Ken WhitePodcaster who has repeatedly accused me of being a Nazi supporter gets cancelled for being a sex pest.
Gosh, that’s a shame.
Gerakion@Popehat I read Torrez's (brief) tweet upon that stuff back in the day. He thought it was unethical that Randazza's stuff was on your website (and maybe more but that's all I read).
Would be curious on your own perspective/summary on it. Understand if you don't want to, though.
Anathema Device@anathema_device @Popehat Well I'm specifically curious about Torrez's perspective that Randazza isn't/wasn't a run of the mill 1A absolutist. But Nazi adjacent.
@anathema_device @Popehat I'm just learning about the guy for the first time but regardless that description of him seems pretty generous given he's represented a slew of far right (to worse) clients in the past.
Nevertheless, some might think that's too little to be branded a Nazi. And I imagine Ken would give a similar response so thank you for the elaboration.
@anathema_device @Popehat No, you cannot claim to be free of far-right influence when you've represented Alex Jones, Andrew Anglin, a Unite the Right organizer, etc etc. just because you also represented the Satanic Temple.
That's basically the Joe Rogan argument all over again. Didn't we learn our lesson when he went mask off (hah) during the pandemic?
@gerakion @Popehat I'm sure Popehat will back me up on this when I say that you don't have to like your clients to represent them. The problem with your argument is that not arguing for the free speech of Alex Jones means your courts rule in a way which tends to restrict the speech of much worthier human beings.
But if Popehat wants to argue the toss with you, he can. I'm backing out of this conversation, thanks.
@anathema_device @Popehat If you're a free speech absolutist and do not care who you defend as long as it's about free speech, there should not be so much of a unbalance in representing loathsome figures on the right (compared to, moderately annoying figures on the left?)
Fine by me if we leave this as is, and I *did* already thank you for providing what was likely to be Ken's perspective.
@gerakion @Popehat "there should not be so much of a unbalance"
The simplest explanation for this might be that people with less odious views have less trouble finding representation, because lawyers aren't afraid what other potential clients might think, whereas Randazza appears to give no fucks what you think of him.
Also, I do not know Ken White, nor he me, so please don't take my words to represent him or his views in any way other than speculatively.
Equally simple is that he's sympathetic to the far right personall. It's whether you offer the concept of charity or not that brings you to your conclusion over mine.
Yes I know you're not affiliated with Ken. I would refer you to my posts where I say "likely".
Bradley Gawthrop@gerakion the ACLU represented the KKK. Repeatedly. Are they corrupted by white supremacist influence? Civil rights attorneys don't walk off the field when the client is gross, because rights only exist when they exist for everyone.
@talldarknweirdo Much more balance in who the ACLU represents than Randazza.
@gerakion that’s rather missing the point. You don’t pick your clients for “balance” - you protect the rights by protecting clients whose rights are at issue.
@talldarknweirdo Didn't miss that point at all, just disagree with it on the basis of the balance of who Randazza has represented should not be so ideologically biased if that were the case.
If I'm mistaken about that balance on a factual level please inform. But if not I stand by what I said previously. This is the Joe Rogan false balance claim in a nutshell.
@gerakion 🤷♂️I don’t know enough about randazza to have an informed opinion about him, my point is merely that nobody looking purely at his client list does either. That’s not how a principled civil rights attorney picks clients and cases, not any more than a defense attorneys would pick only innocent clients.
@talldarknweirdo I'm sure Joe Rogan would just argue it's ethical podcast hosting that he just so happens to interview so many on the far right too.
@gerakion You keep bringing him up. Do we not understand there's a difference between selecting people to platform for a national podcast audience and selecting people whose rights get defended?
@talldarknweirdo I don't think there is one. The concept that you should be ideology agnostic pertains to both, and should result in a balance of ideologies in those hosted/represented over the long run.
NosirrahSec 🏴☠️ guillotine enthusiast
Everything Is Data@gerakion @Popehat Ken might not, but I will. It's just the classic "guilt by association" nonsense fallacy that constantly gets leveled at 1A lawyers who defend the speech of odious people.
You'd think that a Harvard Law grad like Torrez would understand and respect the free speech principle even if he disagreed with it, but evidently that wasn't the case. And hey look, surprise, guy who makes bad faith accusation was also a hypocrite, wow, absolutely floored.
@everythingisdata @Popehat The criticism of Randazza seems very called for when looking at the balance of who he represented (although perhaps not to the level of Nazi).
Attacking Ken for associating with Randazza is a much stronger claim, though.
I don't think Andrew's claim was in bad faith, and while a humongous hypocrite that in and of itself doesn't mean his argument is categorically wrong. Though again, it certainly is eyebrow raising.
@gerakion I thought it was contemptible bullshit. I blocked them on Twitter because whenever someone would tag both of us on a post about some legal issue he’d be all “please don’t tag us with Popehat.” Because he has high standards, you see.