controversial case

Something I’ve noticed about the Pokeani fandom

Most people have a favorite character, right? And most people who have a favorite character tend to ship that character with Ash. 

The Misty fans? Pokeshippers. The Serena fans? Amourshippers. The Gary fans? Palletshippers. The Dawn fans? Pearlshippers. The only Drew fan? She’s a Respectshipper. 

I’m not saying that it applies to everyone, or that it’s a bad thing! It’s just an interesting pattern I’ve noticed. 

I did an outfit swap for Star Butterfly and Steven Universe!

Sorry that it’s been a hot minute since I posted lol.

Individual pieces under the cut! :D

Keep reading

8

Quick Review of the True Crime Books I read in 2016 (Part 2)

(Part 1) (Review of books in 2015)

Invisible Darkness by Stephen Williams: This is one of the most unsettling books I’ve read, and I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. Starting with the good, it’s a very complete and detailed account of the relationship between Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and their crimes. It also offers a good insight into the very controversial legal agreement between Karla and the prosecution, that ended with her serving only ten years despite being an active and willing participant in the rape and murder of three girls. The third act of the book, dealing with this, was one of the better things in the novel, although I wish the actual trial had been covered more in depth. As for the bad… I thought the rape scenes were excessively and unnecesarily detailed, and I felt like the author enjoyed writing those disturbing passages a little too much. His narration is also very uneven, especially in the first part; while I liked his subtle sarcasm while describing the legal proceedings and Karla’s life, he also made some strange time jumps that made it a bit confusing to know when things are happening. There are so many private scenes that he couldn’t have possibly witnessed that he must have made them up, which made me question a little the credibility of the whole book. Finally, his obsession with Karla turns her into a fleshed out, complex character, but the opposite happens with Bernardo, who seems almost a caricature with no real insight. I still feel like I don’t know much about him other than he’s a narcissistic, sociopathic idiot. Bottomline: A good introduction to this case, if you have the stomach for it, but you’ll probably need to complement with other books later (Thank you @adeadlyinnocence for recommending me this book).

Conviction by Juan Martinez: Last year I read Picture Perfect, which is the better book to learn about Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander and how their story ended with her murdering him. This book was an interesting complement because I enjoy the details of trials and this one in particular was a very intense and eventful one. Juan Martinez, the man who prosecuted Arias, describes in detail his investigation and strategy to get a conviction, and he certainly doesn’t pretend to be humble when detailing his role in putting her behind bars. There’s no new information or revelations that I hadn’t seen everywhere else. He’s also extremely biased and portrays her as the worst of the worst, he even talks of her “dark soul” at some point. I have to say, I personally didn’t mind that because I can’t stand Jodi Arias, but if you’re looking for a more objective look into her, you should stay away from this.

True Crime Addict by James Renner: I already wrote about how bad this book about the disappearance of Maura Murray is here, but to summarize: don’t waste your time with this narcissistic, self infolved piece of sleazy reporting disguised as “journalism”. The author is insufferable and seems to think we care about his life while offering nothing new to the actual case of Maura.

Bringing Adam Home by Les Standiford: I can only describe this book as “correct” but is not really very engaging nor memorable, despite covering a very famous and horrible case. The kidnapping and murder of Adam Walsh in 1981 and the many years it took to be solved was one that shook the United States and started many changes. I feel like this book doesn’t quite manage to portray those changes, mostly because it decides to look away from Adam’s parents and their struggle and instead it focus on the story of the detective that eventually gave sufficient evidence for police to close the case naming Ottis Toole as the killer. Toole’s story is also described in some chapters but again, it seems to only give a superficial portrayal of him.

