How much is your free expression worth?

[iuwclurker]

Here is where you are dead wrong.

Do you really think freedom of expression is “protected” by the first amendment?

News flash; it isn’t. Freedom of expression rests in the hearts and minds of the body politic, it is part of natural law. We believe it is an inalienable right. Finding it enshrined in our organic documents does not establish or protect the right, it recognizes what exists.

Levis is one more brick in the wall separating individuals from that natural right.

All this talk about “branding” in this context is a crock. Sey’s offense has zero to
do with Levis‘ brand. If we are talking about any brand, we are talking about a feature of the brand that means America and Uncle Sam. (“Murica“ for the elites around here). For whatever reason, the elites across academia, government, and multi-nationals have decided that freedom of expression is no longer an important part of the USA brand.

Social justice warriors have succeeded in their ultimate goal of politicizing humanitarian endeavors, in this example co-opting the right of individual parents to decide what is in their child’s best interest. Big Liberal is trying to sardine-can the once big-tent Democratic Party under a tiny tent.

Ironically, the Internet is raising generations of children who use social media as a venue for free expression and as a means of raising awareness for humanitarian issues such as the welfare of the planet.

One can hope that both old white males on the right and old liberal hippies on the left are dying breeds.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No one has answered the question. I do not know exactly how much but for a million I'll shut up about politics.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Social justice warriors have succeeded in their ultimate goal of politicizing humanitarian endeavors, in this example co-opting the right of individual parents to decide what is in their child’s best interest. Big Liberal is trying to sardine-can the once big-tent Democratic Party under a tiny tent.

Ironically, the Internet is raising generations of children who use social media as a venue for free expression and as a means of raising awareness for humanitarian issues such as the welfare of the planet.

One can hope that both old white males on the right and old liberal hippies on the left are dying breeds.

Those who were raised with the internet are the ones who are demanding obedience and conformity by stifling speech.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No one has answered the question. I do not know exactly how much but for a million I'll shut up about politics.

First they came . . . .

 

[Marvin the Martian]

First they came . . . .

I have no idea how that ties into what I said.

 

[iuwclurker]

Those who were raised with the internet are the ones who are demanding obedience and conformity by stifling speech.

Those who are raised with the Internet don’t have any power yet to demand anything. They hardly even vote.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have no idea how that ties into what I said.

Your principles are for sale.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing“.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Your principles are for sale.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing“.

A, it was a joke
B, you are a lawyer, no group in America sells it's principles as fast or as often as a lawyer. You agree at all times with whomever pays you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A, it was a joke

Me too.

B, you are a lawyer, no group in America sells it's principles as fast or as often as a lawyer. You agree at all times with whomever pays you.

A joke, right?

 

[iuwclurker]

A, it was a joke
B, you are a lawyer, no group in America sells it's principles as fast or as often as a lawyer. You agree at all times with whomever pays you.

Agree with and loudspeaker for...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Me too.


A joke, right?

Nope, you were paid by a city. You agreed with the city in every single case in which you represented it? If not, were you not subjugating your morals for their money.

Every single defense lawyer believes their client innocent? Every prosecutor agrees morally with every charge/no charge decision.

I suspect everyone who has decent wealth has sold their morals at some point. Or they just lacked morals to begin with. But "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying" became a thing in NASCAR, which at the time was darn popular especially with conservatives.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Nope, you were paid by a city. You agreed with the city in every single case in which you represented it? If not, were you not subjugating your morals for their money.

Every single defense lawyer believes their client innocent? Every prosecutor agrees morally with every charge/no charge decision.

I suspect everyone who has decent wealth has sold their morals at some point. Or they just lacked morals to begin with. But "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying" became a thing in NASCAR, which at the time was darn popular especially with conservatives.

No this is wrong, Marv. Part is certainly money but part is believing in the system and the rights of clients, due process, etc. You aren't subjugating your morals for a client's money because you disagree with their position. That's not really how advocacy works in that arena

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Nope, you were paid by a city. You agreed with the city in every single case in which you represented it? If not, were you not subjugating your morals for their money.

Absolutely not! In fact it would be unethical for me to apply my personal moral code to my client’s case and this point is even more strong when representing the public, as I often did.

Unfortunately, with today’s highly politicized system of justice, few observe this standard. Years ago, when Eric Holder not only applied his personal politics to the DOJ, he bragged about it, I said he should have been subject to professional discipline. I was excoriated for that on this forum. We’re you one of those?

 

[iuwclurker]

Absolutely not! In fact it would be unethical for me to apply my personal moral code to my client’s case and this point is even more strong when representing the public, as I often did.

Unfortunately, with today’s highly politicized system of justice, few observe this standard. Years ago, when Eric Holder not only applied his personal politics to the DOJ, he bragged about it, I said he should have been subject to professional discipline. I was excoriated for that on this forum. We’re you one of those?

