Over-Lawyering


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

A Not-So-Free Market

Last month, Reddit users sent a multibillion-dollar message to hedge funds, investment banks, and the U.S. economy in general: you don’t control the market. Acting together on a massive scale and in response to the Reddit forum “WallStreet Bets,” Reddit users pushed the GameStop stock price to astronomical levels, resulting in small-time individual shareholders earning hundreds of thousands of dollars and creating massive losses to hedge funds that shorted the stock.

The reaction from Wall Street and the U.S. government has clarified one major thing, while the U.S. is allegedly built on a free market, the market is only free to be manipulated and profited off of by the wealthy.

An easy way to see this is through the way that hedge funds operate. Hedge fund managers meet with each other, whether at Davos, or Michelin-starred restaurants to talk about the market, to suss about weaknesses and areas which can be exploited for their benefit. When these discussions lead to massive gains for any one individual or the hedge fund in general, they are praised and considered to be outsmarting the rest of the market.

But isn’t this exactly what happened with Reddit, just on an online platform, and perhaps more importantly, for lack of a better word, by regular people? Over the past six months, while no one was watching, 2.3 million Reddit users analyzed the market, met with each other online, and discussed how to take advantage of the weaknesses and blind spots of the market. And yet the reaction from Wall Street, the government, and even online trading platforms such as Robinhood, designed to help individuals trade, was outrage. How could it be that regular people figured out how to take advantage of the stock market?

The Reddit GameStop takeover has raised a lot of issues about regulation, many of which are valid concerns, like is it legal or ethical to collude to push up share prices, and further, what does it mean to collude to push up share prices. For example, whenever Elon Musk tweets about a certain stock there is almost an instantaneous impact on the share price of that stock. Before Elon Musk, whenever Warren Buffett spoke about a stock, it would shoot up in price the following day. And yet, Reddit users posting about GameStop and its potential has been seen as collusion.

If our market is truly free, everyone should be able to manipulate it as much as they can or want, but if it is meant to be controlled and stable, then hedge funds, investment banks, and the like need to be equally controlled. Because the only difference between what happened with GameStop and what hedge funds do on a daily basis is who did it.


Maya Cohen is an associate at Balestriere Fariello and has a background
in international law and arbitration. She focuses her practice on
complex litigation from investigations to trials and appeals. You can
reach her via email at maya.cohen@balestrierefariello.com.

Who Will Represent Donald Trump If He’s Criminally Charged?

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump is f–ked if anyone ever charges him. No one wants to work with him.

— an advisor to Donald Trump’s team, speaking quite candidly about the former president’s choice of legal counsel (or lack thereof) should he ever be criminally charged, considering the fact that he was unable to find a “high-powered legal team” to represent him during his second impeachment trial.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Championing Latinx Causes With A Combination Of Activism And Legal Skills

Anabel Rosa

In the latest episode of the Jabot podcast, I chat with plaintiffs attorney Anabel Rosa about her work fighting for Hispanic/Latinx causes in state and local governments. We talk about how former NYC mayor David Dinkins inspired Anabel to go to law school, how her policy work dovetails with her legal career, and why she recommends law school to those who care about social justice issues.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wore when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Georgia Prosecutor Is Coming For Donald Trump

Image via Twitter

Meet Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis. The newly elected prosecutor announced her office was opening up a criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of Georgia 2020 presidential election.

Playing a large role in the investigation is the leaked phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. You’ll recall two now-former Biglaw attorneys were also on the call, Cleta Mitchell and Alex Kaufman. Appearing on the Rachel Maddow show last night, Willis noted that Trump’s request on the call for a very specific number of additional ballots to be found could go a long way to establishing mens rea.

But Willis has cautioned that despite the infamy of that particular call, she’s keeping an open mind as she begins the investigation:

“I have no idea what I’ll find. I think a good law enforcement officer, a good prosecutor, you walk in with an open mind, you get the facts for what they are, there will be some statutes that we’ll look at.

