Devin Stone, adjunct law professor and host of LegalEagle on Youtube, revisits WIRED to once again answer your burning questions about criminal law. What’s the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor crime? Is the death penalty unconstitutional? Could Luigi Mangione be found ‘Not Guilty’ at trial? Is any of what Elon Musk and the so-called US DOGE doing legal? Is training AI to create images stealing other people’s art or simply fair use? How do we prevent deepfakes from making video evidence worthless? Devin answers these questions and plenty more on Criminal Law Support.
Director: Justin Wolfson
Director of Photography: Kevin Dynia
Editor: Richard Trammell
Expert: Devin Stone
Line Producer: Joseph Buscemi
Associate Producer: Brandon White
Production Manager: Peter Brunette
Production Coordinator: Rhyan Lark
Casting Producer: Nicole Ford
Camera Operator: Christopher Eustache
Sound Mixer: Rebecca O'Neill
Production Assistant: Caleb Clark
Post Production Supervisor: Christian Olguin
Post Production Coordinator: Rachel Kim
Supervising Editor: Erica DeLeo
Additional Editor: Samantha DiVito
Assistant Editor: Andy Morell
Director: Justin Wolfson
Director of Photography: Kevin Dynia
Editor: Richard Trammell
Expert: Devin Stone
Line Producer: Joseph Buscemi
Associate Producer: Brandon White
Production Manager: Peter Brunette
Production Coordinator: Rhyan Lark
Casting Producer: Nicole Ford
Camera Operator: Christopher Eustache
Sound Mixer: Rebecca O'Neill
Production Assistant: Caleb Clark
Post Production Supervisor: Christian Olguin
Post Production Coordinator: Rachel Kim
Supervising Editor: Erica DeLeo
Additional Editor: Samantha DiVito
Assistant Editor: Andy Morell
Category
🤖
TechTranscript
00:00I'm Devin Stone, practicing lawyer, adjunct law professor,
00:02and host of the Legal Eagle Law Channel.
00:04And I'm here today to answer your questions
00:06from the internet.
00:07This is law support, but it is not legal advice.
00:15A Reddit user asks,
00:16is there a chance with a jury trial
00:18Luigi gets a not guilty verdict?
00:20I would say in this particular case
00:22regarding Luigi Mangione,
00:23he has a better than average chance.
00:24Now that chance is still very, very low
00:27given what seems like mountains of evidence.
00:29Right now, Mr. Mangione is represented
00:30by a very capable criminal defense lawyer,
00:32Karen Friedman Agnifolo.
00:34So far, his attorneys have moved to exclude
00:36some of the evidence that was found on his person
00:38when he was arrested in Pennsylvania.
00:39That includes a 3D printed gun,
00:41some writings in a notebook, as well as a fake ID.
00:44Mr. Mangione got a lot of press
00:46and a lot of people seem to be upset
00:48with the state of healthcare in this country.
00:50As a result, it's possible the jury
00:51can do something called nullification.
00:53That is, the jury could recognize
00:54that given the facts and the state of the law,
00:57this person is guilty of the crime
00:59that they are accused of,
01:00but they simply refuse to find them guilty
01:03and instead acquit them of the charge.
01:05The Gentleman asks,
01:06are public defenders actually bad at their job
01:08or are the people they have to deal with
01:10just usually screwed?
01:11Public defenders are doing some really,
01:13really thankless work.
01:15It's the prosecutors that get all the glory,
01:17putting away criminals,
01:18but it's the public defenders that are ensuring
01:20that everyone is represented
01:22if you are accused of a crime.
01:25I think even most public defenders would agree
01:27that most of the people that they represent
01:28are probably guilty of something,
01:30which means that there's probably going to be
01:32overwhelming evidence
01:33because a prosecutor's probably not gonna wanna go to trial
01:36unless they have certainty
01:38that they're gonna stand a good chance
01:39of getting a conviction,
01:40which means that the public defenders,
01:42even when they're doing a fantastic job,
01:44they probably have a deck stacked against them.
