LegalEagle's Devin Stone Answers Law Questions From Twitter | Tech Support | WIRED

I'm Devin Stone, practicing attorney, adjunct law professor, and host of the eagle law channel, and I'm here to answer your

questions

from Twitter. This is legal

support

at granule, where is the line between hate speech and freedom of expression? There is no line, many countries adopt different philosophies when it comes to hate speech, but in the United States, hate speech has the same type of First Amendment protections as most speech. Now there are some quasi-exceptions when it comes to certain crimes. You can get an upgrade if it was done for a racial or hate-related reason, but for the most part, when we talk about free speech, hate speech is free speech and you can reasonably love it or hate it.

Minds will differ on those airbag moments. A serious question for lawyers if I threaten my judge with death in the courtroom, isn't he now biased against me and should be replaced? So this is a great example of the difference between prejudice and undue prejudice. Courts are designed to prevent things that cause undue bias in the courtroom. We don't want an outside influence to unfairly prejudice the judge, the jury, or anyone else, but what happens inside the courtroom is a pretty fair game that It might be harmful, but that's not unfair or undue prejudice, so don't do it. going around threatening the judge with death, anything that happens in court can and will be used against you from Blue Road Earth why OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but liable in civil court.

This question was phrased very well because it shows the difference between responsibility and criminal responsibility or guilt in this context now the standard in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, so if someone is found not guilty it does not mean that they did not commit a crime, it simply means that the prosecution failed to meet its requirements. Now, in the civil context, you are trying to compensate victims for the harm you have caused them and that is exactly what the estates of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman did to O.J Simpson even though the state was unsuccessful in criminal prosecution.

O.J Simpson, they were successful in filing a civil suit where the standard is just a preponderance of the evidence, basically it's more likely than not in March when Grandeur is used over a regular jury if it's just regular people anyway, so the jury that actually decides whether someone is guilty or not is called a petty jury p-e-t-i-t is Latin don't ask a grand jury on the other hand it's actually a much lower bar a grand jury is used by prosecutors to decide whether indicting someone and the reason why people It is often said that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich because it is completely one-sided.

In reality, it is just a basic check to decide if the case can move forward. It doesn't actually decide whether someone is guilty or not. B Brooks 4791s, why not testify if you are innocent why plead the fifth if you are innocent this applies to anyone actually it applies to anyone just because you are invoking the Fifth Amendment which is the protection against self-incrimination and being forced to Testifying against yourself doesn't mean you committed any crime. You may not want to testify because that could expose you to unrelated crimes; You could be innocent of what you are accused of, but you could be guilty of many other things or you could be completely innocent of everything and you just don't want to testify, you might be very bad on the stand, so be glad that if any Once you are accused of a crime they will not force you to testify against yourself, you have the option of not testifying from Merck, the mods, how do DraftKings and FanDuel get around anti-gambling laws?

For a long time, FanDuel and DraftKings were completely illegal throughout the US, except for fantasy-related sports betting, which is generally considered games of skill; however, when it comes to general betting a sports book that was considered gambling and was illegal until 2018 when the Supreme Court struck down that law, it was left up to the states and now there have been many states that have said we are I totally agree with people playing in our states. I would really like to get tax revenue and as a result it is now legal to use online websites like FanDuel and DraftKings from Should 12.

How much difference is there between a guilty plea and a no contest? So if you are charged with a criminal offense you have a couple of options if you don't want to go to trial you can just plead guilty but sometimes you have the option to plead no contest effectively in the criminal context you are treated exactly the same than if he had pleaded guilty. If your crime harmed someone and you were then sued after you pleaded guilty, you would be civilly liable for any harm you caused almost automatically because the standard in a criminal case is much higher than in a civil case, but if you don't declare guilty, they have done so. to prove that you are liable in the civil context, generally speaking, if the option is available, a smart defendant will not plead guilty instead of guilty to Red Rollins.