“If those facts meet the elements of those statutes then we’ll bring charges.”

Of course… she has a hypothesis as to what she’ll find (hint: moar!):

You might be wondering exactly how this investigation got started, and you can thank a law school professor. George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III reportedly filed the initial complaint.

Willis has stressed that criminals charges are far from a certainty. But we do know that Donald Trump’s legal problems are going to get a lot stickier.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Donald Trump Made Americans Hate Lawyers Again

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Thanks in part to former President Donald Trump, the legal profession, the justice system, and the rule of law writ large has been through the wringer over the course of the past four years. From the Muslim ban, revoking DACA, and tearing families apart at the border to stacking federal courts with unqualified judges and pushing through controversial Supreme Court justices to using the Attorney General and the Justice Department as personal attorneys to the Biglaw firms that happily accepted the ex-president as a client until it was not okay anymore to not one, but two impeachments, the Trump administration has really impacted what the general public thinks of lawyers — and not necessarily in a good way.

We polled more than 150 attorneys from law firms of all sizes and a varied number of practice areas to find out how the legal profession has changed thanks to the Trump administration. Below are their interesting responses.

How do you think the widespread legal challenges to Trump administration actions have affected the general perception of the legal profession?

This one was a bit of a toss-up. An equal portion of respondents (29.03%) reported that the widespread legal challenges to Trump administration actions have greatly harmed the reputation of the legal profession or have had no effect on the reputation of the legal profession. 

How do you think the actions of lawyers in the Trump administration have affected the general perception of the legal profession?

Over half of respondents reported that they believe the reputation of the legal profession was harmed greatly by the actions of lawyers in the Trump administration.

How do you think firms’ reputations were affected through advising on Trump administration efforts, like the challenges to the 2020 election?

Almost 60 percent of respondents reported that they believed firms’ reputations were harmed greatly through advising Trump administration efforts.

How do you perceive the criticism that has been leveled at law firms involved in these efforts?

The largest cohort of respondents (47.37%) reported that they believed criticism leveled at firms involved in such efforts is extremely justified.

Would a firm’s role in representing the Trump administration affect your decision on whether to join that firm?

Here, 75.86% of respondents stated that a firm’s role in representing the Trump administration would negatively affect their decision to join that firm.

Would a firm’s role in challenging the Trump administration affect your decision on whether to join that firm?

Almost 70 percent of respondents said that a firm’s decision to challenge the Trump administration would positively affect their decision to join the firm.

Now that Joe Biden is president, will we see improvement in the way the public perceives the legal profession? It’s only been a few weeks, but we have hope for a brighter future for lawyers with a new administration in place.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

How The Coronavirus Put Employment Lawyers In The Hot Seat

Ed. note: This is the latest in a series on the changing practice of law in varied areas.

Imagine one day your phone lights up, your inbox is crammed, and it seems like every client you have is contacting you at the same time. That describes the situation for labor and employment attorneys at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“On a typical day there is a random portion of my client base that reaches out to me for advice, even clients I didn’t plan to hear from that day,” said Nicholas M. Reiter, partner and co-chair of the labor and employment group at Venable LLP, resident in one the firm’s new York offices. “But when the COVID pandemic came every client reached out, every client needed advice, no one was immune to COVID. Everyone needed to make really big decisions.”

These decisions may have involved safety protocols in the workplace and the attendant liability concerns, furloughs, layoffs, and wage reductions, remote work, insurance coverage, and the navigation of federal programs. While these decisions certainly drew in other practice areas, employment attorneys were central.  

“I don’t think anybody’s surprised that labor and employment attorneys were in higher demand as a result of the pandemic,” Reiter said. “We had a flurry of new laws and regulations issued at a fast pace at the federal, state, and local level. Our clients needed advice on these, and how to deal with others issues like shutting down offices and keeping up worker productivity. Those were fast paced times for everyone and now we’ve settled in.”

Workplace Safety

Perhaps first on many an employer’s mind was its obligation to its employees. 