01:46WannabeCanadian17 asks,
01:48Explain Like I'm Five the difference
01:49between a misdemeanor and a felony.
01:51Well, this one's super easy.
01:52A misdemeanor is generally any crime
01:54that can be punished
01:55with less than one year in jail and or fines,
01:58and a felony is any crime
02:00that can be punished by more than a year in jail.
02:03Hermaeus Mora IRL asks,
02:05deepfakes and the law,
02:06how do we prevent deepfakes
02:07from making video evidence worthless?
02:09So far, it hasn't been too much of a problem
02:11because believe it or not,
02:12there's a whole system that controls
02:13what evidence makes it into trial and what doesn't.
02:15And part of the rules of evidence
02:16includes chain of custody and authentication.
02:19So just because there is a video of something
02:21doesn't mean that it automatically comes into court.
02:23You've gotta go through a whole bunch of hoops
02:25to establish for the court
02:26that it's something that can be relied on.
02:28And in the case of video evidence,
02:30that's often considered hearsay.
02:32Hearsay, of course, being,
02:33come on, let's all say it together,
02:34an out-of-court statement used
02:35for the truth of the matter asserted.
02:36Often video evidence does get to come in,
02:38but you have to establish that it's reliable.
02:40And if there is a dispute about the authenticity,
02:43then there might be experts testifying
02:45that this particular video evidence is a deep fake,
02:48or this particular evidence is not a deep fake.
02:50The system isn't perfect,
02:52but so far it's doing a pretty good job,
02:54even when technology is getting really scary.
02:56What I'm assuming is kidshitstuff asks,
03:00is what the Doge doing actually legal?
03:02Man, I don't even know if Doge is legal at this point.
03:05Doge started as what was supposed to be a new department
03:09or agency within the executive branch,
03:11but the administration quickly found out
03:12that only Congress can create a new department.
03:15What they did is they turned the old US digital service,
03:18which had been created during the Obama administration,
03:20into what we now know as Doge.
03:22And the problem is that the current Trump administration
03:25not only keeps saying different things
03:26about what Doge is doing,
03:28they also keep lying to the judges
03:30about what is actually in fact happening.
03:32The president keeps saying that Elon Musk
03:34is in charge of Doge.
03:35In court, they keep saying that other people,
03:37and definitely not Elon Musk, are the ones in charge.
03:40So we really don't have an org chart for the department
03:43itself at this point.
03:44But at this point, Elon Musk is acting like an officer
03:46of the executive branch.
03:48And an officer needs to be confirmed by the Senate,
03:50which he definitely has not been at this point.
03:52It also would make him subject
03:54to a bunch of conflict of interest laws
03:55that he doesn't appear to be complying with.
03:57The bottom line is some of what they're doing
03:59is probably legal,
04:00and a lot of what they're doing is probably illegal.
04:03And it's gonna take a while to sort all of that out.
04:05A very suspiciously username deleted says,
04:08what actually happens if the police don't read you
04:10your rights, does it help your case at all?
04:12Well, it actually can.
04:13Cops hate this one weird trick.
04:15The constitution requires that the police,
04:17when you are taken into a custodial interrogation,
04:20read you your Miranda rights.
04:22This comes from a very famous Supreme Court case
04:24called Miranda versus Arizona.
04:26And by custodial, I mean an interaction with the police
04:28where a reasonable person would not believe
04:30that they were free to leave that interaction.
04:32So if you happen to have confessed to the police
04:35about a particular crime during this interaction,
04:37then that confession will probably not be allowed
04:40into evidence.
04:41Now that doesn't mean that the police
04:43and the district attorneys can't prosecute you.
04:45They just can't use those particular statements.
04:47A Reddit user asks, are crypto pump and dumps illegal?
04:51So classic pump and dump is what is depicted
04:53in the movie, the Wolf of Wall Street.
