OA689: Lawsuit or Interpretive Dance? Why Not Both!
Added 2023-02-10 20:18:13 +0000 UTCToday's episode begins with a brief mention of the breaking news about Mike Pence that we will be covering in depth as soon as we know more!
Then, we look at a couple of lawsuits and learn why Liz isn't always a fan of the OA "read the complaint backwards" method. Does she convince Andrew? Listen and find out!
We break down the latest conspiracy counterclaims from One America Network News, while learning the difference between the conservative persecution complex worldview -- that Big Tech is censoring conservatism because reasons -- and the reality: that big companies are funding and propping up garbage conservative outlets like OANN.
After that, we move on to arguably the Worst People in the World: anti-vaxxers. Specifically, we look at a lawsuit by RFK, Jr. and a whole bunch of weirdos against All the Media for kicking them off YouTube and Twitter. It's... something, all right. But! At least we learn a little something about the Trusted News Initiative anti-trust and the media along the way.
Notes
SOTU Fact-check
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/fact-check-biden-state-of-the-union.html
Dominion complaint against OAN
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315.1.0.pdf
OAN California Lawsuit
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21410177/oann-lawsuit.pdf
RFK lawsuit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829.1.0.pdf
Liz Backgrounder at Wonkette
https://www.wonkette.com/antivaxx-loons-rfk-jr-jim-hoft-other-idiots-sue-news-outlets-for-booting-them-off-twitter
J.W. Howard Attorneys: We Have A Big Pirate Ship!
https://jwhowardattorneys.com/
Trusted News Initiative
https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12116214944985887583
Comments
Here's what I would have liked to see. Thomas addresses the situation, even in a "I can't comment on some things for legal reasons" way that mentions the accusations against him. He says that there is some things that will mean Thomas won't be on the show anymore, he says why he's continuing the show at this time without Thomas, what that's going to look like, and how Liz ended up as the new co-host. I don't think that's a lot to ask, and much less awkward than just moving on and acting like nothing happened
Luke the Spook
2023-02-16 02:48:36 +0000 UTCYou're thrilled that Andrew is allegedly taking every dime of the profits from this show for himself, having (again, allegedly) seized total control of it away from Thomas, when they had a 50/50 agreement? I have to assume that you weren't aware of this. I can't imagine someone making this statement in good faith, if they were.
Gretchen Koch
2023-02-14 23:17:17 +0000 UTCHoly shit, dude. Nobody is, or should be, allowed to claim that a business partner is having a "mental health crisis" and therefore shouldn't be allowed access to what they are contractually owed. Thomas is no more emotional than Andrew in this whole mess-- probably less so, actually-- but that's totally irrelevant to whether it's moral or even legal to lock Thomas out like this. You're speaking as if Thomas was involuntarily committed or something, when Andrew's the one who admits to alcohol causing him to make terrible decisions that hurt people. He's also the one (allegedly) continuing to profit from this show while Thomas gets nothing. Thomas who, you might now, just had a third child and has his own family to take care of.
Gretchen Koch
2023-02-14 23:11:38 +0000 UTCI was really expecting a statement like that. Just a "As you know, there are some things we can't comment on for legal reasons, but here's what's going to happen with the show going forward" or some statement about it. It's just bizarre to jump straight into it without acknowledgement and a new host.
Luke the Spook
2023-02-13 18:29:35 +0000 UTCNot really. That came at the end - after I laid out the substance of what's wrong with your tenor/stance/assumptions. Enjoy caping for OA and being BlueAnon.
(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte)
2023-02-13 01:49:49 +0000 UTCThis is how I read the facts too. I’ve been looking through social media for someone else who thought the same. Andrew’s actions (including being angry with Thomas) are consistent with someone trying to minimize damage from a partner reacting recklessly and emotionally. I guess we’ll need to find out all the facts at some point.
Eli Kravitz
2023-02-12 18:08:52 +0000 UTCThe ol ad hominem is a well known maga tactic. That said, I'm not bending over backwards to give him anything. I think everyone deserves to have their personal affairs dealt with personally and I don't think it was necessary to put this in the public's eye before coming to Andrew about it. If you can show me that Andrew was told about this problem and never tried to address it then I would condemn his actions entirely.
kalsuri
2023-02-11 14:54:31 +0000 UTChttps://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1jIFbWDxgY0ZyIB899GHeu_BjGRV7llCZ In the interest of transparency, here is a collection of the allegations, existing public evidence, and public statements made by those involved.
Crazy Animal Lady
2023-02-11 14:19:54 +0000 UTCAndrew. The legal thing to do is not always the right thing to do. When you realize this and are ready to act on it, I for one will be here for you. For what it's worth. But right now you're still digging your hole deeper.
