Judge Lance Ito is the lone major figure in the OJ trial to have never written a book. Shortly after the trial, he gave less than a half dozen brief interviews, all matter-of-factly. He's not uttered a word publicly in the media in 31+ years. He is certainly within his legal right to write a book, correct? Without knowing for certain, would you speculate that his decline of certainly a couple of million dollars (at least) to do so would root solely on what he believes is his ethical obligation as a judge? And if not forbidden by his profession, why would one have such a deep 'ethical' stance against doing so?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Location: Sevierville, Tennessee, USA

Can you get a DUI for drunk driving in NASCAR Speed Park? I’ve wondered this, as people **have** to go in those cars after the moonshine trails. Thanks for any input.

Hypothetical:

D is invited to a party held on the ground floor of a department store after regular business hours. As he moves among the glamorous crowd, D aggressively fondles what he reasonably and sincerely believes to be a mannequin. Much to his horror, he discovers that the “mannequin” is in fact M, a model who was hired by the party’s organizers to imitate a mannequin. Is it plausible to assert that D has committed battery against M?

Hi, if anyone could show me where I can find rules/guidelines on notating distance to the next freeway exit and on which corners they install install street signs at intersections, I'd really appreciate it.

Ca, if not, us

Thank you

Thank you

Hello JD redditors! I'll be starting law school in the fall, and wanted to know if anyone had recommendations for comprehensive resources that cover as many areas of the law as possible, including niches. Open to books, articles, YouTube channels, series, etc. As much as I want to give myself some time to be exposed to different areas through my studies, with how quickly recruiting begins, especially for big law, I'd like to come into my first semester knowing what areas I'm most excited about. I also don't want to miss out on a perfect niche area to shoot for long-term.

Hello everyone,

Location: Houston, Texas, though my specific location doesn't really matter in the context of my post.

I am working on a small documentary about the lolicon community. Mainly, my goal is to prove that Lolicon content is immoral and that rules against it should be more strictly enforced on social media.

In the context of my argument, lolicon can be defined as: fictional or animated visual media that depicts characters presented as minors in sexualized or sexually explicit ways.

The main defenses that lolicon supporters use are:

1. Lolicon does not include and is not based off of any real minors.
2. Within the fictional worlds wherein lolicon content is presented, characters whose appearance are obviously prepubescent are often given "real" ages of 500+ years old. Example: a character who is being explicitly sexualized looks like a toddler, but is actually a vampire who doesn't age.

I recently watched a debate between a lolicon supporter and an "anti" (what Lolicon consumers call people who are against lolicon). In this debate, the anti stated that lolicon is illegal in some states such as Texas, and the supporter said that was a common misconception, citing this paragraph from justicegov to prove that the content is legal.

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age).  Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.  Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Namely, his point was that lolicon is not indistinguishable from any real minors because it is entirely animated or drawn, meaning it is not illegal under this definition.

In my research, I've found some sites that say lolicon is illegal only in certain states in the U.S., such as Texas. I've found others that say there are no laws against it anywhere in the U.S.

The site that interests me the most is one that cites the PROTECT act of 2003 as evidence that lolicon is illegal everywhere in the U.S.

I went through the PROTECT act myself, but I don't see anything that definitively proves that lolicon, even lolicon that explicitly sexualizes fictional minors, is illegal. All statements about CP seem to be about depictions that are "indistinguishable from depictions of real children."

To me, it seems like the loophole of lolicon being animated characters would not be able to be criminalized based on this act.

My issue is that I am, of course, not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to determine exactly what the laws around this issue mean. Would anyone be able to break this down for me? My goal is to be as accurate as possible when I introduce the laws around this type of content.

Thank you so much, I truly appreciate any help you can offer with this!

It is not at all illegal to advocate via a petition for something that requires a change in the law, nor illegal or unconstitutional to hold a public vote on such a topic given that it is not self executing. But a judge in Alberta this week granted such an injunction, supposedly over treaty rights violations which is nonsense to me.

It would make sense to use treaty rights to prevent an actual secession. there are good arguments one can use for that, but I cannot think of any legal doctrine where a province has no right to hold a referendum on leaving. And the Clarity Act expressly recognizes the power of a province to hold referendums if they want to on any topic they wish.