You know why there are so many frivolous lawsuits in the United States, so I think people greatly overestimate how many frivolous lawsuits there are because there is a lot of selection bias. You're not going to hear about a breach of contract case involving a supplier who got 10,000 industrial appliances when he ordered 12,000 industrial appliances and some of them weren't - you're not going to hear about that because it's super boring but yeah You're going to hear about the most ridiculous cases out there, the most frivolous cases because those are the ones that are interesting and are going to be better news Tech and lo and behold, umg lawsuit over fake Drake and the song of the weekend generated by AI, but who can you sue other than the company that created AI artists often have rights to their image and sometimes even rights to how they sound, but we are entering a brave new world where the law is enforced. will reduce in terms of what constitutes infringement or not, it will be an interesting result because it is not entirely obvious where it will reduce.

C Dashel asks: can you really avoid being sued? simply preventing documents from being delivered to you, that would be a ridiculous loophole. I agree that would be ridiculous and that's generally not the case. What happens is that if you avoid the service for long enough, you can do what is called service substitution, where instead of physically serving the service papers on someone, you simply publish them in a newspaper and then they may not even know that the process has started and believe me, you don't want to have a lawsuit against you and not participate, what happens is a default judgment where you simply lose and you didn't have the opportunity to defend yourself don't play accept the service and just hire a lawyer is the best way to do it from Extra Spicy Tums Why are there so many billboards for accident lawyers in Los Angeles?

Can someone enlighten me here because once? I started to notice them. I can't stop now. There was actually a Supreme Court case in the 1970s that allowed lawyers to advertise on billboards before the law said they couldn't and see if you're going to do advertising related to car accidents. Putting up a billboard is probably the best way to do it, ask if you're creating more accidents, but that's what we call a virtuous cycle, you're creating your own market, so that sounds great, in quasi-asher, wait, how Is jury service on television? show legal exemptions remotely many many exemptions from you let Kai give you tips to make studying law less boring please I would say this behind every case there is a story and unless you are studying procedures civils, you can basically ignore the procedure of a case and just focus on the story of what happened, whether you're talking about a breach of contract or a horrible accident, there's probably something really interesting going on in the background and it does a lot easier to remember and makes it more interesting to study also in hbn W7 why the law has to be complicated and expensive question mark question mark question mark it is because lawyers hate you and want to make an example of you, you in Lawyers in particular get a lot of criticism our job is be careful and the reality is really complicated there are a lot of things that can go wrong if you are writing a contract or a law you need to make sure you cover all the different edge cases and not only that language is really complicated, especially the English language, so there are a million different cases about what constitutes a chicken, what happens if a ship has the same name as another ship, what happens if you write a law and forget a comma, all that stuff have absolutely happened, judges and juries and lawyers have to try to figure out what to do when something is ambiguous and the world is ambiguous all the time, from Spring to Mage, how do lawyers ethically defend their clients when there are, for For example, video evidence of them trying to run over?

One person, twice as many, has the right to a good defense and there are a million different reasons and ways a lawyer can defend even a guilty person, even if he believes that person is guilty, maybe the prosecutor is trying to convict someone and get a sentence that way. too high, you don't want someone accused of petty theft to face the death penalty, so you know that there are many different degrees you can use to defend someone, regardless of whether they are guilty or not, and they all deserve a sentence of death. a reasonable defense got it 52 Will AI replace lawyers?

You probably don't want an AI lawyer anytime soon. A lawyer is not simply a machine that knows what the law is. A lawyer is a person with theoretically years of experience who can help you strategically. to achieve their goals and that is not something that AI is well positioned to replace any time soon, what I suspect is going to happen is that AI will make much of the heavy lifting of practicing law much easier and will allow lawyers to focus on the really value-added stuff and allow them to think strategically and better represent their clients in the future, so I welcome our AI gentlemen from Dean Hair Photo, when does attorney-client privilege end? and that the lawyer is a co-conspirator?