According to Gabrielle Wirth, a partner in the California and Montana offices of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, who has handled numerous employment disputes across the country, “an employer always has a common law duty to keep the workplace safe.”

Speaking at a recent webinar on pandemic related-liability hosted by her firm, Wirth noted that processes become extremely important for companies whose employees must work on site, especially if any of them have conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID. Employers may need guidance on how to reasonably accommodate people.

“The important thing for employers is they have to have the conversation, they have to take the steps,” Wirth said.

Reiter said the labor and employment group at his firm has been advising clients on the development of COVID safety protocols, from how employees should conduct themselves inside the workplace to something as granular as a questionnaire to assess risk.

“Most of our clients have a questionnaire, a certain number of questions that must be answered before someone can enter the workspace,” Reiter said. “For example, if people tested positive they shouldn’t be entering the workplace, or if they live with someone who tested positive.”

In developing these protocols, attorneys are often following guidelines from the federal Centers for Disease Control as well as state and local health departments. In the early days, the guidelines changed from day to day. For example, Reiter said the minimum number of quarantine days for someone who may have been in close contact with an infected person rose from 10 to 14.

“The pandemic is still less than a year old,” Reiter said. “The CDC and state and local departments are still evaluating best practices.”

Katie Pfeiffer, of counsel in the Minneapolis office of Dorsey & Whitney, also speaking at the webinar, said she would advise employer clients to have their employees sign off on written rules about steps to reduce or eliminate the risk of contamination.

“The best practice right now is to have temperature checks of employees if they’re on the premises,” Pfeiffer said. “It’s not that temperature checks are a sure thing, but they do help. There is a lot of evidence indicating that if you have a rise in temperature, the likelihood of an infection is greatly increased.”

Litigation Risks

Of course, no matter how much advice an employer may seek, there will be lawsuits.

“A labor and employment lawyer needs to be a good counselor and advise clients, but also be a good litigator,” Reiter said. A lawyer might help a client develop an employee handbook, or draft a confidentiality agreement. The same lawyer needs to know how to use those documents as exhibits during a trial.

“If a labor and employment attorney has the skills to do one, then they have the skills to do the other,” Reiter continued. “One benefits the other.”

Reiter said he’s been advising clients on unsafe working environment allegations during the pandemic, but he hasn’t seen an explosion in suits.

“There have been some cases where workers sued employers for injunctive relief, saying our employer is not doing enough, we would like a court order. What we haven’t seen — and what some people anticipated — is a lot of class action cases or similar cases related to actually contracting the virus, the reason being the difficulty of establishing causation.”

While he doesn’t know whether such cases will eventually heat up, “it’s reasonable to say we would have seen it by now.”

According to Shevon D.B. Rockett, a partner in the New York and Philadelphia offices of Dorsey & Whitney, also speaking at the COVID liability webinar, for a while it looked like a federal liability shield was going to be included with the most recently passed COVID relief.

“Ultimately that was not included, but many states have adopted their own liability shield, either through executive orders or through statutes or laws.” 

The statutes have common characteristics that cover actual and potential exposure but don’t protect against willful or reckless or intentional conduct. “Other than that, state shields vary tremendously,” Rockett said, noting that a failure to substantially comply with public health guidance may preclude a business from gaining the benefit of a state’s liability shield.

Rockett’s colleague, Wirth, reported that there were a number of claims last March and April, “because many employers couldn’t get their hands on masks and other gear that they otherwise would have issued their employees. And so, you can also have a separate cause of action for failure to provide a safe environment.”

Wirth also noted that if employers fail to follow the state and federal regulations, a jury is going to be very sympathetic to an employee who brings a claim, or families who have lost loved ones or been severely harmed by COVID. Employment attorneys have to “keep in mind that the motivation behind a jury will be to punish people who didn’t act reasonably during this time.”

