3 ms·

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. We're entitled to an attorney when defending

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time? At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests. If they end up needing legal counsel for a criminal trial they'll receive it. Otherwise they can just grab a phonebook and start calling ambulance chasers until they find one who will meet their other legal needs.

1123581321 6y ago
There is some advocacy to provide public defenders in civil matters. The reasoning is that financial damages can effectively deny liberty, even though the method differs from criminal. That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service. Even so that wouldn't apply here. Parler lost their private counsel, not their legal counsel.
edbob 6y ago
Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal. Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding in a very flawed legal system.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation? Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation? Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - edbob 6y ago
    If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary. Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only. You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. No one said a word about "corporate personhood", for example, and no one is even talking about legal representation of corporations. It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion like this.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      You responded to a comment about Parler's legal counsel dropping them and equated it to Civil Death. Parler is a business, not a person.
      - edbob 6y ago
        Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. The mass harassment of lawyers (leading to withdrawal) that I'm aware of involved Trump's lawyers. Perhaps they were retained by a corporation (idk), but I would find the question of corporate personhood irrelevant because Trump could just have retained them personally if he needed to. To be clear, I don't think that the Trump lawsuits had any merit or should have been brought in the first place. But they should absolutely have been allowed to go through the normal legal process so they could be convincingly rebutted. Sending hundreds of threats to law firms should not be a political tactic in a democracy. That does nothing but give ammunition and validity to conspiracy theorists.
        cptskippy 6y ago
        > Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. Your first comment was responding to someone talking about AWS, Apple, and Google dropping Parler. The discussion was around the right of lawyers to drop clients, clients being so toxic that no one is willing to represent them, legal counsel as a right, and the ramifications of a client being unable to secure counsel. No one was talking about mass harassment but you. > I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. You're trying to argue something completely out of context. That 80% of comments you're ignoring are about the topic at hand.

1123581321 6y ago

There is some advocacy to provide public defenders in civil matters. The reasoning is that financial damages can effectively deny liberty, even though the method differs from criminal. That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.

cptskippy 6y ago
> That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service. Even so that wouldn't apply here. Parler lost their private counsel, not their legal counsel.

edbob 6y ago

Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal. Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding in a very flawed legal system.

cptskippy 6y ago
Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation? Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation? Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- edbob 6y ago
  If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary. Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only. You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. No one said a word about "corporate personhood", for example, and no one is even talking about legal representation of corporations. It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion like this.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    You responded to a comment about Parler's legal counsel dropping them and equated it to Civil Death. Parler is a business, not a person.
    - edbob 6y ago
      Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. The mass harassment of lawyers (leading to withdrawal) that I'm aware of involved Trump's lawyers. Perhaps they were retained by a corporation (idk), but I would find the question of corporate personhood irrelevant because Trump could just have retained them personally if he needed to. To be clear, I don't think that the Trump lawsuits had any merit or should have been brought in the first place. But they should absolutely have been allowed to go through the normal legal process so they could be convincingly rebutted. Sending hundreds of threats to law firms should not be a political tactic in a democracy. That does nothing but give ammunition and validity to conspiracy theorists.
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        > Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. Your first comment was responding to someone talking about AWS, Apple, and Google dropping Parler. The discussion was around the right of lawyers to drop clients, clients being so toxic that no one is willing to represent them, legal counsel as a right, and the ramifications of a client being unable to secure counsel. No one was talking about mass harassment but you. > I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. You're trying to argue something completely out of context. That 80% of comments you're ignoring are about the topic at hand.