Imperfect Justice by Jeff Ashton: This book was written by one of the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony trial, so it’s important to keep in mind we are seeing only one side of the story, and he certainly doesn’t hold back in showing her as the most manipulative and lying person on Earth. That being said, it’s really hard to see how this woman was found not guilty. Ashton explains all the evidence they had in detail and it’s very compelling, and tells about all the things going on behind the scenes. He also can’t hide his contempt for the defense lawyer (he openly admits he dislikes him) and for the jury too, whom he clearly blames for the ultimate decision of the trial. My only issue with this book is that I didn’t see much introspection or real analysis into why they lost the case.

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller: It’s so hard to find an unbiased analysis of JonBenet Ramsey’s murder, because so many people who’ve written about it have been “part of the investigation”, which makes it a big no no for me because we know that investigation was far from stellar, for many reasons that aren’t just the fault of the police. This book is hardly perfect (see what I did there?) but it’s a decent start to the case, because it details the investigation and the many inside shenanigans, the Ramsey’s version, the complicated dealings with the prosecution’s office and why they refused to charge the Ramsey’s, and also how the press covered the case. It doesn’t really give much perspective on other potential suspects and the title is misleading, since it suggests it will explore more the context of Boulder, the town where the murder happened, but I didn’t see much of that. I’d say this is an okay book to understand why this case went so wrong, but I don’t think it gives one convincing theory about what really happened.

Devil in the Darkness by JT Hunter: Israel Keyes is one of the most chilling and intriguing serial killers in recent times, not to mention there’s still a lot of mystery around him, so it’s a bit surprising he hasn’t been more deeply covered by other authors. This book is a decent attempt at it, and gives a good introduction into what kind of person he was before he started his crimes; not so much after. Because there are a lot of unconfirmed things in his story, including his victims, the book mostly dedicates time to his most infamous murder, the one of Samantha Koenig. The narration jumps back and forth between the time around that crime and Keyes’ past, with a lot of attention put into his relationship with the mother of his daughter, probably because she seemed to be one of the few people involved willing to talk to the author. I found this book a bit hard to follow at times, but I’d still recommend it if you’re interested in true crime.

The Cases that Haunt Us by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker: As you probably know, John Douglas is the guy that pretty much built the department of behavior analysis in the FBI and is one of the pioneers in profiling criminals. He makes sure to tell you that a hundred times in this book, because he can never flatter himself enough, although I get that the talk of his past experiences is important here to validate his opinions. This book covers famous unsolved or solved but controversial cases through America’s history (plus Jack the Ripper because who can resist) and in each one Douglas gives his point of view of the profile of the suspects, and whether or not they fit with the actual murderer. Lizzie Borden, the kidnapping of the Lindberg Baby, the Boston Strangler and the Black Dahlia are among the cases covered. I found his views in the JonBenet’s case particularly interesting because he got to be involved personally in it, and he got a lot of criticisim because he thought the Ramseys were innocent (and I have to say, strictly from a profiling point of view, I agree with his assessment). The book can get exhausting because the writing is very academical and not very fluid, but it’s also a good learning experience if you like investigations.

anonymous asked:

Just to be clear, I love Robert dearly. But I do think, as a person, as far as he's allowed to be one, he is incredibly bad at looking at his own actions from a moral perspective. He's strong for other people, but weak-willed himself. I remember seeing a show about NPD where they tested these kids by leaving them in a room with chocolate and told them not to eat it. One tiny boy did and then swore blind he didn't, SWORE, when no one else had been in the room. Insisted against all reason: Robert.

lmao robert would 100% be that boy anon!

i do think that robert’s got better at looking at his actions from a moral perspective since being with aaron though, partly because aaron’s far more moralistic behaviour has influenced robert quite significantly, and partly because robert wants to be better for aaron and so he questions himself and his decisions much more than he did before

i suppose it all comes down to the robert who comes out in the present moment - i.e. the one who is impulsive and often quite selfish and not very forward-thinking - and the robert who appears once he’s committed the usually illogical action which has landed him in a whole heap of shit - i.e. the much more morally-aware version of himself who completely understands that what he did was either wrong on a purely moral basis or just wrong for him and what he wants. either way, these two versions do not co-exist well and clash repeatedly, the most relevant example being The Incident™.

