This article from Democracy Now interviews Rabea Eghbariah, the lawyer that wrote it, and has the entire censored article embedded:
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/5/harvard_columbia_law_school_nakba_censorship

Direct link to censored article (pdf):
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24733670/toward-nakba-as-a-legal-concept-rabea-eghbariah.pdf

This article has some good info, especially in the photos.

I should note that all I did was quote from Soon-Yi’s wikipedia page.

Was that before or after you downvoted all my comments on other threads you could reach?

I spread no lies; I have screenshots of everything, including your massive spray of angry frustrated downvotes. I also have my entire comment history to demonstrate my character, even though you’ve only personally just started with it.

But the again, I’m no pedophile apologist feeling viscerally threatened because someone calls out what kiddie diddlers do in the shadows.

Clicky, clicky, downvote here, downvote there. Did it make you feel better?

God that is funny. I consider it a badge of honor that I pissed you off enough for you to downvote two full pages of my comment history. What, you thought downvotes are super sekrit because you’re on lemmy.world and they’re hidden here? Lol. Best get to work, though, because you have over 1200 more of my comments to downvote before I will really feel it.

Best get busy. I might even post more before this day is through.

EDITED TO ADD Imgur link: https://imgur.com/a/I6QUrtx

Hmm, okay. Not what I expected, but yeah, I can at least see it. Thanks for answering.

Also, I’m about to delete my comments in regard to this. Your wisdom in not going there was greater than my own, lol.

I don’t have to make anything up, and I note that you did not post a single word of what Mia Farrow or Ronan Farrow had to say about it either.

Posting one side of a very heated and ongoing family squabble does not an adequate rebuttal make.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider his masterpieces? Sleeper was pretty cool, in its day (the whole “orgasmatron” idea was pretty cool for my young sensibilities) but I really couldn’t get into anything else. Maybe I just missed the good ones?

Polanski raped a child.

Multiple children. A number of other now adult women have later accused Polanski of raping them when they were teenagers. Right now he’s back in legal trouble right now for another, earlier victim that has now come forward. Not sure what it will accomplish as it’s a civil trial, he doesn’t have to come back for it, but at least this accuser will get her day in court, and if she wins she can garnish/levy any US assets he may hold or generate.

And Woody Allen . . . he was never that good anyway, and now I can’t stand to look at him. Setting aside any he-said/she-said for the sake of discussion (I believe Dylan) he married his step-daughter, the woman that he acted as father to throughout most of her childhood. If that’s not disgusting on the face of it, I don’t know what is. Yes, they are both adults now – but he was an adult for decades longer than she was, and one wonders if emotionally she’s ever even gotten the chance to get that far.

To everyone in this thread thinking ooh, how horrible for those poor women, where can I get some, may all your deepfake nudes end up looking like Donald Trump mushroom hunting with sixteen misshapen fingers through Jabba the Hutt folds of his own curdled fat.

Yeah. Other have posted the links as well, but if you search on the title text you quickly come across this guy’s substack and the actual manifesto.

The sad thing is that he seems to have started off as a fairly legit investigative researcher, or was trying to become one, but fell off the rails somewhere along the line.

I had to stop reading the manifesto when he alleged that covid was created by the government, but when he starts off with “an apocalyptic fascist world coup” is in the making, I’m not entirely certain he’s wrong: even the most broken of clocks is right twice a day. Whether by design or by accident, we are on the brink of WWIII and total environmental collapse. For him to assert a conspiracy is not nearly as crazy as many will want to insist in days to come, not least because both fascism and apocalypse are nearer now than they have even been in our lifetimes. What’s so crazy to think that some sociopaths in power looked at that and thought, hmm, we can make some coin here, and then did so?

I’m just sorry he had enough faith in humanity left to think that his self-immolation would change a goddamn thing, or even make anyone question the road we are collectively headed down. And I mean that. To write as he did and act as he did, his world was full of suffering – and if he lives, it will be 100 times worse, and still not have accomplished what he would have wanted, or even come close. His life was, in itself, worth far more than the fiery altar he threw it upon today.

Your guess is as good as mine. Closest I’ve been able to come is sonorism, and a similarity to composers like György Ligeti, but this work was entirely vocal: no instruments, no band, not even SATB, just people making strange mouth noises, lol.

Forty-plus years ago, when I was in high school, the teacher doing chorus was crazy. Mostly for things not involving music, but there was this one time he pulled out new sheet music, told us we were going to learn it for some recital, and it was pictures of someone’s impressions of sound waves; literally, line drawings of what someone’s idea of that sound would be.

Not actual sine waves, artistic impressions of . . . something. Like, ten pages of little illustrations like nested circles or interlocking triangles that we were supposed to look at, understand by sight, and then reproduce vocally.