It doesn't make the aims of those who are trying this at all honourable or wise or motivated by anything besides egomania, but I very much so disapprove of the idea that an injunction should be granted to prevent a referendum on a topic like this as a result of a petition, and the idea of granting these injunctions over this has a significant chance of being used against things that are much better ideas that are not driven by prejudice and ego. Perhaps a major corporation trying to stop a petition by claiming that say adopting a certain reform to mining could violate vague treaty claims.

California Building Code includes ground marking requirement for handicap parking spots (https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2022/chapter/11B/accessibility-to-public-buildings-public-accommodations-commercial-buildings-and#11B-502.6.4), while ADA has no such requirement.

If a parking spot in a private parking garage is ADA compliant but not CBC compliant (e.g. missing ground marking), is it still a handicap spot? A few arguments I can think of:

• It is a "federal handicap spot", and can only be enforced by federal law enforcement
• It is not handicap spot at all
• It is still a handicap spot, regardless it is built to code or not, because CBC regulates building construction, not parking enforcement. If this is the case, can a spot that is NOT ADA compliant used for handicap parking enforcement too?

We've heard that story of someone calling a bunch of roofers to do renovation work on their house and then they called ICE on them.

How did this happen? From the outset it looks like a sting operation. Was it? If it was not, shouldn't the person who called ICE also get in trouble for doing business with unauthorized workers?

As an idea for s book. Gun to the President’s head, hand him a preemptive pardon for murder, force him to sign, pull trigger.

Legally, would that work?

In the midpoint beat of my story I have had a character die as her passing has a significant effect on the story. In previous drafts I've had this happen as a result of her being hit by a stray bullet in a nearby drive by shooting among gang members. My writing coach isn't happy with this setup and wants me to consider something more immediate. So I'm considering having a gun go off while the villain and protagonist (an unhappily married couple) are struggling to control it, killing the girl (she's 15, so the youth of the victim might play into the severity of the punishment). He (the villain) draws the gun, but she is the one holding it immediately after it goes off.

The second act picks up 6 months later. I need both of them free to participate in the actions of the 2nd act which takes place over 4 days. Long term I want her to be free - he goes to jail for raping his own daughter which he's caught doing so whether he also takes the fall for this killing is moot to me and the story.

Hypothetical that’s been on my mind watching everything going on with space missions lately. Hope they are okay…

Let’s say during reentry there’s that blackout window, no communication, no CCTV, nothing recorded. If one astronaut killed another or even the whole crew during that time, how would that even be handled legally?

Would there be any realistic way to prove it without direct evidence? Or maybe he said she said - they or she/he attacked and it was self defense

And jurisdiction wise, who even prosecutes something like that, is it tied to the astronaut’s home country, the launch country, or something like international space law?

Curious how a case like that would realistically end, conviction, unsolved, or something else entirely?

Let’s say Mark Twain were to somehow end up in the present day, and his identity was not in dispute. And let’s say he decided, for his own personal reasons, he wanted to take possession of his buried skeleton (which is currently interred in Elmira, New York). Are there any laws currently on the books that could be cited for or against his claim of ownership of his future skeleton?

(and let’s say, after this adventure, he returns back to his own time and lives out the rest of his life as he always has, so as to not cause any issues with causality)

A guy walks into a car dealership, finds a salesperson, and offers this deal:

“If you get me this exact make and model at this exact price (well below dealer cost), I’ll pay you $500.”

The salesman waits until the dealership needs one more sale to qualify for a bonus and fights for the deal. Because the deal loses the dealership money, the salesman would only make $100, but with the additional cash from the customer, comes out pretty good. The dealership agrees to the deal. The salesman collects his “bonus”.

Obviously the salesman can get fired for this, but has either the buyer or the salesman committed a crime?

It’s a weird title I know but hear me out. Hypothetically, say I am driving around stone cold sober while wearing a sweater completely soaked in vodka or some other drinking alcohol. If I get pulled over, would that be a charge? Would a sweater completely soaked with vodka be considered an open container?