Crazy Animal Lady
2023-02-11 14:16:59 +0000 UTCIt would have made so much difference to me if he'd done that.
Dr_Emil_Schaffhousen
2023-02-11 10:26:53 +0000 UTCI'm thrilled that OA is continuing, and I've doubled my pledge in support! One tiny note for Andrew and Liz: slow down your speech a bit. You're both speaking rapid fire lawyer style. Thomas used to naturally slow Andrew down, Liz speeds Andrew up. Remember you've got a huge non-lawyer and non-US lawyer audience. Slow down a touch so we can keep up with what you're saying.
Em
2023-02-11 05:38:48 +0000 UTCWhat would the sub then cancel do? I wouldn’t think it would impact metrics.
Timmaye
2023-02-11 03:51:42 +0000 UTCI think it's fair to say that there is a lot going on behind the scenes we aren't privy to. What's the number one rule? Limit what you say in public. A lawyer being a lawyer shouldn't surprise anyone.
C’mon
2023-02-11 02:34:24 +0000 UTCCarter Was a GREAT president i dont understand why american dont see it. Do you imagine how faar ahead in greenhouse figth we would be. He would have save my children generation. REgant was shit
Pierre
2023-02-11 02:27:37 +0000 UTCSo the part of the story where, yes courts expect people to break contracts when no longer in their interest, is somehow not self serving?
Mike Lilley
2023-02-11 02:22:30 +0000 UTCfuck you
General Contact Unit Problem Child
2023-02-11 02:10:37 +0000 UTCThomas, to me, seems sincere and was obviously struggling. But he didn't describe a Cosby or Epstein event. I don't see it as unsupportive of #me too to recognize that. There are no categories of "acceptable" sexual harassment, yet Al Frankiens thoughtless jokes at SNL are not identical to Trumps "grab them by the P" or Armie Hammers grooming to degredate women. I just don't get that vibe from what little we actually know. I'm here for the Law analysis, which to me is amazing. I've learned so much from OA, I'm glad it's still here.
C’mon
2023-02-11 02:07:51 +0000 UTCI think one of the more baffling parts of this situation is that Andrew has pressed on without even remotely addressing the situation. Not even a noncommittal statement of “yes there are a lot of things going on right now, I am not going to comment for obviously potential legal reasons, but I am dedicated to bringing law news to our patrons and our advertising partners contractually expect us to keep bringing in revenue regardless of these ongoing issues. As such I will be carrying on with Liz Dye to meet my obligations to you put patrons and to our advertising partners.” Instead the parting statement of claiming to be stepping away, claiming preposterously that Thomas somehow outed Eli, thin apology and then pressing on as if nothing happened? Patron counts have tanked from over 5000 to less than 1800 as of today. Also incase you didn’t know you can become a patron then cancel in the same day for no charge! Just going to leave that here.
Blank Blankman
2023-02-11 02:06:11 +0000 UTCArsonist continues to work hard to burn podcast to ground.
CutePhoton
2023-02-11 01:00:46 +0000 UTCSure, let's bring some unnecessary transphobia in to this while we are at it.
CutePhoton
2023-02-11 00:59:50 +0000 UTCAlso ..thanks for all the content attached, looking at the OAN lawsuit is fascinating!
C’mon
2023-02-11 00:48:49 +0000 UTCGreat analysis..Liz Dye is a natural!
C’mon
2023-02-11 00:00:11 +0000 UTCI think you and I are actually on the same page here. 100% Andrew's job was not to take social cues. That is my whole point. The job of tobacco executives was not to protect the health of their customers, and the job of Republican planners is not to ensure fair and equal distribution of power amongst the other political parties. Maybe I am delusional, and maybe this will sound absurd, but I always felt like Andrew's job was far more important and more meaningful than just reading legal documents. Heck, I could probably find hundreds of lawyers who can read legal documents and put in the work. The thing I really valued from Andrew, and the thing that I really could not find almost anywhere else is more nuanced than that: Andrew looked deep into the heart of our legal system. He analyzed the balance of power, and the rights and abilities of the different power players. He made factual statemens on the law, yes, but he was making them in the context of really teaching me about the reality of the situation. He was providing analysis that would take me years to come to otherwise. He was showing that sometimes, when everyone does their job well and everyone plays by the rules, sometimes there is still injustice. Sometimes the system is broken. Sometimes we need to step back and acknowledge that this game we are all playing against each other sucks, and it is time to change the rules together.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2023-02-10 23:46:18 +0000 UTCYou've torpedoed any lingering sense of respect anyone had for you
Blue Gemini
2023-02-10 23:10:18 +0000 UTCI think Andrew is certainly working on unwinding or pausing that contract. Given how quickly these two episodes have dropped I suspect his back was to the wall, whatever deadline they had must have been close. I would hope he's also looking for a replacement host for himself, but time will tell. Regarding Patreon, from Andrew's perspective, there isn't a reason to deviate from business as usual. The patrons are still getting the ad-free episode they paid for, and they can set a limit or end their patronage anytime if they don't like the episodes. They've always had agreements with advertisers for the free feed, and a separate agreement with patrons on the paid feed that he's sticking with for now.
