It’s a meaningless distinction. Of all of the things there are to bitch about with Trump, his family, their conflicts of interest, etc., bitching about how she is flying commercial instead of private is a non-issue. It’s non-controversial. It has nothing to do with anything relevant to political discourse.

I think you have some misunderstandings about your FREEDOM OF SPEECH. First, the constitution only protects your freedom of speech from governmental interference, and even then, the government can interfere under the right circumstances. Airlines, in contrast, have wide latitude to remove anyone from a flight for even…

I mean, the dude’s husband is allowed to dislike the Trumps, but questioning why she isn’t flying “private” is both meaningless and dickish.

I recognize it because it’s not as funny as the real thing!

Many of the third-party expansion decks copy the trade dress. Our expansion, Cocks Abreast Hostility, uses the same printer as Cards Against Humanity, so we had to get CAH approval on our design before we could print.

There is a good argument to be made that they did not comport with the duty of care that a reasonable person would exercise in this situation, which is why they will probably be sued.

Am I the only one surprised at how poorly written the letter is?

In what way does calling for the removal of a logo you agree is racist cheapen or make more difficult the loss you are currently enduring?

DURRRR STICK TO SPORTS DURRRR

But Burneko’s hilarious burns on the failed presidential candidates are cool?

Poring over high school tape.

Is it just me or is the saga of Hingle McCringleberry becoming more like real life?

FYI, it was not the Irving, Texas, branch of BSA that was sued. It was the national organization that is headquartered in Irving.

These takes are getting progressively cold.

There is not “no liability” until the judgment you refer to is final. The judgment is not yet final!

What’s the point of going to law school if you can’t be a pompous dick about it??

You are confusing Williams’ chances at legal success for the actual ability he has to litigate them. Until the appellate court no longer has jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the dismissal of GM from the suit is NOT FINAL. Therefore, there is POTENTIAL LIABILITY. You are absolutely correct that there WILL be no…

It is nice that you have a definition of “liability” that differs from the legal one. I wish your characterization were possible and true! I can assure that however well-counseled Williams is, that has no bearing on whether he will appeal or not for any number of reasons, the least of which is he may be a proud man…

Like I explained to another commenter, if Mitchy takes an appeal against all defendants, which can’t happen until the district court finishes up with the defendant still in the case, GM is still part of the active litigation notwithstanding the dismissal. Thus, until judgment is rendered and the window for appeal…