Keep reading

I don’t have experience with journalism but as someone who’s spent nearly a decade working in various parts of the entertainment industry, and where every single time it’s thoroughly stressed that you are considered a representative of X business and that speaking poorly of someone, a film, a tv show, anything that you may come into contact with is absolutely not allowed and could get you into serious trouble… I just find it mind boggling that a journalist who has been publicly vocal about her disdain for Louis was not only tasked to interview him, but also allowed write a piece ~explaining the fandom~ as if she were some unbiased observer. None of us are completely unbiased of course. But most of us don’t have public accounts linked to our professional persona where vitriol has been spewed towards the very people you’re supposed to be covering. I just don’t understand how this kind of stuff flies.

That is a really powerful tweet.

When your parents are so unaccustomed to being questioned or proven wrong about any controversial subject (in this case, it was abortion and men being in charge of or even remotely involved in making laws about women’s bodies) which they have very backwards and outdated beliefs on that the second you discuss it with them (in this case, it was my mother) and prove why what they believe is wrong, they immediately get defensive, escalate it into a shouting argument, and then decide to end the conversation before kicking you out of their room. Then when you go back 5 minutes later because you left something in there and don’t say a word to them, THEY bring the topic back up, you STILL prove them wrong, they keep trying to talk, but you just talk over them and say “you said you were done with the conversation” until they shut the fuck up. I’m pretty sure I won. I can still hear her gritting her teeth and muttering under her breath. I’m actually really fucking proud of myself

Dido Belle and Jane Austen's Fanny Price

With the critical success of the new film Belle, there’s a lot of interest in the life of its heroine, Dido Belle. Many have even hailed the movie as as Austen-esque, with it being centered around a headstrong, 18th century woman who doesn’t quite fit in with her stuffier surroundings. And yet, there is quite a bit of (circumstantial) evidence that suggests that it was Jane Austen who was inspired by Dido’s story for her novel, Mansfield Park.

About a year ago, I wrote a research paper on the historical and literary events that may have influenced Austen’s Mansfield Park. If you’re interested in the subject, here’s some excerpts from that paper, including some of the sources I used:

“Historically speaking, the characters of Fanny Price and the Lord and Lady Betram seem to have been loosely based on the life of Dido Belle, the illegitimate daughter of a British Admiral and African slave, who was sent to live with her uncle in England…

There is evidence to back up the fact that Austen knew about the life of Dido Belle and the Mansfield family. Lord Mansfield was a Lord Chief Justice and a distinguished figure of society, whose “public image…[was] of a brilliant judge and a man of impeccable integrity… famous for his silver-tongued oratory” (Adams 1). In 1772, he made a controversial decision in the case of a black man, James Somerset, who was being forced to leave England to be sent back the American colonies as a slave. Lord Mansfield ruled in Somerset’s favor, essentially freeing the man from his enslaved state. This case became “widely interpreted to mean that all enslaved people in England must be ‘discharged’… [giving] great momentum to the movement of abolition”(Jones). The circumstances of this case is believed to have partially influenced William Cowper’s poem The Task, a poet whom Austen is known to have read and alluded to in several of her books, including Mansfield Park (Pemberly). Christine Kenyon Jones, in her essay “Ambiguous Cousinship: Mansfield Park and the Mansfield Family,” sees the following lines as evidence of Mansfield’s ruling as being influential in Cowper’s writing:

We have no slaves at home—then why abroad?
And they themselves, once ferried o’er the wave
That parts us, are emancipate and loosed.
Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free,
They touch our country and their shackles fall. (2.37-42)

The imagery of the first line compares “slaves at home” to slaves “abroad,” making the case that it is hypocritical to want one’s own immediate surroundings to have the appearance of moral uprightness, while simultaneously profiting from slavery abroad and away from view. One can apply this to Mansfield’s own household, as well as Sir Thomas’ in Mansfield Park: once Sir Thomas returns from his plantation in Antigua that he desires to treat Fanny as an equal instead of as the kind of servant she is used to being treated as; likewise, it was widely speculated at the time that Mansfield’s ruling was partly influenced by the presence of his niece, Dido, who was, after all, the product of his own nephew’s capture of a slave woman and taking sexual advantage of her. That is, his first-hand experience with slavery and its effects may have given him a fuller perspective of the horrors of enslaving human beings.