That a defense lawyer is ethically obligated to defend a client he knows he’s guilty is a fundamental flaw in our criminal justice system. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be entitled to such a defense. That wouldn’t correct the flaw in the system.

A better system would allow someone guilty of a crime to honestly admit it and subject himself to amends and rehabilitation to make him more functional in society. “Punishment” is a barbaric notion.

 

[UncleMark]

No this is wrong, Marv. Part is certainly money but part is believing in the system and the rights of clients, due process, etc. You aren't subjugating your morals for a client's money because you disagree with their position. That's not really how advocacy works in that arena

Unfortunately, with today’s highly politicized system of justice, few observe this standard. Years ago, when Eric Holder not only applied his personal politics to the DOJ, he bragged about it, I said he should have been subject to professional discipline. I was excoriated for that on this forum. We’re you one of those?

Anything can be justified if you try.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Anything can be justified if you try.

No I actually believe it. An example. My buddy owns a gym that was closed during lockdowns. During the first stay home period when Covid was raging and we were all freaking out I firmly believed closing businesses was the right thing to do. We had no idea how dangerous everything was at that time. If he would have come to me during my law days and said "dude county shut me down this is bs they don't have that right" I would have said i think you're wrong you should close but okay bring me five grand and i'll file for a temporary injunction. Then if he said "man I"m broke and I don't know how long this will last" I'd have said okay I'll just file it for you for nothing. Get me back later. I believe in his right to file that action. Whether I believe his position is morally right is immaterial.

And I know I am largely anti lockdown but it's the easiest example I can think of on the spot. But so many occasions like that arise when you practice

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No this is wrong, Marv. Part is certainly money but part is believing in the system and the rights of clients, due process, etc. You aren't subjugating your morals for a client's money because you disagree with their position. That's not really how advocacy works in that arena

That is what they teach people like OJ's lawyers so they could sleep at night and drive their Porsches during the day.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That is what they teach people like OJ's lawyers so they could sleep at night and drive their Porsches during the day.

Most lawyers don't make that kind of money, many of whom represent murderers, and know they are murderers. The system would fail if lawyers only represented clients that served as a proxy or conduit for advancement of their own morality. PDs want to win cases for people they know shouldn't be out on the streets because that's the system they believe in. High priced lawyers do the same. Money isn't the salient part; it's a perk

 

[UncleMark]

And I know I am largely anti lockdown but it's the easiest example I can think of on the spot. But so many occasions like that arise when you practice

I don't necessarily disagree with you or COH on this. But it's a justification, nonetheless.

 

[Crayfish57]

Wow man

That is what they teach people like OJ's lawyers so they could sleep at night and drive their Porsches during the day.

apparently you have some issues, Not a big fan of lawyers but most are just doing a job helping people more times than not

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't necessarily disagree with you or COH on this. But it's a justification, nonetheless.

In a generic sense I guess it is a justification, but what's the alternative? No system?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't necessarily disagree with you or COH on this. But it's a justification, nonetheless.

Is there something wrong with the word ‘justification”?

 

[Crayfish57]

In a generic sense I guess it is a justification, but what's the alternative? No system?

Trailer park Czar

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't necessarily disagree with you or COH on this. But it's a justification, nonetheless.

I agree entirely, we need people to defend obviously guilty people and corporations. But it is a justification.

Years ago the city had televised hearings where Comcast would present. The guy was honest, he was not about to dis Comcast while collecting their check. I get that, but that is selling your principles. Not Joel Osteen level, but still.

Putting up a monuments to slavers is justified by "heritage", or honoring the war dead. Yet George Thomas was a Virginian and a war hero, and a good general, yet Virginia built no monuments to him. Not one. It is a justification.

I could not defend a Herman Goering or a Pol Pot, Stalin, Amin. Couldn't do it.

 

[iuwclurker]

I agree entirely, we need people to defend obviously guilty people and corporations. But it is a justification.

Years ago the city had televised hearings where Comcast would present. The guy was honest, he was not about to dis Comcast while collecting their check. I get that, but that is selling your principles. Not Joel Osteen level, but still.

Putting up a monuments to slavers is justified by "heritage", or honoring the war dead. Yet George Thomas was a Virginian and a war hero, and a good general, yet Virginia built no monuments to him. Not one. It is a justification.

I could not defend a Herman Goering or a Pol Pot, Stalin, Amin. Couldn't do it.

To me a far worse flaw in our system is that an innocent person can become convicted of a crime and endure unconscionable punishment. But we have to have some system and the system we have is relatively workable. It’s basically designed to protect the innocent. Thank goodness.

