General Taylor Swift discussion. Welcome all Swifties!
Bring your clown hats, your wild theories, and your hype, this community is for you.
Some basic guidelines:
When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as Elon...you fucked up.
Ugh, trying to criminalize the aggregation of public information ... makes me queasy.
It's always fine, a 'cost of freedom' kind of thing, until it infringes upon the rich and powerful.
Yeah, it has something to do with insecurity and selfish hypocrisy.
It's always so weird to me when swifties have to say "I love Taylor, but..." Like "I love Taylor, but she raped my dog!" "I love Taylor, but she killed my parents!"
At what fucking point do you stop loving her? She doesn't love you. She'd feed you to her private jet to keep it running.
I never got the obsession with celebrities. How can you care so much for someone that doesn't even know you exist.
I think it has morphed over time, in America at least. We used to be obsessed with politicians in our infancy, it's said that Thomas Edison's face was printed onto a blank envelope with no other information on it, left with a mail deliverer, and was successfully delivered to Edison himself some time later. Talk about brand recognition.
"killed my parents" and "raped my dog" are obvious hyperbole, which means you failed to come up with even one (1) other problem besides the private jet.
Yeah the private jet thing sucks shit, but over the top nonsense in the other direction is not helping you make your case.
I was taking the piss and I'm not going to research swift, but I hear swifties saying "get your shit together gurl, so I can love you" so constantly that I'm pretty sure that you know some examples off the top of your head.
The private jet thing is so bad it is worth mentioning twice though.
Exactly. People can hold two completely separate views of her. I love her music, she makes me feel things. But I can also acknowledge that she's a billionaire now and should be giving back. Those feelings are not mutually exclusive.
uh oh I think she's about to buy twitter
Maybe she'll name it "S"
When I heard TS was taking a page from Barbara Streisand's book, this is far from what I imagined.
Taylor Swift billionaire villain arc.
I got odds on a trump endorsement before November
On what grounds? It's public information.
It's not like he's posting private info, or modifying it to defame TS.
I have absolutely no problem with this guy posting this information about Tay Tay or anyone else for that matter. Having said that there is a pretty good chance Taylor herself knows fuckall about this even happening: her entourage is almost certainly the driving force behind this. I would certainly like to think if she were actually aware of the details behind what he's doing/what her lawyers are doing she wouldn't be coming down on him but who knows?
But that means she also has the power to stop it, and she isn't.
Sure if she knows about it, so let's hope A, this blows up enough for someone to ask her about it in an interview, and B she actually gives a shit to do something. I won't hold my breath.
Just want to point out that the lawyer's letter claims that Swift is experiencing emotional distress because of the publication of her flight details. That's likely meant to be the hook of the lawsuit, since it's public and true information there aren't a lot of grounds for a lawsuit apart from the broad catchall "intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress".
But as a matter of pure legal ethics (which are enforceable rules lawyers have to follow):
As to the former, Swift's lawyer would have needed authorization from the client to send that demand. Whether the client is Swift personally or some kind of LLC or something set up to represent her business. I'd suspect the former since LLCs can't sue for emotional distress (corps have been held to have free speech rights, but no court has gone so far as to declare them to have emotions). I think it's very likely Swift had to personally approve this demand letter.
As to the latter, if the lawyer didn't at least talk to Swift about this, then the lawyer cannot plausibly claim that she's experiencing emotional distress. No lawyer (not working for Trump) is going to bold face lie in a demand letter. If the lawyer made that claim up, and Swift later came out and was like "I didn't know this was sent, I don't care about the flight tracking accounts), that lawyer would be looking at disciplinary action. No lawyer is going to risk that, especially on something high profile like this. Swift had to have said something from which the lawyer could plausibly claim she was experiencing emotional distress.
In conclusion, it is exceedingly likely that Swift not only was aware of this demand but personally approved/directed it.
Buddy, you and I have clearly had wildly different experiences with lawyers, technical nuance, and toeing the line of legal ethics.
1, they don't need a legally valid justification for the lawsuit they haven't filed because they're still at a stage way before that: scary threatening letter.
2, the gap between "I don't like that people track my plane" and you stating that it's "very likely" she personally approved the letter is pretty hilarious, and again anyone in her entourage could be the driving force behind this, and the LLC "nuance" still doesn't matter since this isn't a legal filing, its a bully letter.
3, "misrepresent facts" can be interpreted in many ways. This is a letter sent to a guy trying to scare him off, there aren't as many protections as you think on "misrepresenting facts" in a letter versus an actual legal filing. As pointed out in the article they accuse him of the nebulous violating of state laws while notably not saying which ones, believe me if they knew specific laws to list they would love to, makes the letter look MUCH scarier.
4, "no lawyer... is going to bold face lie in a demand letter" well that's just horseshit man, not to beat a dead horse but its a LETTER, not a legal filing.
5, in conclusion, you should check the batteries in your "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
I mean your mostly just wrong. Here are the rules of professional conduct: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/
Obtaining a clients consent before taking a course of action is covered by rules 1.2 and 1.4:
a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.
Nothing limits that to just the litigation context.
Rule 4.1 is literally titled "Truthfulness in Statements to Others"
A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf...
See also Rule 8.4:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
Buddy, absolutely nothing of what I described comes anywhere close to what you just posted. You might be the worst armchair lawyer ever. If what you just posted matched to what I described then her lawyers would also be liable for disbarment hearings, that simply is not how it works.
Lol I'm a real life lawyer, I'm familiar with how this works, and very familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. So I'll just lay it out for you. No demand letter I have ever written has gone out without my client first reviewing and approving it. I don't need my clients consent for every communication (e.g., if I'm going back and forth with opposing counsel on something, I'm not getting the client's signoff on each email), but at the very least the client is aware of and has approved the strategy I am engaging in and whatever means I'm using to do it. But a demand letter absolutely gets client approval first. Beyond that, i would never contact any person or entity on my clients behalf without their express permission.