In addition to the possibility of Austen being influenced by Cowper’s poem and Lord Mansfield’s reputation, she was also acquainted with Lady Elizabeth Finch-Hatton, who was the cousin and childhood companion of Dido Elizabeth Bell. Citing Austen’s letters as evidence, Jones suggests that her association with Lady Elizabeth inspired the “elegant-but-dumb” character of Lady Bertram of Mansfield Park and even Lady Middleton from Sense and Sensibility. In a letter to her sister Cassandra, Austen imparts her meeting of the Hattons in August of 1805: “Fortune was also very civil to me in placing Mr. E. Hatton by me at dinner. I have discovered that Ly. Elizth for a woman of her age & situation, has astonishingly little to say for herself…” (CE, #45). Jones believes that Austen’s remarks suggest that “she was aware of Lady Elizabeth’s ancestry and origins, and was disappointed not to find her a more interesting person or forthcoming I conversation.” In her later letters, however, this disappointment in Lady Elizabeth’s lack of personality becomes amusement for Jane and Cassandra, just as Lady Bertram’s presence in Mansfield Park provides comic relief. In another letter, Austen briefly mentions her with some mocking: “Lady Eliz. Hatton & Anna-maria called here this morng;-Yes, they called,-but I do not think I can say anything more about them. They came & they sat & they went” (CE, #91). Here, Lady Elizabeth’s presence is mute and unremarkable; yet despite her seeming lack of personality, Austen mentions her several times in her letters in much the same way, suggesting that while colorless and dull, she was worth mentioning for this same reason. In Mansfield Park, nearly every mention of Lady Bertram is irrelevant and unrelated to the plot—she is referenced as a side note or afterthought.

Austen often mentions her in terms of her non-presence, as in her unenthusiastic, almost lifeless responses to the events that occur around her. Often, “Lady Bertram [makes] no objection” (89), “[makes] no opposition”(41) or is “perfectly quiescent and contented, and with no objections to make” (264). Austen seems to be consciously making correlations between Lady Elizabeth and Lady Bertram. The luxurious lifestyle of both women contrasts greatly next to their relationship with their less fortunate relatives, Dido and Fanny, and the similarities of their stories do not seem coincidental. It is almost a certainty that Austen knew of Dido Belle’s story, and makes use of it in her creation of the character of Fanny Price.

Dido Belle and Fanny Price have a lot in common. Both begin life with disadvantages. While Fanny is born into a poor, overcrowded household, Dido was born to a slave. Both girls were sent to live with wealthy relatives who could better provide for them. Because of her mixed-race status, Dido’s role at Kenwood was rather unclear, much like Fanny’s presence at Mansfield. When Fanny arrives to Mansfield, she is made to believe herself unequal to her cousins, and is treated like a servant by Mrs. Norris and Lady Bertram. An invitation to live with rich relatives should have been a privilege to appreciate, but as Christine Kenyon Jones points out, Fanny is, at first, made to feel reliant on their benevolence. Jones explains that though Fanny receives “the advantages of comfort, wealth, and education…Fanny was a poor relation whose status at Mansfield was unregulated and totally dependent upon the good-will and affection of those around her.” Dido Belle, while given better treatment than most slaves or even servants, was still considered unequal to her cousin, Lady Elizabeth, who also lived at Kenwood. Thomas Hutchinson, an American who visited Kenwood, made detailed observations of Dido Belle in a 1779 diary entry. At one point, he speculates that Dido is some kind of glorified servant: “And she was called upon by my Lord every minute for this thing and that, and shewed the greatest attention everything he said” (Adams). Jones concludes her argument for the connection between Dido and Fanny: “While neither the novel nor the painting is ‘about’ slavery, both evidently allude to its effects and probe the uncomfortable realities of inequality, power, and obligation concealed beneath the smooth surface of family representation.” Austen’s allusion to Dido’s life adds depth to Mansfield Park beyond its rags-to-riches storyline.”

