I would guess religious colleges might have them. Such as Liberty. But I have also not heard of them in college, so that’s just a guess.

I understand your point. Although, I’m not 100% certain that their names would not have become pretty public regardless of the lawsuit. I mean, even if one out of three decided to sue, presumably the other names would come out as well. I’m also not convinced that the names would not have popped up in some other story…

Yes, and the attachment to a story about a rape victim who seeks redress by bringing a civil suit against her rapist is also solely on her. Do you understand what you’re saying? No, it’s not on him. It is on the magazine who made allegations against him. Period. He is a victim. Whether you want to acknowledge it or…

Bullshit. This is a legitimate legal claim. I’m absolutely glad that somebody is going to make Rolling Stone pay for this horrible story. Yes, it was incredibly damaging to rape victims everywhere. But guess what? Those victims can’t sue Rolling Stone. These guys can. And I hope it’s a goddamn deterrence in the future…

Good. I know this story was also incredibly harmful to rape victims, who already have to face disbelief. But those victims can’t sue Rolling Stone. These guys can. They have a legitimate claim and I’m glad that somebody is going to make Rolling Stones pay for that story. Maybe it will deter them from similar future…

So, what? He should not sue? It’s his fault that his name is attached to this story? Talk about victim blaming. And I agree that this story was incredibly harmful to rape victims everywhere. But those rape victims can’t sue. I’m just happy that Rolling Stone is getting its ass handed to it by somebody with a…

People ask me all the time why I don’t have kids. Which is a bullshit question anyway. Nobody asks people who have kids why they chose to have them. But I digress. Your list is one of the major reasons that I don’t have kids. I like my life and it’s hard enough without children. I respect the hell out of people like…

Yeah, I’m not a parent so I can’t really speak regarding how parents should handle this stuff. But the fact that someone doesn’t have parents who are as strict as you doesn’t necessarily mean they should be punished when they do something stupid.

I don’t know what your last scenario has to do with my point. I realize the law says both get in trouble. I think the law is bullshit. According to the law, if two fifteen year olds send each other nude pictures, they have distributed child pornography of themselves and will have to register for the rest of their…

No. They haven’t been charged yet. That’s why I said “it seems to be the way that the cops have decided to handle these things” not “that’s the way they are handling it.” I don’t even know if it’s about cops being dicks. I think it’s a problem with the way the laws are written and the legislatures being unable to deal…

Yeah, I know it has happened. I just don’t think it’s right.

I don’t think that’s what she is saying at all. I think she’s saying that minors trading pictures with other minors doesn’t seem that harmful to her. I’m not saying I agree, but I do think that it’s weird when you see people under the age of 18 get charged with pornography for sending nude photos of themselves. Which…

I totally understand. But you’re also talking about children trading photos with other children. It just seems like a weird phrase given the context. “Desirable children trading photos with other desirable children” sounds really weird, right?

First, you do not know if she consented or not. Second, it doesn’t fucking matter. She is 12 years old. No 12 year old can consent to sex. That’s the law and that’s practicality.

Put him in the category of your new speaker of the house, Mr. Ryan, who believes that the definition of “rape” needs to include the word “forcible rape.”

Yeah, I have no problem with them doing their thing. But I have to admit, this totally makes me go “ewww”. The idea of wearing something on my hand that has been in someone’s mouth for decades is just a nope.

I think that’s fair enough. I may still have some bad memories from the NGO and its attorneys who picketed on the courthouse lawn during my last case.

I wasn’t thinking about people working for the government, doing defense work (public defenders). I totally respect that and realize that at some point they’re going to get loan forgiveness, so there’s an economic benefit in the future as well (although it will take a while to get there). I’m talking about the “save…

Oh, technically I left out a third option. For those graduates who have no student loans and get to take the moral high-ground and look down on all the law graduates who do have loans, you can go work for an NGO which has some sort of moral purpose (saving the whales, suing all oil companies, etc.). For the rest of…

Did you not see my second part? The part where if you want to have that option, you need to open your own firm? Because no associate has that option. None. Unless you are a partner (which means you have an ownership stake in the firm) or own your own small boutique firm, then you don’t get a choice regarding cases.…