Matt Kowal
2023-02-10 22:54:20 +0000 UTCI agree about Thomas. He saw sentiment turning against him for "enabling" and threw down the trump card. I'm a victim too, see! They are lining up to sympathize with him now, it worked well. I'm not about mob get your pitchforks culture. I enjoyed the legal analysis and that's why I'm sticking around.
The Show Goes On
2023-02-10 22:46:54 +0000 UTC"I'm a moderate liberal" "Someone's looking for their 'Me Too' moment" Maybe read the room and the fact that this podcast's Patreon subscriber base has been cut in half in less than a week and still falling. Lots of us were willing to give the benefit of the doubt & potentially give Andrew a chance to redeem himself. He said he was stepping away and seeking help & DAYS later releases multiple episodes without his other co-host with zero explanation, as if all of us would just be like "oh, I guess it's the Andrew & Liz pod now 🤷🏻♂️". Andrew isn't doing himself any favors here.
Justin S.
2023-02-10 22:43:30 +0000 UTCWell if nothing else Andrew you sure have shown that you still have no intention of stopping when people ask you to because it makes them very uncomfortable.
Alexander Thomas
2023-02-10 22:29:29 +0000 UTCBeing a moderate liberal, I'm not looking for Andrew to be burned at the stake. Knowing how far left his views are, I'm a bit surprised he hasn't walked naked through the town square as fellow ultra-liberals shout non-binary pronouns at him. As an attorney with decades of litigation experience, I find Andrew's insight accurate and compelling. I'm sure Andrew can walk and chew gum, and I'm sure he can work on being a better person while still providing analysis on current legal issues. People who are offended by his desire to continue to do the show can change the channel (or whatever is the podcast equivalent). As for Thomas, he seems to have blindsided Andrew with his strange posting of a text exchange recounting an awkward encounter with Andrew. It seems Thomas wants his #metoo moment. To Thomas, all I have to say is, "lots of luck in your senior year."
Chip Parker
2023-02-10 22:25:21 +0000 UTCThat's an interesting interpretation that would put him in a difficult position that was hard to explain. Depending on the contract though I would be looking to put that on pause and/or substitute a second person with Liz (maybe providing research and guidance/topics) and long term suspend the podcast depending on how it was received vs the duration of any obligation. I think it is also a stretch to justify a 50:50 partner locking out the other, but maybe there was some sort of notice given that he would be willing to stand behind should (other) lawyers get involved. The main logical inconsistency I see in it, that an advertiser obligation wouldn't explain posting these as Patreon paid episodes. It would definitely have been in his power to add a little announcement that patreons are not going to be charged for the foreseeable future or until he has a finalized cast.
el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
2023-02-10 22:23:52 +0000 UTCLawyers get disbarred for stealing from their clients, don’t they?
Fred Bremmer
2023-02-10 22:23:09 +0000 UTCAndrew's day job isn't this podcast, it's him being an attorney. You bending over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt - even some of which Andrew has admitted he doesn't deserve - feels very MAGAish.
(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte)
2023-02-10 22:14:18 +0000 UTCHere's my (generous) speculation on what's going on: Andrew does horrible things. Horrible things become known to the public. Thomas ends up in a very bad mental state (understandably). Andrew sees that Thomas is in no state to make business decisions (and also considers Thomas's past mental health issues) and goes into lawyer mode. He has a business with contractual obligations with advertisers to produce a product and a business partner who is having a mental health crisis. He therefore takes steps to take control of the business and protect himself and Thomas from any rash statements. Thomas interprets these steps as a hostile takeover and hastily publishes several messages on the OA feed. Andrew removes the messages, because that's what any business partner or lawyer would do to protect everyone involved. Andrew realizes a statement must be made, but it's hastily put together in response to Thomas's statements and he makes several mistakes and misinterprets things Thomas says. He's not a PR guy, everything is happening fast, and he's dealing with his own family issues. (I will admit this is a generous interpretation; I suspect more went on behind the scenes than we know) Time is running out to meet their obligations to advertisers, so Andrew asks the only person he knows who may still be willing to help (Liz) to record a few episodes with him. He explains that the contract requires episodes be released, and if not they could get sued, and there will be no OA for good. Liz agrees (perhaps temporarily, we don't know). I think overall lots of stuff is happening behind the scenes, and we're only getting bits and pieces of info sometimes secondhand. Andrew is clearly the one who messed up and needs to take responsibility, but I also think he's in a tricky situation. He didn't technically say he was going to step away for a bit, but I think that would be a good idea. Also, Andrew, please explain what's going on at some point.