He then played a recording of this . . . work, and that left us all even more horrified than we were by the sheet music. I would not care to hear it again. An orchestra tuning would have had more structure and melody; this was like someone playing a busted theramin.

He tried and tried to get everyone excited and onboard with it, and honestly, we just didn’t get it. Mercifully, he gave up after a few days.

I actually saw a reference to it several years later, back in the 90s, so it wasn’t just something he pulled out of his ass (did I mention he was crazy?) but I couldn’t tell you the name of it, or what it was supposed to be; a musicologist could. It was like vocal exercises without any reference to musical notation.

It’s all good, glad I could help. Thank you for taking the time to tell me! It’s never too late for a kindness.

Mostly true, but there comes a point in poor health where you cannot travel at all, or fulfill the requirement of physically starting or engaging in the death process (if required), even if you’re rich as Croesus. This especially applies to end-term cancer, motor neuron diseases, etc. If you can’t drink through a straw, you can’t use your hands, or you can’t speak or otherwise make your wishes known, that excludes you from a number of programs that exist now.

In addition, there’s a catch-22 of how, when you are dying of a progressive disease like ALS or Huntington’s, every minute is bringing you closer to exactly the kind of suffering you want to avoid, while you may not yet be sick enough to physically qualify under the terms of that specific program or its country’s laws.

For example, if you were to want go to Dignitas in Switzerland, you are looking at a roughly 6 month lead time to get all the approvals and interviews and paperwork done, during which your disease may well progress to the point that even if you had a private plane and an army of carers to get you there, you would not be able to get there, or if you did, not be able to fulfill the requirements of the program. (They may have since removed this requirement as I no longer see it mentioned in Wikipedia, but back in the day if you could not pick up the cup or drink through the straw yourself, that was a complete disqualifier for Dignitas, understandably so.)

And even then, there are countries like the UK, and the number of people who could not travel and were forced to go through endless litigation with the government trying to get the right to end their suffering legally – but in doing so made it impossible to do on the sly without subjecting their survivors to legal jeopardy and possible accusations of murder. (Which is rather ironic, given that King George V was euthanized by his doctor with the royal family’s permission.)

I think a lot of that is changing, but not quickly enough. It’s still the age-old ongoing strife between people who can’t face their own inner baggage about the deaths of others, and people who just don’t see the point of needless terminal suffering.

For example, there are still methods anyone can use for autothanasia, rich or poor, like VSED), and today Nembutal is still fairly easy to get south of the US border – but even then if you have a personal carer that insists you do not have the right to end your physical suffering, and they squirt water down you throat or throw out your just-in-case meds, you’re screwed anyway.

“No good deed goes unpunished” I guess. It’s a shame because you were doing that other guy a solid.

Yeah. That is extremely disturbing to read. I’m actually kind of shocked, to be honest.

Morrissey told the judge Monday that she reviewed nearly 200 phone calls that Gutierrez-Reed had made from jail over the last month. She said she was hoping there would be a moment when the defendant would take responsibility for what happened or express genuine remorse.

Jesus fucking christ.

The judge is now taking the word of a prosecutor who claims to have:

1. “reviewed” nearly 200 private phone calls made by the defendant
2. doing so specifically to find ex-parte ** statements
3. of responsibility (subjective as hell)
4. made by the defendant to others
   – and – this might be the biggest shocker of all –
5. the prosecutor who is actively gunning for the highest possible sentence did not find any, despite claiming that’s what she was “hoping” to find.

Okay. The list of wtaf problems here is long.

Prison calls are not private, everyone knows that, there is zero expectation of privacy. But they are obviously skewed and unreliable, especially when statements are removed from surrounding context. There’s a reason wiretap laws exist, nor do states necessarily allow recorded phone calls to be used as evidence in court proceedings. Since when are they legitimate factors to weigh in a sentencing, when the facts of the crime have already been weighed out and judged – UNLESS they are entered by the defense?

What the fuck does “reviewed” mean? Morrissey closely reading transcripts and/or listening to full recordings carefully and in context, OR – which I believe is far more likely – Morrissey skimming transcripts at home while she sips her Bud Light and half-listens to Law & Order reruns at the same time? “Close to 200” calls is a lot of “reviewing” for anyone. What does that even mean?

It is the prosecutor’s job to be biased, just as it is the defense’s job. So why the fuck is this one suddenly claiming to root for the defense, “hoping to find” ‎information that would presumably lower the sentence if found? That alone is complete bullshit: no legitimate prosecutor anywhere is rooting for the defense to win in any way, including the reduction of a sentence.

