Brian Kemper

Well, yeah, but other than the parts that prove her wrong, the rest of the blog proves her right.

Yeah, and she assumes that the compliance couldn't have been based on any type of legal analysis or that Proton didn't have to turn it over.

Yeah, I got something similar from someone else today who was talking about placing regulations on the media providing for "consequences" if they air lies.

When I posted legal points against it, I got "we're not in a courtroom!"

No, I'm directly blocked too.

Well, yeah, but my schooling wasn't bigger than yours or Kathryn's.

Which is why I was wondering if I was the only one.

I think you'd need more than a minute of spinning to get to that level.

Did everyone else get blocked too or just me?

Cause I'm not seeing any insults, etc. that I made to warrant a block.

Although it has developed a lot of holes in the last year.

Correction: "many arguments" not "much arguments"

Also, just because they choose to comply on most of subpoenas received doesn't mean that there was no legal analysis involved in determining whether to comply.

A) It's not all "about Switzerland."

B) How do you konw that the conditions we're taliking about are "US specific?"

I'd also note that the discussion has been about general legal practice including posts that you made about companies needing lawyers whose "full time jobs" were handlng subpoenas.

recipient doesn't want to respond to the subpoena, they're the ones who have to move to quash the subpoena.

And this type of thing happens every day with data companies whose data may be relevant to a legal investigation or litigation.

Such as in an ongoing litigation when you need discovery from third parties that relate to the litigation you're dealing with.

You don't need approval from the judge to send it out (just like you don't need approval to send discovery requests to the opposing party). And if the ...

Even if there is some sort of privacy issue that may be raised, there's probably a workaround or a way to deal with it that, as you indicated would be addressed in a meet and confer with the party issuing the subpoena.

Exactly. ESPECIALLY because unlike warrants, a government agency doesn't need a judicial sign-off to send out a subpoena. They just write out and send the subpoena to the party with the records they are looking for.

from state agencies, I would know pretty quickly whether the subpoena was something that we had legal arguments against.

Usually the biggest questions that I would have would be about what records we had that were responsive and how to obtain them.

"law is often more complicated ..."

Often it is.

And often it is not.

Especially if you're a legal professional with broad experience in handling subpoenas, know the company's data/records practices, and the relevant caselaw. When I was in-house counsel and received subpoenas for records ...

subpoenas all the time tied to specific telephone numbers for calls made to or from such numbers of a specific time period.

The phone company's legal professionals don't have much arguments to contest such subpoenas and they rarely contest them. They just provide the information sought.

Often, there's not a lot of detail in a case that you need to go into with a subpoena.

The requirements for subpoenas aren't that high and as a recipient, generally, your only arguments for contesting them relate to burden issues in providing them.

For instance, phone companies get ....

We've already seen hints of that with regard to the putting up the 10 Commandments in schools.

B/c which denomination's 10 Commandments do you put up? I believe that some of the plaintiffs' challenging such actions have been other Christians objecting to the specific iteration required.

I wish this quote wasn’t still so relevant

I agree. If a plaintiff is able to prove, say from their own documentation, that they are owed $100 million due to illegal tariffs they paid, the gov't has the money to pay such damages.

It didn't need to have been put into an escrow and separated from other gov't funds.

How isn't it true?

The matter is fixable with monetary damages, which under the law means that it isn't an irreparable harm.

That's an argument, not a statement of fact that the gov't has means to ascertain and pay the monetary damages.

Hell, even calling someone a "pedophile" could be an opinion, because someone could be a pedophile but has not actually acted on it. Thus, such status is "not so easy to verify ..."

It's also why statements that someone is a racist, white supremacist, etc. are considered opinions as well. Because they could hold such beliefs but are masking them, effectively or not.

That's especially true as people have learned to use dog whistles and buzzwords that are different than the slurs/statements that Nazis may have made but are still intended to mean the same point.

Whether the use of such whistles or buzzwords are being used in that way is subjective as well.

could say that an anti-Semitic viewpoint is "adjacent" to Nazi viewpoints and thus worthy of the designation while another could note that anti-Semites fought against the Nazis as well, and thus, that such a belief is not "adjacent" to Nazi beliefs.

It's an opinion, not an "objective fact."

not actionable as defamation.

You can also have the opinion that someone is a Nazi because they admire Nazis and say things similar to what Nazis would say.

Further, whether beliefs or viewpoints are "similar" or "adjacent" to Nazi beliefs/viewpoints is a subjective thing. One person ...

You can have the opinion that someone is a Nazi because their viewpoints and/or practices are similar to Nazi beliefs.

Because calling them a Nazi is an opinion. And it's why defamation cases to that point (like the one brought by Trump against CNN) are dismissed. Because opinions are ...