Anatomy of National Socialist Party Propaganda: Twitter sent out this tweet on January 8th.

That morning, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was recorded in a Project Veritas sting video admitting to purging accounts of Trump supporters and promising it was going to get much bigger.

1/13 https://t.co/5FLHwjeufE

And now a livetweet thread of a legal conference in the case of C21-31-BJR, Parler LLC v. @awscloud.

Parler suggests "AWS just has to flip a switch and Parler gets turned back on. Parler has been their customer for 2.5 years."

"They've met and conferred over some user content that violates not only Parler's user requirements, but also Amazon's." Yes, they'll do that, whether you want them to or not.

"I'm not on social media" says Parler's lawyer. "If I use any terms and you don't understand them, I can explain them your honor." Just go full bro and call it "dumbing things down for you" dude.

They're now saying an "algorithm" can solve their moderation problems.

Spoiler: it can not.

New in the Industrial Law Journal "Belief vs. Action in Ladele, Ngole and Forstater" by Professor Robert Wintemute, Kings College London

https://t.co/jNYucKvKKa

Wintemute asks "Did the Employment Tribunal correctly distinguish the claimant’s belief from hypothetical (speculative, future) harmful action that might involve
discrimination against, or harassment of, a transgender co-worker or customer? "

He considers the case of Ladele - a registrar whose religious belief meant she would not conduct same sex weddings - her belief could not be accommodated, because she had chosen to act on it in a way that caused harm to others.

And Ngole, a student social worker who won his case " I never advocated any hate...towards people who are in same sex relationships. ... I never stated that people in same sex relationships should be treated differently.."

Wintemute notes "Ms Forstater was not dismissed because of her treatment of any transgender person, such as a co-worker or a customer of her employer..but because of her co-workers’ intolerance of her unfashionable (to them) belief that, in some situations, sex matters"

Relentless efforts by detectives to trace and rescue 38-year-old Caroline Wanjiku Maina, who was reported to have been Kidnapped by unknown persons one week ago, flicked a despondent note yesterday when her body was traced to Kajiado hospital mortuary.

In the February 13 report at Muthangari Police Station, Wanjiku's Toyota Axio car had been found abandoned in Nairobi's Kawangware area near Gatina Primary School, a day after she went missing.

The case was then taken over by DCI Nairobi Area Crime Research and Intelligence>>>

>>>Bureau (CRIB) working alongside Dagoretti-based detectives, who immediately swung into action arresting four suspects; Edwin Otieno Odiwuor, Samwel Okoth Adinda, Stevenson Oduor Ouma and Mercy Gitiri Mongo.

Heightened investigations uncovered that prior to the victim's >>>

>>>disappearance, she had withdrawn 350,000 shillings from her account at one of the Cooperative Banks in Nairobi, before proceeding to meet the first suspect (Edwin) at Ngara for a business deal.

Innocently driving into her death trap, Wanjiku had made a call to one of her >>>

>>>friends, detailing her meeting with Edwin, who was to guide her into boosting her Stima Sacco shares with the withdrawn amount.

Once at Ngara, Wanjiku had been forced into a waiting black KCN 300D Toyota Crown in which Edwin was waiting, before being handcuffed & sandwiched>>

So strange that Law & Crime article questioning whether the Capitol rioters could be prosecuted for felony murder and it *never discusses* the most obvious predicate felony—burglary

https://t.co/cSFJzB5fwq via @lawcrimenews

As I will be teaching my first year criminal law students later this semester, felony murder is often a question of charging strategy for prosecutors. The defendant has often multiple felonies, some of which trigger felony murder and some of which don’t.

This article makes the classic mistake of analyzing only one possible underlying felony—sedition—and not the other, more mundane felonies, including burglary.
It’s the sort of error that loses students a lot of points on their final exam!

This basic error--misidentifying the relevant predicate felony--ends up affecting the other analysis in the article. For example, the author correctly points out that there are some other Qs that must be answered for felony murder to apply.

This analysis looks different if we are talking about burglary---which the Supreme Court defines not only as entering a building to commit a crime, but also remaining in the building.
That's going to make the "remoteness" inquiry pretty easy, not complicated as the article says.