September 23, 2016

SO NOW THE UNIVERSITY IS “INVESTIGATING” MY TWEET. I’m not sure what that means, since I’m not sure how you investigate a tweet.

More on that here.

UPDATE: Daniel Polsby emails:

I’m on your side.

A person reasonably in fear for his life has no legal duty to prefer the interest of the person who has wrongfully detained or assaulted him and made such a fear reasonable to his own, and is entitled to use necessary force on the wrongdoer to get himself out of harm’s way. That’s blackletter orthodoxy.

You can get “investigated” now – by the state, yet – for giving the “wrong” answer to a trolley problem? Really?

So it seems.

Related, from Judge Danny Boggs:

All of MY SIDE’s references and statements are to be taken in the coolest, hip-ironic, culturally aware, benign-metaphorical way possible (see Watts v. United States, and [granting my side the full benefit of the] the conflicting interpretive modes the various judges/justices on the Supreme Court and the Court[s] of Appeals [have approved]),

AND

All of YOUR SIDE’s references and statements are to be taken in the most mindlessly literal, threatening way possible.

That should work for almost all of our commentators, of whatever persuasion.

Also, any charge against MY SIDE requires exquisite legally admissible proof of its accuracy,

WHEREAS

Any charge against YOUR SIDE must be true if it was asserted by anyone, anywhere.

People on MY SIDE are responsible only for what they said personally, in full-quotation context.

BUT

People on YOUR SIDE are responsible for the inferred implications of anything said by anyone who ever held any idea vaguely similar to what your people think.

OK?

Well, it’s not okay, but it’s accurate.