Unauthorized Practice of Law

Looks like things continue to go badly for the copyright troll Righthaven, as documented by Clayton and the Righthaven Victims blog. Couldn’t have happened to nicer people. I hope Clayton and others affected can get some of their settlement money back, if not from Righthaven directly, than from their puppet masters at Stephens Media.

4 thoughts on “Unauthorized Practice of Law”

  1. Sebastian, I realized again today why you don’t post news stories too much, like this one.

    They tell the real story, as opposed to all your handpicked pro-gun propaganda.

    Wouldn’t your readers be interested in what’s going wrong with guns as well as the other side which you continually push? I believe your idea is that more good is accomplished than harm done, but I swear it doesn’t seem so reading the news.

  2. Mikeb302000 says in that posting:

    The problem is violence or rage or misogyny or some other mental health issue. But the availability of guns is like the gasoline you throw on a fire. And since the access to guns is something that can be effected with proper controls, that’s what I’m suggesting, not as opposed to addressing all those other problems, but in addition to those efforts.

    But what you are missing is that it was the decision to largely scrap our mental health system in the 1960s and 1970s that made gun misuse a much larger problem than it had been before. Lots of people who would have been hospitalized in 1960 when they first gave clear evidence of serious mental illness these days remain out on the street until they kill someone, or close to it. And that problem exists not just with guns, but with knives, fists, cars, and gasoline.

    Fix the mental health system mistake, and the guns (or knives, or cars) don’t matter so much. Fail to fix the mental health system mistake, and focusing on guns fails to deal with those other methods for inflicting suffering and death.

  3. Mike,

    Cites to support your claims about “access to guns” and crime in the US?

    With something other than anecdotal news reports I mean. You know, stuff many of us like to call “data”.

    You can’t, with intellectual legitimacy, just make claims like that based on a mere perusal of the news, not when the majority of published studies (private and gov’t) and the raw data on firearms possession and carry compared against the violent crime rate in the US don’t support you.

    Shouldn’t you also “tell the real story, as opposed to all your hand-picked anti-gun propaganda (anecdotes)”?

    Although, why should you start now? The facts just keep getting worse for you.

Comments are closed.