So I've been reading the lawsuits related to A12 and there's something that sticks out dramatically.
-
-
If these situations are enough to overturn protections after the fact, why was the threat of them not sufficient to stop the event before?
Show this thread -
They literally did exactly what they said they'd do. If the 'doing' is enough to run afoul of protections, why not the clear threat?
Show this thread -
This is the fundamental flaw, imo. We need new precedent for promises of violence.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
An who you talking to? No-one responding. You clazy b
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.