This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Kiwifarms is probably done for. Null is unable to get legal representation because his lawyers dropped him after five years of business for "ties to russia" and his mailing address has been terminated for unspecified reasons. Tor is inaccessible because of DDOS attacks. The site has had a security breach and user data has possibly been leaked. This is probably the most complete deplatforming anyone who hasn't actually committed a crime yet has ever experienced.
I believe that KF has significant value in the culture war for the red team and it seems strange to me that not a single person with any financial power has stepped in to help. For most people, KF is seen as a evil nazi website and at best a shitty gossip forum, but it did contain a lot of useful information and opposition research on highly prominent people that will be memoryholed forever if the site goes down (Even internet archives are being purged). Keeping it alive on the clearnet would require a substantial investment, but it wouldn't be impossible to do.
Where is the red/grey team version of George Soros? Peter Thiel?
Are there any options for a completely legal (in the United States) site like KF to stay online? What will themotte do if they ever make an enemy that understands how easy it is to wipe them off the net?
Just to be clear, this is referring to him saying:
So it seems like his company, Lolcow LLC, doesn't have an agent anymore? I'm not sure if this means he's completely devoid of legal representation. IIRC he hired a different attorney to fight several different frivolous lawsuits filed by Greer and Scott (can't confirm the name), so I'm not sure if his own attorney has terminated him.
Either way, this is extremely worrying and quite frankly, disgusting behavior. The right to have legal representation is quite literally a fundamental right, and it reflects poorly on those who attempt to take it away from others. These people are short-sighted and don't fully comprehend the consequences of enshrining the tactic of "go after people's lawyers" as a legitimate tactic that should be used. The only silver lining is that sooner or later, the harassment mob will probably run up against breaking an actual law in such a legible way as to fully suffer the consequences in court (I'm not a lawyer, but tortious interference probably fits the bill here).
Well, the way I see it, there is probably nothing that can be done unless fundamental internet services are regulated as common carriers. The only defense is that we're small, not notable, and talk in complete sentences. However we've already ended up on a "hate list" by association with TracingWoodgrains, and we've already been ousted off Reddit, so time will tell.
Literal terrorists get legal representation.
In a recent thread about illegal immigration, I got super-pissed at the idea that we should hold the illegal immigrants' lawyers responsible for their behavior. Because it is a direct strike at the heart of liberalism. Yeah, yeah, going after the other side's lawyers is effective. Obviously. Because without legal representation you are SOL.
Same thing here. If the redcoats who did the Boston Massacre get lawyers, so does a guy running a website.
More options
Context Copy link
One of the problems for everyone involved in this trash fire is that these sort of lawsuits are incredibly impractical. There is no federal small claims court, finding an actual bad actor to identify is a mess, and the wheels of justice grind slow and not particularly fine. CDA230 makes that worse because a lot of people the identifiable people can whitewash bad actions of third parties, but there's similar issues for print and paper that CDA230 doesn't cover.
No one's going to successfully bring a lawsuit, here, for the same reasons that the lawsuits aimed at KF were only going to drain coffers rather than actually bring down the site or even harm the actual bad actors rather than the guy hosting and encouraging them. No one's bringing state charges against SWATters on either side, or the people taking photos through rando's windows, and that's part of why this whole mess could get so amazingly bad.
This reflects a really bad understanding of common carrier rules. Shipping -- one of the classical common carriers -- has already banned firearms parts shipments; the USPS bans the shipment of handguns. For rails, Amtrak prohibits firearms in checked bags from 2001-2009, only accepting them again after congressional action.
Common carrier rules for the purposes of telecommunications are merely that :
If you heard the sound of a vast abyss of judicial interpretation with the words "unjust or unreasonable", you're not wrong. There are few reasonable definitions that couldn't fit KF!
Shipping companies banning firearms parts may be unjust (and I agree), but I think the frustration that Null has is that he keeps getting booted off places for reasons that don't match up with what he's actually done. It would be one thing if these companies would simply be honest and just say "Okay, you know what, we have a new policy that criticizing other people on your website is banned due to the many externalities, that's why we banned them." If they were common carriers, they wouldn't be able to come up with bullshit justifications for booting them off. To analogize this to shipping, it would be like if shipping companies secretly decided to ban firearms, but never published a formal policy stating it, and they enforced their policy by banning people known to sell firearms under vague pretenses like "they assaulted and harassed someone to death" despite there being no evidence for that. It's what Cloudflare said about needing to follow the rule of law, before of course they became dishonest, bent the knee to the harassment mob and rendered their own word worthless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't legal representation, it's a registered agent. Basically, if you want to register an LLC in a state, you need to use a physical street address. For most businesses, this isn't an issue, as you either use your office address or the address of the mailbox store you're using (like the UPS store, though there are other copy shop type places that do this as well). An issue arises, though when you want to register your LLC in a state where you don't live and won't be receiving mail regularly. Registered agents provide this service for a low price. You will still receive some mail at this address, but it's not a regular business address, and the mail is forwarded to the address of your choosing. The main reason why a physical address is required is that if the LLC is the defendant in a lawsuit, the plaintiff can always opt to sue in the state in which the LLC is registered, even if that's the only connection to the state. So there has to be someone there whom you authorize to receive service on the LLC's behalf. So all this really means is that the LLC associated with Kiwifarms will either have to find another Wyoming address or reincorporate in another state, though I honestly don't know how much of an issue this is since the various departments of state don't seem to check up on this too regularly for small businesses.
As for a right of representation, I'm a lawyer, and there are various reasons why a lawyer would end representation, though this is unlikely to be one of them. First, if you want to withdraw from representation while there's ongoing litigation you need permission from the judge. If a client doesn't pay no judge is going to make the lawyer continue representing them for free. If the client's just a pain in the ass and not worth your time, then it depends on the judge, the stage of litigation, the consequences, etc. In a criminal case it's rarely allowed except under unusual circumstances. If there's no litigation pending then you can drop a client at any time, provided you return any unearned retainer. I've "dropped" plenty of "clients" who I had represented in the past but didn't want new business from because I was too busy, or didn't feel I was qualified to handle their matter, or the client was a bitch, or they were asking me to violate ethical canons, or any number of other reasons. I've never dropped a client because I didn't like the political stance of their issue, but I don't deal in issues that generally elicit strong political stances. And even if he is dropped, he'll find another lawyer. We represent all kinds of scumbags for all kinds of reasons, including plenty of people who have done a lot worse than he has. Even if his lawyers had dropped him for bullshit reasons, he'll find another lawyer. It might not be a very good lawyer, or he might have to pay more than he expected, but someone will represent him. Lawyers generally can't be cancelled like other businesses because a lot of us are solo or in small firms, and the big firms don't really give a fuck, so if one lawyer takes issue with something there will be 20 more ready to replace him. If it's really an issue, I'll represent him myself provided he has a 100k retainer and the understanding that I'm totally unqualified for whatever it is he needs. But it would still be better than representing himself.
Contra your point about large legal firms, wasn't there a whole thing about Kirkland & Ellis LLP splitting with Paul Clement and Erin Murphy over not wanting to handle 2A related cases?
It happens, but it's not common.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't really matter how it reflects as long as it works.
They know it means as long as they are in power, it is absolute. And they expect to always remain in power.
And exactly where would they find a lawyer to take the case?
More options
Context Copy link
There was an article in the Atlantic the other day arguing against this, so I think the woke are coming for this next. You wouldn't represent a racist or a climate destroyer, would you, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link