Works Cited:

Adams, Gene. “Dido Elizabeth Belle: A Girl at Kenwood.” Camden History Review 12 (1988). Web.

 Jones, Christine Kenyon. “Ambiguous Cousinship: Mansfield Park and the Mansfield Family.” Persuasions Online 31.1 (2010). Web.

 Slavery and Justice at Kenwood House. n.d. Web.

(To cite my essay, please refer to MLA handbook and use “Violet Pamplempousse” as the author)

anonymous asked:

What is glitchkin? c:

Hello anon! Now, this is a controversial issue in the otherkin community and I’m not one hundred percent certain I know everything, so if someone comes in and corrects me, I would listen to their correction over my post.

Okay, so glitchkin is, by definition, someone who identifies as a glitch. This generally means that they feel that their existence is literally a glitch in the universe. They aren’t meant to exist, or at least not in the way that they do. From what I know, a lot of (but not all) glitchkin tie their identity to neurodivergence. Essentially, even their way of thinking and/or perceivinn is glitched.For example, they could have incredibly intrusive thoughts, delusions, hallucinations, depersonalizations, bouts of disassociation, and any other of severe symptoms from their neurodivergence. I haven’t heard of any myself, but I suppose it could also be tied to physical disability; one could feel “glitched” due to their physical body being wrong in any number of ways. It could even be tied to a “glitched” gender identity in some way or form. Regardless of why or how they feel glitched, that feeling is so tied up in their sense of self that they identify firmly as a “glitch”.

Now, the reasons why this is controversial is, as far as I know, mainly the issue of how can one identify as an inanimate object? A portion of the community feels confused about this and thus feels that glitchkin is not a viable identity. I cannot speak for glitchkin but… As someone who due to abuse honestly at times thinks strongly of myself as a toy that someone played with, purposefully broke, and then threw away, I can understand how the feeling of being a glitch can get so tied up with someone’s identity. Which arrives at the other main issue regarding glitchkin: the concept of health. A lot of people think that identifying as a glitch is promoting mental illness. Since most of it is tied up to neurodivergence, if one is feeling glitchy, it does tend to be due to one being considered “mentally unwell”. The reasons many identify as glitchkin are often symptoms of serious mental disorders and many feel that accepting those as part of one’s identity means that they will never receive help with those problems. Another issue then arises with well, what if one does get help with those problems? Then they have no reason to identify as a glitch. And that’s an issue because otherkin isn’t supposed to be a transient thing. Either you are or you aren’t. Now, I personally feel that those arguments are flawed and that one can identify validly as a glitch. Part of it is due to my own feelings of feeling like a broken object due to abuse. I can also back it up by an argument if I need to, but that’s not the point of the post. The post is to explain what glitchkin is, and I felt that one needed to know some of the controversy in case they wanted to explore it for themselves.

p.s. nebulaez this might help you as well. I’m not positive but I hope it brings some answers!

-Mod Badger

A Controversial Case of “Self Defense”

On Thanksgiving Day 2012, a retired man called Byron Smith shot and killed two intruders in his home in Little Falls, Minnesota. Under the Castle Doctrine of the state, which allows a person to use lethal force to defend his property, he was in the right. That is, until an investigation revealed a more complex scenario.

Smith had worked for the US State Department as a security specialist and had been living in different countries around the world. At 64, he decided to retire and spend the rest of his life in the quiet Little Falls. However, he soon became the victim of a series of breaking ins. The perpetrators stole not only money, but guns and a prized watch his father had got after being a prisoner in WWII. Smith went to the police at least once, but they told him to strengthen the security in his house and not much else.

