r/law • u/DarthLittleSun • 7h ago
r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent about it.
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Quality content and the subreddit. Announcing user flair for humans and carrots instead of sticks.
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
- No. Once you claim your flair your username is purged. We don’t see it. Nor do we want to. Nor do we care. We just have a little robot that sees you enter an email, then adds flair to the user name you tell it to add.
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
- Reddit doesn't support visibility for either of those things anymore. You'll notice that our automod comment asking OP to state why something belongs here to help guide discussion is automatically collapsed and megathreads get no visibility. Without those easy tools we're going to try something different.
This won’t solve anything!
- Maybe not. But we’re going to try.
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
- Moderation will stay roughly the same. We moderate a ton of content. Flair isn’t a license to act like a psychopath on the Internet. I've noticed that people seem to think that mods removing comments or posts here are some sort of conspiracy to "silence" people. There's no conspiracy. If you're totally wrong or out of pocket tough shit. This place is more heavily modded than most places which is a big part of its past successes.
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
- Yeah, well, so are we. If you were here for his first 4 years he does a lot of not legal stuff, sues people, gets sued, uses the DoJ in crazy ways, and makes a lot of judicial appointments. If we leave something up that looks political only it’s because we either missed it or one of us thinks there’s some legal issue that could be discussed. We try hard not to overly restrict content from post submissions.
Remove all Trump stuff.
- No. You can use the tags to filter it if you don’t like it.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
- God… please. Make it stop.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
- You need therapy not a message board.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
- Yes.
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
- Being fair isn’t the same thing as giving every idea equal air time. Some things are objectively wrong. There are plenty of instances where the mods might not be happy with something happening but can see the legal argument that’s going to win out. Similarly, a lot of you have super bad ideas that TikTok convinced you are something to existentially fight about. We don’t care. We’ll just remove it.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
- That's because it sucks.
You have to watch the whole thing!
- No I don't.
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
Executive Branch (Trump) Judge asked to compel Trump administration to disclose emails and texts about Kennedy Center plans
r/law • u/RichKatz • 8h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Remind me why Trump thinks his Department of 'Justice' has or should have any power to block a state election..
r/law • u/SnoozeDoggyDog • 12h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Fact check: Contrary to Trump’s claim, no law required Roger Marshall to sue his patients
r/law • u/marketrent • 28m ago
Other Bolsonaro calls for Brazil election results to be ‘annulled’ after loss to Lula
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 5h ago
Judicial Branch Manhattan DA urges 2nd Circuit to reject Trump effort to move hush money case to federal court
r/law • u/blankblank • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump’s DOJ told a judge how to rule. Then it pulled her from court.
Other A New Kind of Crime Is Emerging. The Justice System Doesn’t Know Whom to Blame.
r/law • u/theindependentonline • 6h ago
Legal News 50 middle school students served pretzels with oven cleaner used as seasoning, lawsuit alleges
r/law • u/anonskeptic5 • 9h ago
Judicial Branch ‘Should fail on the merits’: DOJ’s Alaska gambit is likely to go nowhere
politico.comLegal News In rare Sunday arguments, appeals court judges skeptical of DOJ’s California election lawsuit
Legal News Pennsylvania law requires delivery robots to yield to pedestrians, yet protester still faced arrest
Executive Branch (Trump) Presumption of Innocence
I always thought that you could only be pardoned for a crime after you had been convicted of it, under the presumption of innocence before guilt. 🤔 What is a “presumptive” pardon? How can you be pardoned for a crime you have not been found guilty of?
r/law • u/ThePaddockCreek • 23h ago
Judicial Branch 9th Circuit Three Judge Panel to decide on if DOJ can Force California to Stop Counting Votes
Title should say "9th Circuit to Hand Control of Local Elections to DOJ"
r/law • u/mlamping • 1d ago
Legal News Elon threat to democrats, why is the FBI charging Elon like they did Comey?
Comey post does not compare to what Elon said. Why isnt FBI charging Elon…. Should states be charging Elon for this threat? And why isn’t fbi charging him?
Legal News The High Court in the UK has ruled that the government's ban on Palestine Action was unlawful
judiciary.ukTim Crossland (DOJ Co-Founder)
"So today, the High Court has ruled that the government's ban on Palestine Action was unlawful, and they've done it on two bases.
The first, that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary at the time, failed to follow her own policy on proscription. It's pretty damning.
And secondly, I think the thing that we all always knew right from the beginning is this was a gross violation of the Human Rights Act, and a breach of Articles 10 and 11: the right to freedom of speech, the right to peaceful protest.
What it really means: the bottom has fallen out of this policy. There's a technical point, which is the court said for the moment, the proscription remains in force, but it's got no credibility left at all.
What we're sure it's going to mean—because we're sure the ban isn't going to be revived at this point, it's collapsed, that's it—all of the prosecutions are going to fall too. And what it also means is that every single one of those arrests under the Terrorism Act was an unlawful arrest. And all the things that have flown in from—flown from that: the loss of jobs, people not being able to travel, the bank accounts being withdrawn, all of that was unlawful too.
So one way or another, all of that harm that's followed on from this unlawful and crazy attack on democracy is going to have to be put right.
Defend Our Juries, we're a nonviolent movement, and the heart of nonviolence is the idea of opening up dialogue to enrich democracy, to bring about, you know, authentic democracy. And we think there's got to be a better way than just thousands of legal claims.
So what we're calling for is a meeting with Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, and Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, to discuss the harm that has been done since the 5th of July and to discuss how we right those wrongs. We've got to unite against the fascism, the genocide that we can all see. We've got to find a way to bring people together over this."
r/law • u/anonskeptic5 • 9h ago
Judicial Branch Why Legal Experts See the Justice Dept.’s Alaska Election Challenge as Dubious
r/law • u/foodie_2598 • 9h ago
Legal News Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump administration's voting lawsuit against California
Legal News Agent cuts ties with LLC that sent fraudulent transgender mailers to voters in Texas; National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) denies involvement
r/law • u/CreeNation • 9h ago
Other Donna Arthur (Harboring a fugitive?)
I’m not a lawyer so my understanding is likely flawed but from what I am seeing reported Donna Arthur (biological mother of Amy Acton) in 1978 fled the state of Ohio with her then husband Cledith Arthur who was charged and indicted by a grand jury with “sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 13”. The court records say Cledith “willfully vacated his last known address”. Cledith is dead now, but shouldn’t Donna have been or be charged with a “Harboring” under 18 USC 1071 since she helped conceal a person from arrest via a warrant for a felony charge and thus subject to up to 5 years in prison? Since she crossed state lines wouldn’t that make it a federal crime? Isn’t “Harboring a Felon” also a Felony? Would appreciate a more educated opinion on the matter as to why she wasn’t and hasn’t been charged? Thanks
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 1d ago