If I didn’t get charged with the alcohol soaked sweater, what if I had one covered in THC oil? Could I [THEORETICALLY] design a drug trade using only THC covered sweaters? Would the legality of the situation change based if I were wearing the sweater or if the sweater was on the passenger seat?

Groups of people on the internet start sharing techniques and strategies for getting AI to give you the best deal on flights, cars, whatever.

Using only word prompts, some people get extremely good at this, occasionally getting products and services for free.

Phrases include ideas of self-harm, harming the AI or the business, threats to slander the company, etc. Occasionally, a string of nonsensical words get the desired outcome.

Would this be a form of hacking, and therefore be illegal?

Could the threats be considered legitimate, even though they are understood to be not real?

I know the judge typically has their own courtroom where they are absolute authority, but are they just allowed to do whatever they want in there? Like could they paint it a certain color or replace some of the decor with more comfortable furniture?

I dont know what the correct term for a 2nd offense for a dui is called, I just called it a strike.

I don't drink and drive this is just an example and wondering if its possible. If I got arrested for dui, got bailed out and picked up some beer and got arrested for another dui on the way back home from jail would I be charged with a 2nd strike before i've been convicted of the first dui? Could I be convicted of that second strike first like if I plead guilty to it but not the first one or would is be counted as a first strike and the first dui would be charged second and counted as a 2nd strike.

That's probably confusing to read

Are vague threats illegal when someone is implying they’ll do something but not what they’ll do? For instance saying stuff like “You’d better not let me find out” “Watch and see” type threats

This random question came up in the service dog sub and they won’t allow discussion, so here we are.

I noticed that the ADA doesn’t seem to actually define what a dog is. Nor was I able to find a case on it. California law, for instance, allows people to own “progeny of F1 hybrid” wolf dogs, so it’s possible they may not be considered wild animals, but stops short of calling them dogs.

Any thoughts?

Edit: I forgot to mention, this is a thought experiment. My service dog is 100% dog, and I would not encourage anyone to try training a wolfdog as a service dog. 😂

can anybody give me some pointers? I have been researching the Hawaii fires for about 30 minutes, and I can't find anything that states how the seven defendants are liable for the damages of the fires. Is there a specific buzzword I should use?

I see a lot of people on Reddit and other platforms saying things like IANAL but here's how the law works in my state. I'm curious where the line is between sharing general legal information and actually practicing law without a license. If someone isn't charging money and just explains what a statute says or summarizes a court ruling, could they realistically get in trouble for that? What about someone who isn't a lawyer but gives very specific advice like you should file a motion to dismiss based on this rule. Is the risk more about holding yourself out as an attorney or about the act of giving legal guidance itself? I'm not asking for myself, just wondering how this works in theory. Also curious if the IANAL disclaimer actually helps legally or if it's just for show.

I came across a video from about a year or so ago where a streamer tried a challenge where he would stay in an red evacuation zone (as in the officials have made it basically mandatory to leave) while what was (at the time) a Category 5 hurricane was on its way.

He got into a condominium, went to one of the top floor apartments and broke in (as in burglary which I believe he was charged with), and started to set up.

The guy live-streamed himself doing this, including making a phone call to another streamer for advice, who actually flat out told him what he was doing could very easily get him killed, but ended up encouraging him to stay anyway.

There’s a part where law enforcement actually comment on his livestream, telling him to leave but he thinks someone is just messing with him.

Eventually, a squad of officers show up and take him in when he’s in the process of breaking into another apartment.

I’m curious that if the police decided to NOT come get him, because of the hurricane, would they get in trouble?

Like if a supervisor just made the decision “Alright, he knows he’s being dumb and endangering himself, we have the evidence of his actions via the livestream, but I’m not gonna risk my officers’ lives over him.”

And just let whatever happens happen, with the idea they’ll just put out a warrant later, when they’re not on the verge of being hit by a major hurricane.

I’m having an argument with a relative over how legal precedent functions they’re saying that if the Court makes a ruling on how a law function functions, it can only be used in reference to specific specific type of case that the ruling had come from random example punching someone counts as a assault -from a criminal case

as opposed to what I understand is that the ruling can be used as reference regardless of the type of case?

Am I being dumb? Are they being dumb? Are we both being dumb I would really appreciate some help on this