Along that same line, was the defense given notification that the content of the defendant’s jail phone calls would be specifically “reviewed” for content that would be used in her sentencing, and the weight that they would be afforded in making that decision? Was the defense also given the transcripts that Morrissey “reviewed” to “review” themselves? Was the defense involved in any of this at all?

What constitutes the “acceptance of responsibility” for a crime in phone calls made to uninvolved third parties? Did the subject ever even come up? Because generally speaking, ALL parties involved in litigation are forcefully and repeatedly advised to keep their yaps shut about the case at all times. If the defendant took that advice, there would be zero context for such an “acceptance of responsibility” to be made, as the subject would be shut down and not discussed at all.

And that’s before you get to the part where any defendant in a criminal trial, anywhere, is a complete fucking moron to admit to guilt audibly under any circumstances, including alone in the bathroom. (Anyone else remember Robert Durst and The Jinx?) To assume responsibility for a crime – whatever the fuck that means to a biased prosecutor to begin with – one must first discuss it, AND in the context of being guilty of it. If the defendant was smart and listened to her attorneys, she never discussed it at all. Thus it is entirely possible that in 200 hours worth of phone calls, the case was never even discussed, and this is the prosecutor taking that innocence and completely twisting it into something it never could have been in reality.

I can think of more – like what part of “close to 200 hours” of calls were made to people who were irrelevant to any part of the defendant’s actions, like a dogwalker, and should be discarded from consideration anyway – but now we’re just splitting hairs.

This is truly shitty news for anyone who would like to think there is still any form of fairness in a criminal trial. I have no idea what the local laws are there, or whether their own criminal court’s procedures allow for all this, but the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

** Ex-parte: “Of or relating to an action taken in a legal proceeding by one party without the presence or participation of the opposing party;” literally, one side only. Some of it is legitimate and allowable by local rules and procedures, but not everything.

Excellent response. You put it perfectly.

I like this sub exactly the way it is. If something isn’t for me, I move on. Not a big deal. And OP asked a great question. I never thought about it either, lol.

The NY Times article makes it much clearer; the example they gave was that this surgeon would enter a patient with the age of a toddler, and then enter the weight of the toddler as 300 lbs. In other words, he went out of his way to make the data on a particular patient so self-conflicting it would zero out that patient’s place on the rankings for a new liver.

Whatever the actual scoring system or algorithm, whatever this surgeon was doing broke it entirely for any patient he chose, and he did it often enough to get both his liver and his kidney transplant programs shuttered indefinitely.

So it was absolutely certain it was not fat-fingering or a series of oversights in entering patient data, it was not faulty software, it was not a one-off, and this deliberate practice had the specific, individually directed effect of breaking the transplant ranking entirely for that particular patient and none of the rest.

There aren’t a lot of “could-have-beens” left after you eliminate all that. I would imagine they are also looking at the real data of the patients who were sent to the bottom of the rankings by this surgeon just to see what their scores would have been, had the data been entered correctly. If the data itself isn’t enough of a smoking gun, that will be.

“ROE IS SETTLED LAW” – that lying piece of shit Brett Kavanaugh

That sign in the back isn’t bad either, lol

In addition to the other points being made here, I have to add that this data is not sorted and discarded, it is sorted and KEPT.

So let’s say a few years from now we’re well into a second Trump term and he’s making good on his promise to fuck his enemies, and someone in his regime doesn’t like you. They won’t need for you to actually do anything wrong; all they will have to do is reach into the vast trove of communications you’ve already made, not even overseas but just caught up in the same widely cast net, and find something that appears to be illegal.

As bad as all the present-day uses for this material can be, far worse are the post-facto creation of crimes out of them.

“But they can’t do that!” Yeah, they can and will, if we get a fully authoritarian government. That’s what the Stasi and the Gestapo and the KGB and the Savak and all the rest of those agencies were about: the US will be no different. There’s no such thing as an authoritarian government without an enforcement arm that spies on its own citizens. And when someone has your data, hidden from you and easily manipulated to make it say whatever they want, you will have already done whatever they claim you have done, and the evidence of it will easily be whatever they want it to be.

The motive for the alleged data manipulation is unknown.

Yeah, no. It’s known, they just don’t want to get sued.

The statement continued by saying that the survival rates and outcomes for Dr. Bynon’s transplant patients are among the best in the country.

And there it is, in plain sight. It’s not because his surgical skills were godlike, it’s because he was ensuring that only the very healthiest and most committed patients were going to get organs.

Falsifying eligibility data for transplant patients so that only the healthiest make it to the top is a great way to ensure that your own surgical success rates are much higher than anyone else’s.

Cherry-picking surgical patients has gone on since people started keeping score, this is nothing new.

There is a much better article on the NY Times about this situation and, while it’s not included in the archive link, every top comment beneath it was “yup, cherry-picking patients” as the motivation. Archive Link