r/law • • Aug 31 '22

This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent about it.

4.0k Upvotes

A quick reminder:

This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.

You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.


r/law • • Oct 28 '25

Quality content and the subreddit. Announcing user flair for humans and carrots instead of sticks.

Post image
186 Upvotes

Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law

When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.

If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.

Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.

A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.

Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.

A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.

Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.

Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.

---

Are you saving our user names?

  • No. Once you claim your flair your username is purged. We don’t see it. Nor do we want to. Nor do we care. We just have a little robot that sees you enter an email, then adds flair to the user name you tell it to add.

What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?

  • Reddit doesn't support visibility for either of those things anymore. You'll notice that our automod comment asking OP to state why something belongs here to help guide discussion is automatically collapsed and megathreads get no visibility. Without those easy tools we're going to try something different.

This won’t solve anything!

  • Maybe not. But we’re going to try.

Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?

  • Moderation will stay roughly the same. We moderate a ton of content. Flair isn’t a license to act like a psychopath on the Internet. I've noticed that people seem to think that mods removing comments or posts here are some sort of conspiracy to "silence" people. There's no conspiracy. If you're totally wrong or out of pocket tough shit. This place is more heavily modded than most places which is a big part of its past successes.

What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.

  • Yeah, well, so are we. If you were here for his first 4 years he does a lot of not legal stuff, sues people, gets sued, uses the DoJ in crazy ways, and makes a lot of judicial appointments. If we leave something up that looks political only it’s because we either missed it or one of us thinks there’s some legal issue that could be discussed. We try hard not to overly restrict content from post submissions.

Remove all Trump stuff.

  • No. You can use the tags to filter it if you don’t like it.

Talk to me about Donald Trump.

  • God… please. Make it stop.

I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.

  • You need therapy not a message board.

You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!

  • Yes.

You guys aren’t fair to both sides.

  • Being fair isn’t the same thing as giving every idea equal air time. Some things are objectively wrong. There are plenty of instances where the mods might not be happy with something happening but can see the legal argument that’s going to win out. Similarly, a lot of you have super bad ideas that TikTok convinced you are something to existentially fight about. We don’t care. We’ll just remove it.

You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.

  • That's because it sucks.

You have to watch the whole thing!

  • No I don't.

---

General Housekeeping:

We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.


r/law • • 6h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Signs Order Exempting Russia From Sanctions Legislation

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
8.6k Upvotes

r/law • • 6h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Rep. Ilhan Omar challenges legality of Trump administration search of her home

Thumbnail
cnn.com
4.0k Upvotes

r/law • • 9h ago

Judicial Branch Judge presses DOJ lawyer to answer if Trump after he leaves office can he sell 'national security secrets' on eBay

Thumbnail
lawandcrime.com
2.6k Upvotes

r/law • • 18h ago

Legal News Huge Problem With Trump’s Bizarre Crusade Against Rep. Ilhan Omar Revealed | It took prosecutors days to convince a judge to sign off on a search.

Thumbnail
thedailybeast.com
10.5k Upvotes

r/law • • 15h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) The persecution of Ilhan Omar is the latest escalation of Trump’s Birtherism

Thumbnail
sg.news.yahoo.com
3.2k Upvotes

r/law • • 11h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) U.S. Coast Guard seized $227M in drugs, the smugglers' will be repatriated and not charged with a crime

Thumbnail
military.com
984 Upvotes

r/law • • 3h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Nvidia, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta gave Trump a combined $92 million for his ballroom

Thumbnail
theverge.com
156 Upvotes

r/law • • 18h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Washington DC Attoney General calls 14 month National Guard deployment an occupation force, suing the Trump administration to end it now

Thumbnail military.com
2.3k Upvotes

r/law • • 13h ago

Legal News Billionaires Ready Legal Attack If California Wealth Tax Passes

Thumbnail
bloomberg.com
958 Upvotes

r/law • • 12h ago

Judicial Branch Nebraska Supreme Court upholds voting for citizens abroad in yet another GOP loss

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
631 Upvotes

r/law • • 13h ago

Legal News Judge slams Ohio State for 'unconstitutional' expulsion of [pro-Palestine] social media influencer, orders reversal.

Thumbnail
abc6onyourside.com
732 Upvotes

A federal judge issued a confident 30-page ruling Wednesday, ordering Ohio State University to immediately reverse the expulsion of Guy Christensen from its records, concluding that the university likely violated "foundational" constitutional rights.


r/law • • 40m ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Posts Letter Threatening To Prosecute Local California Election Workers: “They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!”

