forth clearly baseless lawsuits and wasting the court's time. If we affirm that the right to legal counsel is a human right and that corporations also receive that right, how do we protect lawyers from clients which ignore legal counsel and file frivolous that can threaten the lawyer's right to practice law?

pmiller2 6y ago

Who's being denied the right to legal representation? I'm not talking about individual lawyers refusing to represent people, I mean literally give me an example of anyone being denied the right to legal representation.