The simple fact is no lawyer just does things, particularly not send demand letters, cause they feel like it. Lawyers are agents of their clients, we do what we are asked to do (provided it's legal), nothing more nothing less. The client is the boss, the lawyer is a servant. The lawyer doesn't just do shit on their own.
And all communications must be truthful. Period. Now you can exaggerate for tactical advantage or to press a negotiation. Maybe her lawyer coached a useful answer out of her ("would you say that account posting your flights is causing you stress?") But you absolutely cannot just make up an injury to a client they didn't at least suggest they might have. It doesn't matter if it's a complaint, a demand letter, an email, or a Christmas card. Lawyers cannot just make shit up out of whole cloth.
Now, dem are da rules. Does everybody always follow them exactly? Usually yes, actually. I work with a lot of lawyers, and I've been on the opposite side of some real shitheads. But I can count on one hand the times I've suspected opposing counsel of breaking a rule, including dishonesty. Once actually, there was one time, in my 8 years of practice. I'm sure some scumbags do exist. But Swift is paying top dollar for a respected firm, and they will not risk their licenses or reputation on engaging in some free wheeling strategy to threaten some kid who is already internet famous for this exact thing without the clients explicit consent, especially not by making up emotional distress on behalf of Swift without consulting her first. It's just not going to happen.
The main reason I doubt you are a lawyer is that you keep rewording my statements so you can make a different argument that sounds better (to you). If you are a lawyer (lol) you should probably go wait for your phone to ring, it's Trump and you're up next.
I never once quoted you, so how could I reword your statements? I'm on mobile, it's a pain in the ass to quote someone. Besides your statements are mostly just "nuh uh" what use is there quoting them? I'm not arguing with you. I'm explaining to you how this works.
I didn't say you were quoting me, I said you reworded my statements. Hey you did it again!
That's fine. Whether you will admit it or not, just know you are very wrong. And very stubborn. I hope that's going well for you.
It's working out really great, I'm actually a lawyer too! My real name is Oliver Wendell Holmes but I try to keep a low profile online.
If the Tsar only knew...
So, how can I help the student? How can I help propegate the Streisand effect? I have VPSes - what do I need to mirror?
According to this, she is using carbon offsets - though I have no idea what percent of her footprint is being offset: https://carboncredits.com/taylor-swift-controversy-ahead-of-super-bowl-lviii/
Edit: this is moreso in response to the environmental concerns, it's still silly she's trying to sue someone aggregating public data. I really hope the court throws this out.
I have yet to find a legitimate case of carbon offsets. You can't just plant trees. You have to bury trees and then replant them while taking into account the fuel you're using to do so.
Yeah, this has always been my thought as well. I suppose it's better than nothing, but in a lot of cases planting the trees where they weren't present before can destroy ecosystems as well. The real solution is to stop using fossil fuels and other "dirty" fuel, but we all know how well the companies take that idea...
If ya ask me, we should install solar panels on the tops of all the skyscrapers / houses, invest a ton more into electric vehicles of all kinds (especially focusing on improving towing capacity), create non-polluting public transportation (especially talking from a US perspective), add some wind farms in the mountains and try desperately to find some solution to our ever-growing mountains of plastic.
That's my thing. It's the bare minimum, the laziest possible solution. You're just throwing money at the problem and not even checking to see if it's doing something.
The problem with carbon offsets in a paradigm where everyone needs to get to zero is that the only way the offset makes sense is if it is priced according to the last ton of CO2 to be accounted for, which necessarily means they are going to be incredibly expensive.
But they are instead priced to match the lowest-hanging fruit, and even then are mostly scams.
There's two offset markets, by and large. One is kind of private and the other is based on national economies. A lot lot lot of the offsets double-dip by 'selling'/listing on both markets, which makes objectively no sense.
Mostly, celebrities and businesses are dealing with the private market. There's no there there. Just invest in green technologies and brag about it -- which is indeed what real corpos trying to "go green" are increasingly doing.
For the national market, it truly makes no sense. They usually flow from the poorest nations to the richest, the offsets. Which basically means the poorest nations are letting the richest take advantage of their cheap, easy-to-hit tons of CO2 that they will have to make up at the end of the day with the last few, hardest-to-capture ones. It clearly doesn't make sense; these countries are selling a false promise that they will not and CANNOT make good on at the end of the day.
If it's some $500/ton DAC facility selling offsets, then sure. Fine. Economically inefficient way of achieving the goal that no smart business would pursue, but at least it actually is based on sound principles. That's the system working in a way that makes sense. Other than that, fuck right off with all these credits.
So far this is all I’ve actually found. Like your article, it says nothing about the actual offsets.
Swift’s publicist told The Associated Press that “Taylor purchased more than double the carbon credits needed to offset all tour travel” before her tour began, but did not provide any details.
It continues with a question of the efficacy
Offsets are still the Wild West of climate change and have been riddled with fraud, failed projects, and dubious effectiveness,” said Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown, a group that publicizes climate solutions. “Planting trees, for example, might work — or not — depending on how the forests are managed in the long run.”
More importantly, we have to ask ourselves whether or not it’s okay for someone to do this. Swift is still consuming a fuckton of a nonrenewable resource and still pushing a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that would not be there if she didn’t use and share a private jet. Just because she also does some nice things does not undo the harm she’s causing. imo that’s like saying, “It’s okay for me to only use single use plastic packaging because I regularly clean a highway and always put the bottles I pick up in the recycling.”