According to friends and neighbors of Smith, the robberies made him paranoid to the point he wouldn’t sleep for days. That Thanksgiving day, Smith decided to do something about it. He moved his truck away from the house to make it seem like there was no one home, and sat in his basement for hours armed with a gun to wait.

At some point, two teenagers broke in his house. It was Nicholas Brady (17) and his cousin Haile Kifer (18), who according to a later investigation had worked for Smith before and had been responsible for at least some of the burglaries. Both had some drug related trouble. 

As soon as Brady started coming down to the basement, Smith shot him twice and then once more in the face, killing him. Around 12 minutes later, Haile went down looking for her cousin and she got the same fate, except she was shot six times.

Smith wrapped both bodies and then waited until next day to alert a neighbor to call the police. His reason for not doing it sooner, he said, was because he didn’t want to bother authorities during Thanksgiving.

The whole episode was recorded in audio by Smith, and there he can be heard rehearsing a call to his lawyer before the killings and also the cold, angry words directed at the burglars. The audio was made available here, and a warning; it’s very disturbing.

All this made authorities consider the deaths of Brady and Kifer premeditated, so Smith was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The case is still very controversial, with part of the community supporting Smith and saying that the actions of the teenagers and the little help from the police drove him to such an extreme reaction.

2

In 1980, a controversial case developed after Lindy Chamberlain claimed that her baby had been eaten by a Dingo in the Australian bush. Chamberlain had been camping near Ayers Rock with her family when she claimed that nine-week-old Azaria was snatched by the wild animal. After two inquests and a thorough police investigation, she was shockingly tried and convicted of the murder of her baby daughter. Thousands of people fought to clear her name and, in 1986 new evidence was found that suggested that the dingo story was in fact true. Azaria’s tiny jacket was found and Canine hairs were located in and around tent. It was concluded that she had been telling the truth.

Lindy Chamberlain was released after 3 years of prison time and was awarded $1.3 million in compensation by the Australian government.

2

For Easter, 11-year-old Jordan Brown was given a youth model 20-guage shotgun by his father.  On February 20th 2009, Brown used this gun to shoot his father’s fiancee in the back of the head while she slept.  Kenzie Houk was eight months pregnant at the time of the attack, and both she and her unborn son died as a result.  It is believed that Brown carried out the shooting as a result of jealousy of his soon-to-be half brother.  Brown was ruled responsible for the murder, and will be held in a juvenile treatment facility until he turns 21 in 2018.  Despite much controversy surrounding the case and Brown’s protests of innocence, the defence’s request for a retrial was denied in 2015.

Crocodile Tears

For once, Loki’s nefarious plan actually works. ~1500 words


Loki’s palms were sweating. The courtroom was silent, save for the occasional murmurs from the crowd that has gathered in the room and the snapping of their cameras. He saw Thor lurking in the back when he walked in, his piercing blue eyes meeting Loki’s.

If it all worked out right, they’ll be high-tailing it out of town tonight.

Loki smiled at just the thought. He covered it with his hand, hoping it didn’t show in his eyes since he was supposed to be playing the innocent victim in all this.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

do you think they're going to attack equal marriage? i love my girlfriend but it's a little too soon for us to get married, but what if we can't after january???

attack, yes. successfully attack, well, that will be harder.

to be clear i’m not a lawyer or expert so it’s possible that i’m missing something, but i’ve followed this closely for a long time and here’s my understanding:

  • trump can’t take away marriage rights on his own. that’s just way beyond the scope of executive actions.
  • congress can’t pass a law banning same-sex marriage, or a law preventing the federal government from recognizing it. this has already been ruled unconstitutional.
  • states can’t pass laws banning it or refusing to recognize it. this too has been ruled unconstitutional.
  • congress can’t pass a constitutional amendment banning it, since they just don’t have the votes. they would need a two-thirds majority in both the house and senate. they tried this during the bush administration with a significantly larger senate majority and couldn’t even get enough votes to officially consider it. and even if they could get that far, it would still have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures, which isn’t happening.

