Oh no! What a colossally stupid decision. I'm so sorry.
04.02.2026 17:10
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Oh no! What a colossally stupid decision. I'm so sorry.
The arrests of Lemon and Fort are intended to deter journalists from doing work we need them to do, and that the First Amendment was meant to protect. DOJ should drop these prosecutions or the courts should throw them out. knightcolumbia.org/content/knig...
He's been writing this thing for years, and it still makes me shake my head. The poshest philosophy professor ever, answering questions about the most petty shit.
A headline says Calls Grow for Independent Inquiry of Minnesota Shooting. Subhed says Demands Come as Videos Contradict Federal Account.
And it's changed again. Now updated to emphasize calls for independent inquiry instead of the dispute over who should do the inquiry. (I think this was a process of updating the story subject a bit to move it forward, not some directive from on high to tone things down.)
I honestly don't know. Like, this is all just nuts. But imo it's interesting this guideline is specific. BTW, I meant "judge" only in the sense of "neutral and detached magistrate" per Coolidge v. New Hampshire. Which I was mentioning to Orin because he wrote about it. (reason.com/volokh/2025/...)
I read that as there's *some* other argument they'd make to allow entering based on only an admin warrant signed by an immigration official, so they don't want to concede the point. But they think they're more secure in this guidance, where there's an order of removal signed by an immigration judge.
I would be interested in your thoughts on that!
Footnote 2 makes it sound like they're claiming it's the underlying order of removal, not the warrant of removal, that allows the entry. And that an immigration judge is equivalent to a regular judge. 🤷♀️
A copy of the DHS memo is attached below the whistleblower memo, but it doesn't make anything more understandable. There's no actual legal justification; it just refers summarily back to an apparent conclusion by the DHS OGC.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This is all about ethics in gaming journalism.
A timely reminder from Clayton Weimers of Reporters Without Borders USA: "Journalists are legally permitted to publish government secrets and the courts have again and again reaffirmed that First Amendment right."
New: I got body camera footage from a case in which a cop used Flock to wrongfully accuse an innocent woman of stealing a package: "Nothing gets in or out of the town without us knowing about it"
www.404media.co/cop-used-flo...
Not unless there is some secret, recent ruling I haven't seen. Actually, in the Character AI case in Florida, the company didn't even bother with 230. It argued that its AI output was First Amendment protected speech, and the judge disagreed. FWIW. www.courtlistener.com/docket/69300...
Ehhh ... Sure, some segment of these people would find each other without algorithmic feeds. But you wouldn't have nearly as many people being drawn into things like white nationalism simply because the angry impulses it invokes tickle some part of their brain.
Everyone knows that presidential pardons do not apply to state charges. What this order presupposes is ... maybe they do.
[shocked Pikachu face meme]
Congratulations!!! 🥰
people made fun of this in 2014 but every last thing about it turned out to be true
Just so y'all know ... a huge part of content moderation and online safety at tech platforms is geared toward preventing the spread of *child sex abuse material*.
It's also an argument for JUST DON'T FUCKING SLEEP WITH YOUR SOURCES. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
Gotta sneak away to the journalist group chat like an addict, at this point.
I wrote about the fake account blowup on X this weekend. A genuine post-truth nightmare and proof that these companies have polluted their platforms so thoroughly and traded reality for profit that they've undermined the very idea of what the internet is supposed to be.
Dude. I think the line between "questionable" and "wild malpractice" was crossed miles back, all around.
Imagine knowing literally anything about guns, or boats, or people, or ... how to count.
Apropos of nothing: The vast majority of my family is MAGA, and they've been obsessed for years with the idea that NYC some kind of criminal hellscape. They were also quite concerned with our recent local election, oddly enough. And I'm wondering now whether to send them some screenshots or nah.
The problem is, and always has been, that playing with executive power is a dangerous game, and its consequences are hard and perhaps impossible to contain. If critics of the Trump boat strikes truly want to usher in a new era of respect for the rule of law, they must acknowledge that, in the shadow of the mounting democratic menace that Trump’s entire second administration represents, the legal process that yielded these strikes should not be seen as an aberration from the last quarter century of always-secret and often-unreviewable executive-branch legal reasoning, but the apotheosis of it.
Well worth the time to read this piece by the ACLU's Brett Max Kaufman on the Trump administration's boat strikes.
Here's the kicker:
NEW: As Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick drives billions of dollars in foreign payments to help build AI data centers in the US, his sons help run a company earning tens of millions in fees helping finance AI data centers. A NYT investigation. (Free link)
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/u...
This experience mirrors reports of A.I. chatbots reinforcing delusional thinking in some people, as @kashhill.bsky.social has written about extensively.
One good point is that certain communities on the internet did this already (think QAnon). But A.I. is available 24-7 and is even more insular.