Thumbnail
abcnews.com
• Upvotes

r/law • • 22h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump should fear the BBC. Instead he’s picked a fight – and he seems to be losing

Thumbnail
theguardian.com
3.5k Upvotes

r/law • • 13h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) China invites Katie Zacharia to visit more often after she said it lacks ‘proper toilets’

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
625 Upvotes

r/law • • 13h ago

Judicial Branch Fired FBI agents on Trump classified documents case sue DOJ

Thumbnail
courthousenews.com
610 Upvotes

r/law • • 13h ago

Legal News Texas’ Anti-Abortion Bounty Law Is Being Used Against a Supremely Ironic Target

Thumbnail
slate.com
422 Upvotes

r/law • • 5h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Watchdog: Zacharia’s exit doesn’t ‘wipe clean’ dispute over legal credentials

Thumbnail
thehill.com
92 Upvotes

r/law • • 15h ago

Judicial Branch Trump Donor Sues Kimberly Guilfoyle For Defamation After Allegations She Asked Him For $100,000

Thumbnail
forbes.com
404 Upvotes

r/law • • 1d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) New White House press secretary Katie Zacharia shared at least 15 social media posts identifying her as an “attorney” over the past two years

Thumbnail
cnn.com
9.5k Upvotes

r/law • • 10h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) NAACP sues Justice Department to block plan for 1,000 poll monitors nationwide

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
124 Upvotes

r/law • • 18h ago

Legal News Trump Lawsuit Against NYC Sanctuary City Policies is Rejected by Federal Judge

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
429 Upvotes

r/law • • 23h ago

Legal News Elon Musk settles fraud lawsuits over his $1 million giveaways to 2024 election voters

Thumbnail
cnn.com
1.1k Upvotes

r/law • • 11h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) $137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms (Gift Article)

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
118 Upvotes

"It was an unlikely scene: New York’s mayor and governor appeared to be strolling through a park and gardening together in a sun-drenched suburban yard, promoting a new drug — a “political delusion pill,” they called it — to help voters overcome fears about affordability and crime.

“Side effects may include: chronic wallet shrinkage, higher tax,” a narrator intoned over plucky guitar.

Though the video captured the voices and likenesses of Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, the ad was actually an A.I.-generated fabrication. It was produced by the campaign of Bruce Blakeman, the Republican candidate for governor.

The “Generated by A.I.” label and red slash added were by The New York Times. Source: AdImpact.

$137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms - The New York Times

The ad, which included no disclaimer that it was A.I.-made, was one of more than 220 videos identified by the Wesleyan Media Project, a research group based at Wesleyan University, that used A.I.-generated fakery in ways large and small this midterm season — part of a wave of videos powered by artificial intelligence that have flooded the internet and television screens.

Candidates and political action groups, mostly tied to Republicans, have rushed to adopt the technology, spending more than $137 million to promote such ads this year, the researchers found.

“I think what we’re seeing with A.I. has surprised even us,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, a professor at Wesleyan University and the co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “A.I. can be used in so many different ways that it creates new opportunities for advertising. Some of the ways in which A.I. is used, honestly, if there wasn’t a disclaimer on the ad, it would be hard to know that A.I. was there.”

Overall, among 220 ads reviewed, researchers found that …

Nearly half of the videos contained A.I.-generated depictions of real politicians, including these:

GENERATED BY A.I. Conservative Policy Project

GENERATED BY A.I. Alabama Conservatives

GENERATED BY A.I. Committee to Elect Michael Lee

GENERATED BY A.I. Hilleary for TN CD-06

$137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms - The New York Times

About 70 percent contained no disclaimer that A.I. was used, including these:

GENERATED BY A.I. Women Speak Out PAC

GENERATED BY A.I. Senate Leadership Fund PAC

GENERATED BY A.I. Burt Jones For Georgia, Inc.

GENERATED BY A.I. Eric Jones For Congress

Note: The “Generated by A.I.” label and red slash were added by The New York Times. Source: AdImpact.

$137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms - The New York Times

More than 80 percent of the ads were produced by Republican campaigns or Republican-aligned political action committees. Using A.I. has allowed them to make their opponents appear alongside polarizing figures in the Democratic Party, such as Hillary Clinton or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In one ad from Make Oklahoma Great Again, the Democratic candidate for governor was shown embracing Mrs. Clinton, cheek-to-cheek and hand-in-hand. “Clinton Lover. Trump Hater,” the on-screen text read as President Trump sulked to the side. There was no disclosure that it was A.I.-made. The group spent more than $200,000 promoting the ad on television programming in Oklahoma, according to the media tracker AdImpact.

GENERATED BY A.I.

Make Oklahoma Great Again

Note: The “Generated by A.I.” label and red slash added were by The New York Times. Source: AdImpact.

$137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms - The New York Times

Yet some ads have gone much further. One ad showed an A.I.-generated version of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan, laughing at cards that read “Death to America” and “Celebrate 9/11.” Another showed James Fishback, a Republican primary candidate for Florida governor, hosting a party with Representative Ilhan Omar and Iranian leaders who used scimitars to attack the Star of David.

Researchers at the Wesleyan Media Project suggested that Democrats may be warier of deploying A.I. than Republicans because their supporters are more critical of the technology and eager to see regulation. “Democratic candidates and groups face more reputational risk when using a tool that they are arguing should be regulated,” said Travis N. Ridout, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project and a professor at Washington State University.