Imagine an innocent person with the apparency of his guilt so overtly “obvious“ that no lawyer believes he is innocent and all lawyers refuse to defend him?

 

[UncleMark]

Is there something wrong with the word ‘justification”?

Not necessarily. But it seems incongruous with claims of "principle" that some like to throw out.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Not necessarily. But it seems incongruous with claims of "principle" that some like to throw out.

If you assume principles are never in conflict, you would be wrong. Justification and rationalization is the process of resolving those conflicts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If you assume principles are never in conflict, you would be wrong. Justification and rationalization is the process of resolving those conflicts.

Would you defend someone you disagree with for free? Or is it just the money that makes it a valid justification? I did not see OJ's attorney's believing in his cause enough to go pro bono.

 

[UncleMark]

If you assume principles are never in conflict, you would be wrong. Justification and rationalization is the process of resolving those conflicts.

No question. Which is why I'm not an absolutist on most questions, and have a hard time taking those who are seriously.

 

[UncleMark]

Would you defend someone you disagree with for free? Or is it just the money that makes it a valid justification? I did not see OJ's attorney's believing in his cause enough to go pro bono.

Interesting take. I don't recall any bigshot law firms citing all the pro bono work they do for unquestionably guilty people.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Would you defend someone you disagree with for free? Or is it just the money that makes it a valid justification? I did not see OJ's attorney's believing in his cause enough to go pro bono.

I have. But not going in; if you get my drift.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Would you defend someone you disagree with for free? Or is it just the money that makes it a valid justification? I did not see OJ's attorney's believing in his cause enough to go pro bono.

I have done that for multiple friends and relatives on Dwis. Some I got off completely. Two on felonies. You don't feel great about it but you believe in the system, DP, etc

 

[UncleMark]

I have done that for multiple friends and relatives on Dwis. Some I got off completely. Two on felonies. You don't feel great about it but you believe in the system, DP, etc

What about some random guy off the street?

 

[Crayfish57]

What about some random guy off the street?

Like you?

 

[mcmurtry66]

What about some random guy off the street?

I get where you're going but Marv's point pertained to doing something you disagree with for money. For me the money doesn't "justify" the disagreement it justifies the aggravation. So no I wouldn't do it for a rando not because of morality but because of aggravation.

 

[UncleMark]

I get where you're going but Marv's point pertained to doing something you disagree with for money. For me the money doesn't "justify" the disagreement it justifies the aggravation. So no I wouldn't do it for a rando not because of morality but because of aggravation.

So belief in the system and due process wasn't really part of the equation, was it? It was all about helping friends or family out of a legal bind. NTTAWWT

 

[mcmurtry66]

So belief in the system and due process wasn't really part of the equation, was it? It was all about helping friends or family out of a legal bind. NTTAWWT

Huh? You can believe in the system and due process yet not want to deal with aggravation. It's literally why many get burned out and quit. They don't lose interest/belief - they get sick of the clients

 

[TommyCracker]

I get where you're going but Marv's point pertained to doing something you disagree with for money. For me the money doesn't "justify" the disagreement it justifies the aggravation. So no I wouldn't do it for a rando not because of morality but because of aggravation.

As we have seen on this board over the silliest of things, everyone tends to paint themselves as the normal ones and the world reacts to them (it's hilarious to me how many posters truly believe they are moderates).

In other words, very few people enjoy being a lowlife, piece of shit, bat shit crazy extremist so we have to be able to justify why we might be perceived as one.

We need a cause or at least a divergence from that feeling.

I could defend Stalin unlike Marv, but I'd have to remind/convince myself how important it is for proper representation as a process. I'm not defending the abominable crimes on humanity this guy did, I'm protecting the virtue of the process cause if I didn't then the process becomes corrupted by emotion and mob mentality....or something like that.

Which makes me feel better.

That's at least much better than say working for something that causes pain and suffering (say Philip Morris today). Then you probably convince yourself it's all personal choice, it's not going away so someone will still do it if I don't, get lost in the game of marketing or what not).

As an aside, Hollywood has tender to lose its focus on how important this mental game we play is to character building. Instead of having a villian that you understand it's justification for being that villain you're just getting villains being evil for the sake of being evil, which means we don't have any investment in that character. They don't make us think or consider their POV.

 

[Crayfish57]

Huh? You can believe in the system and due process yet not want to deal with aggravation. It's literally why many get burned out and quit. They don't lose interest/belief - they get sick of the clients

Face it he is a liberal communist idiot that lives to agitate anything he can think of. Again you could switch all points but have them seem to come from the left and he would agree because he is to stupid to think for himself .

 

[mcmurtry66]

Face it he is a liberal communist idiot that lives to agitate anything he can think of. Again you could switch all points but have them seem to come from the left and he would agree because he is to stupid to think for himself .

Nah Mark is a good dude.