AndyHN
AndyHN t1_ja3diqc wrote
Reply to comment by Omnipresent_Walrus in Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
To prevent the company that he owns now from being held responsible for something the company did before he owned it, his lawyers have to justify the things that the company did before he owned it. It's not like he can concede that the policy was wrong, change it, and any judgement will be enforced against the previous ownership.
AndyHN t1_j8kq37x wrote
Reply to comment by GrandArchitect in [OC] The Eagles are the most proficient pass-rushing team to go without a sack in the Super Bowl (chart) by JPAnalyst
They coasted to a win in the NFC championship game partly because they knocked 2 QBs out of the game, then 2 weeks later decided they couldn't risk being penalized for hitting the QB? I'm unconvinced.
AndyHN t1_ja43wdb wrote
Reply to comment by Omnipresent_Walrus in Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
A guy in California was just acquitted of DUI because in CA it's legal to drive under the influence if the result of not driving puts someone at greater risk of harm. His lawyer argued successfully in court that he was at greater risk of harm if he didn't flee in his car when his wife caught him with his girlfriend. That sounds like nonsense to me, but it worked.
Whatever nonsense is being argued by Twitter's lawyers will only be dumb if it doesn't work. What would be dumber would be not using every argument they can think of to clear their client.