Oddbean new post about login | logout Let's get the Meme Defense Fund on nostr! (There's also a bitcoin donation address at the bottom of the article for the specific legal case). https://www.memedefensefund.com/ Let's get some bitcoinfluencer eyes on this and shared here and twitter 🙏 nostr:nevent1qqsthd69s7xg4h0t8eamkvgw488hc92ahy62rnfj0u8p07m8tesfrdcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3q8uedzxq9fjpx8ceujsfux7kxy9pwm88s8n59sshf7w0fgk0kum4qxpqqqqqqzykjp0f
The Meme Defense Fund accepts on-chain BTC donations (as well as other donations types). No light inf address unfortunately. But maybe nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9uhxtnyd9nkwmm09e3k7mgprpmhxue69uhkvet9v3ehgu3wdehhxarjxyhxxmmdqywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytndd9jxgmrfdenjumtev3h8xtn2wqergaw8 will onboard him. You never know lol nostr:nevent1qqsdq3frl8ep08t3nhy8dwyf57srykqlwlqf24m0xldpnjg9ru5egxcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtczyzw2p0t52p6z663qxxwqu02vv7wfupr2nhrsarh4ts5stcjq2g6qkqcyqqqqqqg3h38vc
I'm not sure either. But isn't it happening already in the US? nostr:nevent1qqsdq3frl8ep08t3nhy8dwyf57srykqlwlqf24m0xldpnjg9ru5egxcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qnjst6azswskk5gp3ns8r6nr8nj0qg65acu8gaa2u9yz7yszjxs9sxpqqqqqqzc7t9n8
Here is the judges argument for why it’s not free speech among other arguments for the rulings they made. Free speech starts on 38. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733.54.0_1.pdf Essentially they say he is not being charged for the words he wrote, he is being charged because the words he wrote were in the purpose of a crime to defraud someone. My gut says this case comes down to their intent. If he was actually trying to get people to think they could vote when they couldn’t and so trick them out of it, then I think he could be guilty. If his intent was, “this is silly”, then I think he wouldn’t be guilty. Which one of those is the case is a fact question. And Juries determine the facts of the case. In this case the jury heard his claim that it was satire and they didn’t believe him. It’s like if I use words to trick a grandma into sending me money because I pretend to be her grandson in distress. I used words, words are free speech, but the charge isn’t that I said certain forbidden words, or topics, it’s that I defrauded a grandma. With more reflection on the original video I will say there is a lot of framing, assuming the framing is accurate it feels like a clear over reach and abuse. But if the framing is false it’s similar to the use of RICO. Which is a little shady, but that might be a better comparison in the US and can be abused. Just my random opinion.
Characterized as similar to RICo in the US and that scene could very well take place in the US. A conviction would require proving the organization existed and existed for the purpose of committing crimes. And sometimes i think RICO is an over reach and unconstitutional, but so far the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. I will also say something may be unconstitutional but it takes years to work through the court and that doesn’t help anybody in the short term that is actually being harmed.
Here is the judges argument for why it’s not free speech among other arguments for the rulings they made. Free speech starts on 38. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733.54.0_1.pdf Essentially they say he is not being charged for the words he wrote, he is being charged because the words he wrote were in the purpose of a crime to defraud someone. My gut says this case comes down to their intent. If he was actually trying to get people to think they could vote when they couldn’t and so trick them out of it, then I think he could be guilty. If his intent was, “this is silly”, then I think he wouldn’t be guilty. Which one of those is the case is a fact question. And Juries determine the facts of the case. In this case the jury heard his claim that it was satire and they didn’t believe him. It’s like if I use words to trick a grandma into sending me money because I pretend to be her grandson in distress. I used words, words are free speech, but the charge isn’t that I said certain forbidden words, or topics, it’s that I defrauded a grandma. With more reflection on the original video I will say there is a lot of framing, assuming the framing is accurate it feels like a clear over reach and abuse. But if the framing is false it’s similar to the use of RICO. Which is a little shady, but that might be a better comparison in the US and can be abused. Just my random opinion.
Characterized as similar to RICo in the US and that scene could very well take place in the US. A conviction would require proving the organization existed and existed for the purpose of committing crimes. And sometimes i think RICO is an over reach and unconstitutional, but so far the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. I will also say something may be unconstitutional but it takes years to work through the court and that doesn’t help anybody in the short term that is actually being harmed.