• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m always on the fence with these subpoena resistance cases.

    On the one hand, it’s Twitter, Elon, and Epstein related. Fuck all of them.

    On the other hand, I don’t think that businesses should just blindly turn over information because the DOJ managed to find a judge that would rubber stamp a subpoena. Obviously that’s not every subpoena, or even likely a large number of them in the grand scheme, but it happening even once is too much to take it at face value being justified.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think they’re saying Elon sucks and be wary of trusting the government.

        The fed’s anti-encryption stance comes to mind. “We need backdoors in your messaging apps but it’s just to protect the children!

        • chingadera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          5 months ago

          Both of these have been true for a looong time. Any step to concede this point is complicit.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension buddy. Nothing in this entire thread is even remotely close to defending Epstein or his accomplices.

            The closest it gets is demanding that the Constitutional rights of US citizens actually be acknowledged and defended instead of just allowing the government to ignore them because of some bullshit “think of the kids” excuse which is never about the kids, it’s always been about giving the police more excuses to arrest anyone they want. Usually those in the way of the rich and powerful, or a group they can then point to and classify as a criminal to justify treating them as less worthy of respect or basic rights.

            • Snowflake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              it’s always been about giving the police more excuses to arrest anyone they want. Usually those in the way of the rich and powerful, or a group they can then point to and classify as a criminal

              Can you point to any person or group of persons this has happened to?

              • protist@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Poor people, gay people, black people, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Catholics, Muslims

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Any step to concede this point is complicit.

            Hmm, I don’t take your point. What do you mean, please?

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      For the life of me I don’t understand your argument here. You’re basically advocating for the destruction of the justice system? So if I try to sue a company for say bodily injury or something they should be able to hide all the evidence? Good lord don’t corporations have enough power as is? Why give them more?

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      This subpoena has nothing to do with the DOJ. This subpoena was issued as part of discovery in the civil defamation case between the two women in the article

      Most likely what I think is happening here is X literally does not have the records that are being subpoenaed, because why keep records when you’re trying to destroy a business?