their only viable path to rolling back marriage rights is through the supreme court, which won’t be quite so simple either:

  • yes, there is a vacancy on the court right now, but the justice who held it already dissented in the case that ruled that we have a fundamental right to marriage, as well as the case that overturned DOMA. so replacing him with another bigot asshole just maintains the status quo.
  • that means they will be pretty much stuck until another supreme court justice — specifically, kennedy or one of the liberals — dies or retires. unfortunately this is not at all unlikely, but at least it hasn’t happened yet.
  • (if that doesn’t happen in the next two years, hypothetically the democrats could pick up a senate seat or two and make it harder for trump to push through a far-right nominee. though sadly with few competitive republican seats contested in 2018, that could be hard.)
  • once they get a stronger supreme court majority, the court still can’t just up and declare same-sex marriage illegal. there has to be a case.
  • and in order for there to be a case, there has to be some sort of legal conflict to form the basis for a suit. some party would have to have standing to sue or to defend against a suit, which was a problem for the bad guys in hollingsworth v. perry (the prop 8 case, in which the justices cited precedent stating that “[A litigant] raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy” and that “[standing] is not to be placed in the hands of ‘concerned bystanders,’ who will use it simply as a ‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’”). the case would have to get through the appeals process and the supreme court would have to agree to hear it, none of which is a given, especially since this was all decided so recently.
  • and even with highly partisan justices, ruling the way you expect is never guaranteed. those arguing for the restriction of what was previously ruled to be a fundamental right would have to have a compelling case for the court to ignore stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent).
  • EVEN IF all of this happened and we got a bad ruling, it would be highly unlikely to destroy everything at once. it would be a very very extreme move for the court to rule that it’s unconstitutional to allow same-sex marriage at all, even if they somehow got a case that would even allow them to rule on that question, especially considering the very long history of marriage regulations being left up to the states.
  • more likely, they would simply overturn obergefell, meaning marriage would no longer be considered a fundamental constitutional right for same-sex couples. this would send us back to where we were in the first half of 2015, with equal marriage rights in 37 of 50 states — i think, though depending on the specifics of the ruling there may be complications for states which legalized same-sex marriage through lower or state court rulings based on lower court precedent about same-sex marriage being a fundamental right, which the supreme court had not yet weighed in on either way, and this is where i get fuzzy, if any constitutional law experts would like to weigh in.
  • it would probably require more than one case for them to also make it legal for congress to ban federal recognition or (extremely unlikely imo) to rule that states may not perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

so, in conclusion, it is possible for them to erode our marriage rights, but it will not be easy or instant.

whew! sorry for the wall of text.

here’s the takeaway for what this means for you. again, not a lawyer, not legal advice, just my understanding, which i’ll be drawing from to protect my own marriage:

if this happens, we’ll have some warning. so watch for a second trump supreme court appointment, and if that happens, watch for cases making their way through the appeals process. if you see that, read up on the details, consider your state, decide whether you need to be worried, and proceed from there.

i hope this helps. we’re gonna fight this every step of the way, and with some luck i think we’ll be okay.

Kim Dotcom: The Man Behind the Mega 

In October 2013, VICE News was invited to visit the infamous tech mogul and creator of Megaupload, Kim Dotcom, at his palatial property in New Zealand. Even though Kim is under house arrest—since he’s at the center of history’s largest copyright case—he’s still able to visit a recording studio in Auckland. So check out this brand new documentary we made at Kim’s mega-mansion and in the studio where our host, Tim Pool, got to lay down some backup vocals for Kim’s upcoming EDM album while talking about online surveillance, file-sharing, and Kim’s controversial case.

Watch the video