One ad from James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, seemed to reflect that dynamic with a title that appeared onscreen reading: “Made by humans, not A.I.”

Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  It's a pivotal moment for American politics. Join us for 2026 and beyond. Get it sent to your inbox.

Ms. Franklin Fowler said there were likely many more A.I. ads than what researchers had found, since some videos were identifiable only because they appeared in one of the 30 states that require some kind of disclosure when deepfakes or other A.I. content is used in political ads. Only 31 percent of the ads the group reviewed disclosed that they used A.I.

“It’s the year of the A.I. election,” said Fred N. Davis III, the founder of Strategic Perception, an advertising firm based in Hollywood, and a 50-year veteran of campaign advertising. “It’s top of mind for everybody in my business and pretty much everybody in the political business.”

Mr. Davis was recently planning to produce a political ad that would have cost nearly $2 million before A.I., requiring hundreds of actors, a wardrobe department, catered meals, and a daylong shoot with tradespeople, cameras, lighting — the works.

Instead, he is planning to use A.I. to create the scene, bringing the ad’s total cost down to about $200,000.A.I.-generated videos have quickly become an alternative to stock footage that once dominated campaign ads — video, for example, of families furrowing their brows over a stack of bills at a dining table. A.I. can create such scenes instantly and for a fraction of the cost, without viewers even noticing that anything was fabricated.

The campaign for Chip Keaton, a Republican candidate for Oklahoma governor, used A.I. in a similar way. A brief shot at the start of one campaign ad showed a still photograph of Mr. Keaton from his time as an Oklahoma state trooper — but brought to life with his head tilting upward, revealing a broad smile. Mr. Keaton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Chip Keating For Governor 2026

Note: Only portions of this video were generated by A.I. The label and red slash were added by The New York Times. Source: AdImpact.

$137 Million in A.I.-Generated Ads Flood the Midterms - The New York Times

“If somebody had a tough childhood growing up, they may not have had any pictures of it, but you can recreate what being alone in a room at Christmastime was like with A.I., and that’s helpful,” Mr. Davis said. “It’s not being deceitful. It really happened.”

Some political operatives have pushed back on requirements to disclose A.I. in such cases because the labels can make the ad seem untrustworthy. “It may just be that it is an editing tool that doesn’t change the nature of the content and is not deceptive,” said Julie Sweet, the director of advocacy and industry relations at the American Association of Political Consultants, a trade group.

“Once you put the disclaimer on, it doesn’t help people distinguish between what is the ‘real stuff’ and which is the A.I.-generated stuff,” she said.

Ms. Sweet’s organization is pushing for federal regulations that would override the patchwork of state laws that require various disclosures, with the goal of labeling A.I.-generated content that is “deceptive” while offering broad protections for political speech.

Bruce Schneier, a security technologist who teaches at Harvard and the University of Toronto, said requiring labeling is just part of the solution. “The problem isn’t A.I.,” he said. “The problem is deception. And it turns out that deception is, you know, a pretty good strategy.”

Mr. Blakeman, the Republican candidate for governor in New York, has been one of the most prolific adopters of A.I.-made media, publishing a flurry of A.I.-generated attack ads this year to his social media feed — at least 22 of them since April. Only a few included a disclosure that A.I. was used or that the video was “manipulated.”

Bruce Blakeman’s campaign created at least 22 A.I.-generated ads, including these …

GENERATED BY A.I.

GENERATED BY A.I.

GENERATED BY A.I.

GENERATED BY A.I.

Note: The “Generated by A.I.” label and red slash added by The New York Times. Source: AdImpact.

The New York State Democratic Party filed a complaint with the state’s Board of Elections in August against Mr. Blakeman’s use of A.I. in advertising, claiming that he had violated a state law requiring political communications that are “materially deceptive” to be labeled A.I.-generated. Mr. Blakeman’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment but told an ABC affiliate in September that the ad was satirical and no disclosure was required.

Misinformation watchdogs had feared that A.I.-generated impersonations of candidates, called deepfakes, and other highly misleading A.I. content would flood the midterms. Instead, researchers at the Wesleyan Media Project found, many ads used A.I. either to make simply innocuous alterations to photographs or videos or to create images too absurd to be believed.

Campaign strategists said voters may object to ads they see as fake or manipulative. Negative attack ads are already unpopular, so adding A.I. on top could create more anger among voters than support.

But Mr. Davis, the ad executive, said that voters are likely to appreciate A.I. ads if they are funny or emotional without being deceptive. He pointed to Spencer Pratt, a former Republican candidate for mayor of Los Angeles, who published reams of A.I.-generated attack ads against opponents, earning plaudits from supporters like Mr. Davis who thought the ads were funny and eye-catching.

Despite the attention, Mr. Pratt failed to build a coalition of supporters and placed third in the primary behind two Democratic candidates.

“You use the entertainment value to get attention, make them listen,” Mr. Davis said. “But then once they’re listening, you better tell them something that makes them vote for you.”