Oh, it’s a joint lawsuit apparently. Didn’t know that thanks for that.
I’d just get updates from pacer. 1:25-cv-2880 in the District of Columbia. I’m not super interested in this to go look today but leaving it here for future reference once there’s more filings and hearings in the case. This would eventually become “interesting” to me no matter who had raised the federal question(s). Personalities aside , I would rather just stick to the case filings and the findings of fact in there.
Aside from being a “dick” I’ve already made the mistake of looking there for scoops and burned a few brain cells wading through wildly speculative legal interpretations from a crazed mob that has next to no basis in reality.
I guess it has to be someone with standing to sue ofcom and tell them where to stick it and I’d have a really hard time pretending I don’t approve of cantankerous defenses of 1A.
I didn't know what pacer was. I will have a look at it. I prefer getting information from the source these days.
> Aside from being a “dick” I’ve already made the mistake of looking there for scoops and burned a few brain cells wading through wildly speculative legal interpretations from a crazed mob that has next to no basis in reality.
It is an old school forum. Lots of different personalities on there.
> I guess it has to be someone with standing to sue ofcom and tell them where to stick it and I’d have a really hard time pretending I don’t approve of cantankerous defenses of 1A.
I’d just get updates from pacer. 1:25-cv-2880 in the District of Columbia. I’m not super interested in this to go look today but leaving it here for future reference once there’s more filings and hearings in the case. This would eventually become “interesting” to me no matter who had raised the federal question(s). Personalities aside , I would rather just stick to the case filings and the findings of fact in there.
Aside from being a “dick” I’ve already made the mistake of looking there for scoops and burned a few brain cells wading through wildly speculative legal interpretations from a crazed mob that has next to no basis in reality.
I guess it has to be someone with standing to sue ofcom and tell them where to stick it and I’d have a really hard time pretending I don’t approve of cantankerous defenses of 1A.