Reductions in Force

Aside from helping clients maintain a claim-proof safe workplace during a global pandemic, employment lawyers have also been busy helping clients avoid liability traps when it comes to terminations, layoffs and furloughs, and salary and wage reductions. Not a few employers have had to resort to these measures as the pandemic took its economic toll.

“Our clients were looking at ways to manage costs,” Reiter said. “There was no shortage of RIFs (reductions in force).”

One significant issue during the pandemic was the need to parse the unforeseen business circumstances exception to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, commonly called the WARN Act, a federal law designed to protect workers from sudden and unexpected losses of livelihood.

Whether the WARN Act applies will depend on the size of the RIF and the size of employer, Reiter said. “If an employer has to conduct a reduction that would otherwise trigger a WARN Act notice,” Reiter said, “the notice period can be shortened if COVID is the trigger.”

Wirth reported that conflicting signals from the federal government didn’t make it any easier. “They left employers totally confused by the various announcements. . . . Of course, in the beginning of the pandemic, employers sometimes had to do things hastily, which created problems.”

The method used to select employees to be laid off or furloughed is another potential minefield that has had companies seeking legal advice.

“You have to make sure there’s no disparate treatment. That’s an issue,” Reiter said, referring to a type of discrimination claim—an allegation that an employer intentionally selected someone because of their characteristics, a violation of the law if that person is part of a protected group.

Disparate impact is another type of discrimination claim, “when a disproportionate number of a particular protected class was selected for a reduction in force,” Reiter explained.

Sometimes these claims can arise even when a company is trying to keep its employee’s safe. For instance, “some employers, very rightfully from a moral standpoint, worried about their older workers or workers who were obviously disabled, that they would be more susceptible,” Wirth said. “But you can’t treat people differently because of their disability or their age.”

She emphasized that any action an employer takes must be an interactive process, not a blanket rule. Companies need to be very careful about taking personnel actions that could lead to discrimination claims.

Employers have so much to consider that it’s no wonder that employment attorneys have been on the frontlines of pandemic legal work. 

As noted by Wirth, companies have had to evaluate their procedures, look at their risks, and stay abreast of what has been coming out of various governmental entities. In other words, good legal advice has been crucial.

“Unprecedented” is sponsored by Practising Law Institute, which features a variety of timely offerings on employment law topics. These include the programs Understanding Employment Law 2021 and Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2021, as well as the publications “COVID-19 and Other Pandemics: Business and Legal Challenges” and “Employment Law Yearbook 2020.


Elizabeth M. Bennett was a business reporter who moved into legal journalism when she covered the Delaware courts, a beat that inspired her to go to law school. After a few years as a practicing attorney in the Philadelphia region, she decamped to the Pacific Northwest and returned to freelance reporting and editing.

TX Lt. Gov Cancel Cultures Dallas Mavs Over National Anthem

(Photo via Brian Cuban)

Oh, no, it’s cancel culture again!

Tucker Carlson and Rupert Murdoch and Ben Shapiro and Josh Hawley warned us about woke groupthinkers murdering the First Amendment and telling us what we could and couldn’t say. Sure all their examples were of private companies, so they had exactly zero constitutional implication… butbutbut slippery slope! One day a publisher is canceling a book deal because the author incites a murderous mob, the next day the government is telling you what to say, or else.

And it turns out, they were right. Well, kind of.

In response to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban’s decision not to play the anthem before the first 13 home games, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has just announced the Star Spangled Banner protection act, AKA SB4, to mandate patriotic chanting at all public events receiving taxpayer subsidy.

“It is hard to believe this could happen in Texas, but Mark Cuban’s actions of yesterday made it clear that we must specify that in Texas we play the national anthem before all major events,” he said. “In this time when so many things divide us, sports are one thing that bring us together — right, left, black, white and brown. This legislation already enjoys broad support. I am certain it will pass, and the Star Spangled Banner will not be threatened in the Lone Star State again.”

O say can you see … a facially unconstitutional government enactment?

