They should not have. Plenty of good people have to use public defenders. No reason an awful one should get good defense for free.
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 -
-
-
Deceiving audience about product? Inciting violence? Making public feel threatened? Attacking non-public-figure individuals? Etc. Reject.
-
Do any of your proposed exceptions apply here? Who decides who feels threatened? (And feeling threatened is different from "true threats.")
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.