Double Play's Avatar

Double Play

@dpderay.bsky.social

It's just.....ugh....I don't know.

11 Followers  |  45 Following  |  3 Posts  |  Joined: 06.10.2023  |  1.6473

Latest posts by dpderay.bsky.social on Bluesky

Here's every scene from The Bear

🧿👄🧿
What's the status on these tables????

🔘👄🔘
I'm having a panic attack, chef!!!

🧿👄🧿
I don't CARE I need these dishes fired YESTERDAY, CHEF!!!!

JOHN CENA
what the fuck is up, all you numb nuts

12.12.2024 23:22 — 👍 718    🔁 33    💬 21    📌 8

The thing I appreciate most about his clever little gamesmanship with words is how it shows you he's not just some jock; he's an independent thinker. It instantly gives his other claims credibility (like how the govt hid data linking nanobots in vaccines to turbo cancer). bsky.app/profile/denn...

27.05.2025 16:24 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Advisory to Journalists: The Dangerous Expansion of the Federal Wiretap Law Journalists, podcasters, and digital media professionals beware: the U.S. government is currently advancing a legal theory under 18 U.S.C. § 2511—the federal wiretap statute—that threatens to criminalize the mere act of downloading publicly available videos or listening to podcasts. This interpretation risks not only chilling investigative journalism but undermines the very foundation of freedom of the press. The federal wiretap law makes it a felony to intentionally “intercept”—that is, acquire the contents of—a “wire communication” unless you are a party to the communication or a party has given prior consent. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1), a "wire communication" includes any transfer containing the human voice that travels at any point by wire or cable. Originally meant to prevent unlawful phone taps in 1968, the statute has not meaningfully evolved to reflect digital media distribution in the 21st century. As a result, many core journalistic practices today—listening to audio on a video stream, downloading a podcast, reviewing livestreamed footage—can be construed as “intercepting” a wire communication. And unlike “oral communications” (which are only protected if private) or “electronic communications” (which are exempt if publicly accessible), wire communications have no similar public-access defense. This leaves journalists legally vulnerable for accessing material that is otherwise freely available to the public. This is not just a theoretical risk. In Tampa, Florida, the U.S. Department of Justice is actively prosecuting my client, journalist Timothy Burke for allegedly violating the wiretap statute by downloading publicly accessible livestreamed interviews from a video server. The journalist used only a URL—no password, no hack, no deception. The government claims that because the streams included the human voice and were transmitted in part by wire or cable, they are “wire communications”. Under this interpretation, even if the stream was intended for public consumption, and even if no reasonable expectation of privacy existed, the act of acquiring and publishing the content becomes a federal felony. The government also asserts that the same communications are also “electronic communications,” where the law makes it clear that it is not a violation if the electronic communication is obtained from a server that is configured so that the communication is “readily accessible to the general public” -- however, the government has argued (and the court has agreed) that whether or not the communication was obtained from a publicly accessible server is a fact question that the journalist must prove at trial - not an element of the offense that the government must prove. This means that a journalist that obtains public information may still be subject to search, seizure, arrest, indictment and prosecution. The implications for the First Amendment are chilling. Under the government’s interpretation of interception of “wire communications”, the government could prosecute journalists based not on their methods, but on the content they choose to listen to or report on. The wiretap law also criminalizes the disclosure of the contents of a wire communication. Thus, quoting from a podcast or a leaked livestream could subject a reporter to criminal liability regardless of intent, public interest, or harm. This is a dangerous expansion of government authority. It converts the passive act of receiving a communication—something essential to journalism—into a criminal offense based solely on outdated statutory definitions and prosecutorial discretion. The broader issue is not just technical—it’s constitutional. A law that is so vague or overbroad that it allows the government to pick and choose whom to prosecute based on their speech, targets the very heart of press freedom. It is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and overbroad under the First. By failing to modernize the statute—or at least to interpret it in line with modern communication platforms—the government risks turning millions of journalists, researchers, and citizens into potential criminals. The law as it stands today is an anachronism of the analog era being misapplied in a digital one. If you are a journalist, you should be alarmed. If the DOJ’s current theory prevails, simply clicking “play” could one day lead to prosecution. The press cannot operate in an environment where the law punishes access to speech—particularly where that speech is both public and newsworthy. The press must not only report on this misuse of power, but challenge it—legally, politically, and publicly. Because the right to receive and report information is not just a constitutional luxury. It’s a democratic necessity. -- Mark Rasch MDRasch@gmail.com (301) 547-6925