In 1943, Justice Robert Jackson authored the Supreme Court opinion holding that children could not be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance in school, writing “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

And when it comes to pettiness, Dan Patrick is second to no official.

“Your decision to cancel our National Anthem at @dallasmavs games is a slap in the face to every American & an embarrassment to Texas,” he tweeted from his fainting couch. (Presumably.) “Sell the franchise & some Texas Patriots will buy it. We ARE the land of free & the home of the brave.” Because failing to play an unsingable, repurposed English drinking song is exactly the same as urinating on the flag at center court after the second quarter.

Setting aside the unconstitutionality of the law, its practical implication would be virtually constant chanting in an effort to avoid losing government subsidy, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser points out.

Woohoo, kegger at ZBTahiti! Come by midnight so you don’t miss the anthem.

In any event, legal action won’t be necessary. “With NBA teams now in the process of welcoming fans back into their arenas, all teams will play the national anthem in keeping with longstanding league policy,” the NBA said Wednesday. After which the Mavericks immediately announced that the anthem would be played before that evening’s game, but released this statement from Cuban:

We respect and always have respected the passion people have for the anthem and our country. But we also loudly hear the voices of those who feel that the anthem does not represent them. We feel that their voices need to be respected and heard, because they have not been. Going forward, our hope is that people will take the same passion they have for this issue and apply the same amount of energy to listen to those who feel differently from them. Only then we can move forward and have courageous conversations that move this country forward and find what unites us.

Meanwhile Texas state legislators are still trying to cancel culture Mark Cuban.

“The stadiums, subsidized by the taxpayers, which host the Mavericks should either condemn @mcuban’s anti-American decisions and override him; or, return all tax subsidies they have received,” tweeted Texas House member Dustin Burroughs.

Because social justice is “anti-American.” True patriots ignore the First Amendment and 70 years of American jurisprudence.

Land of the free, and home of the brave.

Dan Patrick makes “Star Spangled Banner Act” a legislative priority after the Mavericks go 13 games without the national anthem [Texas Tribune]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.;

Delaware Judges Pitch In For Epic Music Video

Musical week at Above the Law continues! We had Edelson’s rap videos and a Texas Family Court judge channeling King George, now we conclude with the whole state of Delaware.

Judge James McGiffin Jr. recruited lawyers and judges to perform an original ditty about coping with COVID. Then the folks from Profund Bono, the Official Musical Theater Group of the Delaware Legal Community — who also put on a biennial musical to support legal services to Delaware’s disadvantaged communities — pitched in to make the video a reality!

For the record, it was

I loved my spouse I love my kids
For either now I’m taking bids

That broke me.

Amazing. We’ve got singing and dancing judges, a cat, and real instruments being played. Don’t worry Judge Medinilla, we won’t tell anybody we saw you.

Finally, a reason to be thankful that our country’s entire business operation runs out of one state.

Earlier: Family Court Judge Warns Attorneys To Wear Pants In Hilarious Parody Video
Law Firm Busts Out Two New Rap Videos
Federal Judges Releasing Music Video About COVID Is Officially The Last Thing You Expected From 2020


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because!

As the FCC gets closer to restoring net neutrality, a new and bizarre GOP talking point has emerged. It goes something like this: if you’re going to restore some modest rules holding telecom monopolies accountable, you just have to dismantle a law that protects free speech on the internet! This of course makes no coherent sense whatsoever, but that’s not stopping those looking to demolish Section 230, a law that is integral to protecting speech online.

Take FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, for example. Despite having a post at the nation’s top communications regulator, Carr is literally incapable of even acknowledging that US telecom monopolies exist. Or that said monopolization is directly responsible for the high broadband prices, spotty coverage, terrible customer service, and/or sluggish speeds everybody loathes. His tenure has been spent rubber stamping the every whim of Comcast and AT&T, yet, for no coherent reason whatsoever he’s emerged as a major voice in the conversation about Section 230 and social media.