Matt Kowal
2023-02-10 22:13:53 +0000 UTCHoly cow! The original situation was disappointing; however I know the effects of alcohol. It is disinhibiting, can leave memory gaps, and impairs judgement. A loved one suffered for years as did everyone around him. At this point, I have to ask, are you drunk all the time? You are showing very poor judgement. One thing I learned in those years was that only the person imbibing has any power in the situation. I couldn't "fix" the situation for my family member and no one else can for you. I wanted to keep my OA Patreon open for a show of faith for future reconciliation but this is just draining energy from me that I need for other things.
Diane Fishburne
2023-02-10 22:09:29 +0000 UTCWhat should they do? Assuming the podcast is Andrew's source of income, it seems unreasonable to say he should stop working while he works to solve his problems. Andrews personal life should be his personal life and its irritating that people have taken this route to address Andrew's shortcomings. That said, Thomas's editing skills are sorely missed.
kalsuri
2023-02-10 22:03:22 +0000 UTCI think its insane to draw an equivalence between Andrew making women uncomfortable and tobacco executives selling a product that is know to be addictive and cause cancer. Same with gerrymandering. It is the job of a politician to represent people and gerrymandering is the opposite. It is not Andrew's job to understand social queues, it might even be the opposite; his job is to read legal documents in the witching hours.
kalsuri
2023-02-10 21:59:20 +0000 UTCThis is really gross. Get help. Here til the end of the month. 🫡
Chris B
2023-02-10 21:43:44 +0000 UTCIf nothing else, they have to understand that saying nothing for a week then coming back like nothing happened without half of the podcast & blasting out episodes, is a bad look that will rub many listeners the wrong way, right?
Justin S.
2023-02-10 21:41:45 +0000 UTCI feel like I have seen a lot of needlessly hateful comments here, and I need to just say three things. The first major point is that I don't have all the facts. Frankly I might NEVER have all the facts, and that is upsetting to me. With that said, the rest of this post should be kept with that in mind. The second thing I need to say is that the level of hatred and vitreol I have seen in some posts is disproportional to the apparent reality of the situation. Yes Andrew did inappropriate and gross things, but in a good workplace that would have lead to first a formal HR complaint, and then to termination if Andrew continued the behavior after being put on notice. It seems like there was never really a clear and obvious notice given to Andrew about how hurtful his behavior was. It feels like he was robbed of the chance to really improve his behavior, and that is unfair to him, and unfair to the community, and that has to be given serious consideration by all involved here on Patreon. The third thing I need to say is that I need to leave this community, and I think I need to stay clear of the atheist community entirely from now on. To be clear, this isn't just about the allegations, and it isn't just about the "bad vibes" I am feeling when I listen to Andrew. No... This is because I just don't see another way that Andrew could be held accountable here for his actions, and when you are the last person in the line that can hold someone accountable, I think there must be a far far harsher standard. I can't simultaneously expect republicans to stop gerrymandering, and also support Andrew on Patreon. I can't shame tobacco executives for not being accountable while also listening to OA. Yes, everyone was just acting within the system and within their rights, and yes the people involved were robbed of their fair chance to improve themselves in their own ways. The same could be argued for those Republicans and those tobacco executives. I can't demand people I hate to act against their best interest to make a better world while also allowing the people I like to not do the same. We all need to come together and break the unjust parts of our society... Even if we like them. We all need to stop asking how to play the game in the best way, and start asking which game we should be playing. We all need to acknowledge that the core philosophy of Opening Arguments relies on the critical analysis of the structures of power, and collective action to make a better world for the long term. I am sorry. I loved all of this while it was running, and I hate myself from saying this, but I think Opening Arguments needs to end.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2023-02-10 21:35:59 +0000 UTCAny chance you could do a deep dive on right of publicity? It could be relevant given that you're fundraising off "Opening Arguments with Thomas Smith . . ."
Gmork
2023-02-10 21:26:44 +0000 UTCPlease Andrew, step back for a _significant_ while. Find someone else to pair with Liz for the time being if you must. This does not look good. Also, each quote in the intro are way too long. Maybe use the time to work on that as well. You can not rush this back to normal.
el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
2023-02-10 20:56:19 +0000 UTCAndrew, cut the shit man. This isn't what taking stock, making changes, and making amends looks like. Lucky for you Patreon is being difficult when I try to cancel my patronage. I'll be pushing for refunds though. You're burning all possible bridges by carrying on like nothing happened.
William Evan Barnes
2023-02-10 20:34:42 +0000 UTCLooking forward to listening later.
The Show Goes On
2023-02-10 20:23:16 +0000 UTC
