Presumably to fight against a harmful policy. In your view, should lawyers not have defended weev pro bono, for example?
-
-
The principle is that refusal should be narrow and well-justified, not based on arbitrary biases.
-
I agree. The issue here, as I understand it, is that the WMATA's rule was "controversial" content which is definitely arbitrary.
-
Yes, that's a bad rule. But by including M*lo in the case, they're implying that his content should also be acceptable.
-
It was an ad for a book. What about the ad itself is unacceptable? I can envision lots of things that aren't acceptable, but book ads? No.
-
A book that, as I understand it, names and incites harassment against specific individuals who are not public figures.
-
Question: would they realistically carry, and would a court expect them to carry, an ad for a bomb-making book?
-
I would expect them to accept an ad for https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1684111374/ … yes.
-
I agree mostly, but in reality I think the opposite will happen. AC banned, harassment of women, poc, trans, nb welcome...
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.