top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 314 points 7 months ago (39 children)

Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 142 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago*

    I think even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can't buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore.

    * depends on the amount of course

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 70 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (22 replies)
    [–] 275 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.

    "This is very serious," she said.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 148 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Holy shit.

    Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 60 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Isn't it usual procedure that everyone else enters the courtroom and takes their places before the judge walks in? So the team would have had ample opportunity to film, record and facially-recognize the jury before Judge Kuhl made them take off the spyglasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago*

    noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned

    For that reason alone, she should have held them in contempt and declared a mistrial before wasting anyone else's time.

    Zuck and his crew should've been arrested on-site for such an egregious breach of privacy and mockery of the justice system. And the next set of jurors should've been immediately informed of why there was a mistrial, and the very obvious danger of the defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.

    Instead, he got free viral marketing.

    What a fucking clownshow.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 247 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    It's illegal to take photos and video in many courts, including all federal courts? Definitely one would need permission and can't do it surrepticiously.

    This is a slap in the face to the judge, and the courts, to flout their rules as if they were above them. And they were above them apparently, they didn't get held in contempt.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It's because they know that they ARE above the law. They've gotten away with things that would spell life in prison for you or I. They have the head of the America regime cozied up to. They were all at several dinner parties on Little St. James Island.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago

    They know any contempt findings by the judge would be overturned by higher courts, or cancelled by the president as well, as long as they are up to date on their protection money and pay the deductible on their plan.

    And they think the judge wouldn't dare in the first place, and would probably retaliate against the judge in secret ways if she did do something, and get away with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 129 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 63 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 60 points 7 months ago (61 children)

    The sales of the glasses have been better than their VR headset which has really made them double down on the glasses as they see big potential. That said, I really think that it is a false hope as I suspect the market that is ok wearing Facebook glasses are small, but loyal.

  • source
  • hideshow 61 child comments
  • load more comments (45 replies)
    [–] 54 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (17 children)

    This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses.

    Edit: I'm not changing it. The responses to my mistake are too funny

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 46 points 7 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 45 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago

    The return of the glassholes

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Step one being "make the judge mad" is a bad idea.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago

    The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago

    He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? I'm less sure than ever.

    I mean, I think I should be legally allowed to punch people in the face breaking the glasses just for wearing them, but this isn't a just world~

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 27 points 7 months ago

    Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!

    It's a feature.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Scolds? That'll teach 'em...?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 7 months ago

    That'll teach him.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Get ‘em, Judge!

    Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›