This week, Carr had this to say at the INCOMPAS policy summit:

While there certainly are moments these worlds collide (like Amazon AWS or Google Fiber) this is not a good faith argument, and conflating net neutrality and the debate over 230 into one incoherent ball is a tactical strategy, not a real legal or policy argument.

Like it or not, net neutrality was simply an effort — in the absence or real US broadband market competition — to create some baseline rules preventing natural, physical telecom monopolies from abusing their market power. Power they attempted to abuse time, and time, and time, and time again. The Trumpist GOP assault on Section 230, by contrast, is the brain fart of an unqualified and corrupt ex-president, designed largely to bully content platforms into carrying hate speech and political disinformation, cornerstones of modern GOP power in the wake of changing US demographics and a sagging electoral base.

The latter is dressed up as something more noble and patriotic than it really is. But there’s absolutely nothing meaningfully tethering one policy debate to the other. Well, aside from the blistering hypocrisy required for FCC Commissioners like Carr to claim that FCC efforts to hold telecom monopolies accountable was “socialism” or “government run amok,” then pivoting on a dime to support Trump’s ridiculous attempt to have the FCC regulate social media (despite having no authority to do so).

Of course this same bizarre conflation also recently popped up over at Fox Business courtesy of an anonymous “former FCC official” (possibly ex FCC boss turned cable lobbyist Mike Powell) in a piece that uses the exact same illogical framing (and even the word “holistic”):

“If Democrats want to talk about net neutrality, they’re going to have to include Big Tech,” says one former FCC official. “It has to be a holistic conversation.”

Uh, no they don’t?

There’s absolutely nothing, anywhere that fully tethers the two policies, and just claiming otherwise repeatedly won’t magically make it true. It’s clear the GOP wants to confuse the public into conflating “net neutrality” with some imagined requirement for platform and service “neutrality.” They’ve already confused “being held accountable for being a lying asshole on the internet” and “being kicked off a private service for clearly violating its terms of service” with “censorship,” and Fox is more than happy to muddy the water further:

“GOP activists and lobbyists interviewed by FOX Business concede legislation that would extend net neutrality rules to Big Tech is a long shot given the current makeup of Congress. Still, they believe they can start a debate on the matter that could focus the public’s attention on what they believe is the tech industry’s stifling of conservative voices.”

Let’s be clear: the GOP has made “big tech” public enemy number one not because they genuinely care about corporate power or monopolization, but because companies like Twitter finally started more seriously policing hate speech and political disinformation after the country almost imploded. At the same time, the GOP is literally incapable of even acknowledging that “big telecom” (1) exists, or (2) is a problem. That’s in part thanks to telecom lobbyists, who’ve been beating that particular drum for years as they attempt to grab a broader share of online video advertising by lobbying for a lopsided policy environment.

The GOP position here is about money and political power, and all else is performative bullshit.

If you really want to crack down on monopolies, let’s have that conversation and apply it to all industries, not just the one you’re currently trying to pressure for political reasons. Let’s talk about shoring up antitrust, and perhaps not rubber stamping every job and competition killing megamerger that comes down the road. Let’s talk about campaign finance reform, so giants like AT&T (or Facebook and Google) aren’t literally writing state and federal law. This is not, I can assure you, a conversation the Trump-obsessed GOP actually wants to have, despite the occasional policy wonk claim to the contrary.

Regardless, as the conversation heats back up about net neutrality, you can expect a lot of dodgy op-eds parroting this intentional conflation. Because who wants to have an honest, good faith discussion about US tech policy reform, when you can instead try to confuse the public into supporting your bad faith victimization complex?

Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because!

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Orrin Hatch, Who Once Wanted To Destroy The Computers Of Anyone Who Infringed On Copyrights, Now Lies About Section 230
Snippet Taxes Not Only Violate The Berne Convention, But Also Betray The Deepest Roots Of Newspaper Culture
Latest Anti-Accountability Move By Cops Involves Playing Music While Being Recorded In Hopes Of Triggering Copyright Takedowns