Well, there is a law. to the point and that is called the criminal fraud exception, if a lawyer helps a client commit fraud then the attorney-client privilege is broken and in theory if the lawyer is actually involved in a crime then he can become an accomplice of Butterfly Babes Five, why? Does perjury not apply? Many say nothing will happen to hashtag Amber Heard for lying under oath, so what's the point of taking the oath? So, first of all, perjury actually applies. Perjury is lied under oath. That being said, it is very difficult to convict someone. of perjury just because you lost means you lied and in fact, even in the context of Amber Heard Johnny Depp where there was a countersuit and Johnny Depp won, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone on the other side was necessarily lying. and generally speaking, you know prosecutors have better things to prosecute than a fringe case of possible Molly Haynes perjury.

How can lawyers know the law like I had to learn the nitty-gritty of a law and it drove me crazy? law students just learn all the laws and then some international law lawyers rarely know all the laws. The body of American law that exists is too large and it is not possible for any person to know what tends to happen if you know the law. Use it in practice all the time. Say a prayer for all lawyers because if you come to us with a novel question, we probably won't know the law in our heads and will have to research it. and frankly, Peter Unwin wants it that way when a driverless car is involved in an accident, who should be responsible when a driverless car is involved in an accident and there are two possible avenues of liability, one is negligence and the other is product liability when Basically, this is product liability, if you put a product in the Commerce stream, you are what is called strictly responsible for any damage that product causes.

A manufacturer could also be liable based on a negligence theory that there was some industry standard that they should have followed. and they didn't, but there are a million other people who could also be liable for negligence. Theory that maybe there was another driver who was responsible, it will be case by case, but those will be the main theories. according to which someone is going to be responsible for Nazi gerlock one, how does the Supreme Court decide to hear a case? It is a fascinating process. The short answer is that of the nine judges, four have to agree to take a case that is notyou can appeal. to the Supreme Court as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has to issue what is called a writ of certiori, in other words, they only decide which cases they see now, on what basis do Supreme Court justices often decide whether there are a conflict between the states, if there is an issue of supreme national importance, as we saw in Bush v.

Gore or Roe v. Wade. Sometimes they take on a case just because they want to interpret a law or statute the way they want to interpret it based on Leslie W's series of numbers. Can there be a real crime in the metaverse if it doesn't translate to a real crime in the physical Universe ? Well, there are all kinds of crimes in the real world that don't involve a physical act. There is a civil action for defamation and that can happen. In the real world or in the metaverse, if you fulfill the elements of a crime in the metaverse, I would suspect that that crime will be pursued in the same way that it would be pursued in real life as well by a friend of Gandalf, why is there a statute? of limitations for crimes the reason the statute of limitations exists is because after a lot of time has passed, it can often be very difficult to find evidence, it can be impossible to find witnesses, so it's a balancing act that we want punish the guilty, but we don't want to punish the innocent, so we have a statute of limitations to make sure it's fair for a defendant to be able to defend themselves in a case that they've spent a lot of time on and otherwise wouldn't be able to. defending yourself from a stove allergy when the lawyers say something in court and object to it and the judge tells the jury to ignore it, do you think it's been erased from their brains?

No, definitely not, lawyers are fully aware of the fact that things that happen in court even when you receive a limiting instruction from the judge, it is impossible for anyone to literally forget what happened. That being said, a judge knows when you are joking and if the judge thinks you are intentionally violating court decorum, the judge will use it. something called contempt and sometimes lawyers go to jail for things they did in court Chloe Walker asks it's like appealing, appealing and appealing until you get the answer you like, it's Justice, how many appeals do you get?

Generally speaking, you only get one appeal. Now in theory there are different appeals courts, so in theory you could have one more chance against Apple, but the appeals courts that are above the intermediate appeals court are like the Supreme Court and only take cases that they want, so it's very rare to pass an appeal, okay, those are all our

questions

. I hope you learned something today and until next time I will see you in court.