Advisory to Journalists: The Dangerous Expansion of the Federal Wiretap Law Journalists, podcasters, and digital media professionals beware: the U.S. government is currently advancing a legal theory under 18 U.S.C. § 2511—the federal wiretap statute—that threatens to criminalize the mere act of downloading publicly available videos or listening to podcasts. This interpretation risks not only chilling investigative journalism but undermines the very foundation of freedom of the press. The federal wiretap law makes it a felony to intentionally “intercept”—that is, acquire the contents of—a “wire communication” unless you are a party to the communication or a party has given prior consent. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1), a "wire communication" includes any transfer containing the human voice that travels at any point by wire or cable. Originally meant to prevent unlawful phone taps in 1968, the statute has not meaningfully evolved to reflect digital media distribution in the 21st century. As a result, many core journalistic practices today—listening to audio on a video stream, downloading a podcast, reviewing livestreamed footage—can be construed as “intercepting” a wire communication. And unlike “oral communications” (which are only protected if private) or “electronic communications” (which are exempt if publicly accessible), wire communications have no similar public-access defense. This leaves journalists legally vulnerable for accessing material that is otherwise freely available to the public. This is not just a theoretical risk. In Tampa, Florida, the U.S. Department of Justice is actively prosecuting my client, journalist Timothy Burke for allegedly violating the wiretap statute by downloading publicly accessible livestreamed interviews from a video server. The journalist used only a URL—no password, no hack, no deception. The government claims that because the streams included the human voice and were transmitted in part by wire or cable, they are “wire communications”. Under this interpretation, even if the stream was intended for public consumption, and even if no reasonable expectation of privacy existed, the act of acquiring and publishing the content becomes a federal felony. The government also asserts that the same communications are also “electronic communications,” where the law makes it clear that it is not a violation if the electronic communication is obtained from a server that is configured so that the communication is “readily accessible to the general public” -- however, the government has argued (and the court has agreed) that whether or not the communication was obtained from a publicly accessible server is a fact question that the journalist must prove at trial - not an element of the offense that the government must prove. This means that a journalist that obtains public information may still be subject to search, seizure, arrest, indictment and prosecution. The implications for the First Amendment are chilling. Under the government’s interpretation of interception of “wire communications”, the government could prosecute journalists based not on their methods, but on the content they choose to listen to or report on. The wiretap law also criminalizes the disclosure of the contents of a wire communication. Thus, quoting from a podcast or a leaked livestream could subject a reporter to criminal liability regardless of intent, public interest, or harm. This is a dangerous expansion of government authority. It converts the passive act of receiving a communication—something essential to journalism—into a criminal offense based solely on outdated statutory definitions and prosecutorial discretion. The broader issue is not just technical—it’s constitutional. A law that is so vague or overbroad that it allows the government to pick and choose whom to prosecute based on their speech, targets the very heart of press freedom. It is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and overbroad under the First. By failing to modernize the statute—or at least to interpret it in line with modern communication platforms—the government risks turning millions of journalists, researchers, and citizens into potential criminals. The law as it stands today is an anachronism of the analog era being misapplied in a digital one. If you are a journalist, you should be alarmed. If the DOJ’s current theory prevails, simply clicking “play” could one day lead to prosecution. The press cannot operate in an environment where the law punishes access to speech—particularly where that speech is both public and newsworthy. The press must not only report on this misuse of power, but challenge it—legally, politically, and publicly. Because the right to receive and report information is not just a constitutional luxury. It’s a democratic necessity. -- Mark Rasch MDRasch@gmail.com (301) 547-6925

The federal government is attempting a radical, massive expansion of what constitutes "wiretapping" that threatens everyone working in media/as a journalist today and I hope you'll read this and share it with everyone you know.

I'm not just fighting this for me. I'm fighting it for everyone.

15.05.2025 03:59 — 👍 1871    🔁 939    💬 37    📌 65

In Con Law my first semester of 1L year, the professor saw me laughing at a Deadspin comment and cold called me, asking "what was so funny?". Do I remember the subject of the lecture? No. Do I remember the comment? Yes.

07.05.2025 15:39 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Maybe they found it unnecessary to enumerate President because, at the time, the electoral college was believed to be the safeguard against someone like that becoming President. Since the section explicitly referred to electors already, why risk it not passing just to include superfluous language?

20.12.2023 03:16 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

@dpderay is following 20 prominent accounts