04:54You have a bunch of brokers who know that a stock
04:57is basically worthless, but they tell a bunch of people
05:00that it's the best hottest new stock, drive up the value
05:03so that they can sell all the shares that they have
05:06that otherwise would have been worthless,
05:07get their bag, leaving their clients out in the cold.
05:11And that is happening a lot right now
05:13with crypto related assets, whether it's an NFT,
05:16whether it's a meme coin.
05:18There are so many people out there
05:19who are offering no value whatsoever.
05:21They're hyping up, for example, their coin of choice,
05:24simply to get some greater fool to buy into it
05:28so that they can sell their holdings
05:30and make out like a bandit.
05:31This is what people call a rug pull.
05:33If the crypto asset is considered a security,
05:35then it would almost certainly be considered securities fraud
05:38under the Securities and Exchange Act.
05:39But whether it's a security or not is currently up for debate.
05:43And given that our current president and first lady
05:46launched meme coins to the tune of billions
05:48and billions of dollars right before they took office,
05:50I don't think we're gonna see a crackdown
05:52on crypto assets anytime soon.
05:54Blizzard Vortex asks, what's up with the Mayor Eric Adams
05:57and the prosecutors resigning instead of just charging him?
05:59This is one of the craziest and darkest days
06:03with the Department of Justice that we've seen
06:04probably since Watergate.
06:06Mayor Eric Adams was charged with all number of bribery
06:11and corruption allegations.
06:12He was accused of taking thousands of dollars
06:15of free plane rides and hotels from the Turkish government,
06:18as well as getting millions of dollars in matching funds
06:21from the city of New York for his campaign for mayor,
06:24which he was arguably not entitled to.
06:26And he was being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
06:29Before President Trump took office for the second time,
06:32Mayor Adams started changing his tune
06:34about the kinds of policies that he was going to implement
06:37in the city of New York.
06:39And then shortly after President Trump took office,
06:41his deputy attorney general, Emile Beauvais,
06:43issued a very strange memorandum that said that,
06:46while he wasn't making a judgment call
06:47about the accuracy or propriety
06:49of what the prosecutors had done,
06:51because the prosecution had been politicized
06:54and because it was interfering with Mayor Adams' ability
06:57to effectuate the policy preferences of President Trump,
07:01they were going to drop the prosecution.
07:03And they weren't just gonna drop the prosecution,
07:04they were gonna drop it without prejudice,
07:06meaning that they could refile those charges later on.
07:08That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.
07:11You are supposed to prosecute criminals without fear
07:14or favor for what they can do.
07:16The lead prosecutor, the acting US attorney
07:18for the Southern District of New York,
07:20refused to move forward and resigned instead.
07:23Seven to eight other attorneys also resigned
07:26rather than move forward with this incredibly craven
07:29and corrupt decision from the acting deputy attorney general.
07:34Back1987 asks,
07:35is it true that 60 to 70% of wrongful convictions
07:38are due to eyewitness testimony?
07:40Eyewitness testimony, despite having this reputation
07:42as being the absolute gold standard for evidence in court,
07:47is surprisingly fallible.
07:49I mean, think about it.
07:50What did you have for breakfast eight days ago?
07:51Or what color are my eyes?
07:54Often prosecutors are asking people to remember things
07:57that happened weeks or months ago,
07:59or sometimes even years ago.
08:01So it's not surprising that often eyewitnesses
08:04get things absolutely wrong.
08:06A study by the Innocence Project says that about 70%
08:08of wrongful convictions where DNA evidence was used
08:11to exonerate someone involved eyewitness misidentification.
08:14Printok8045 asks,
08:16can Trump really rename the Gulf of Mexico,
08:18the Gulf of America?
08:19Well, he can certainly try.
08:20The president can arguably define geographical names
08:24for the purposes of the federal government,
08:26but nobody else outside of the federal government
08:28needs to comply.
08:29So if you're outside of the federal government,
08:30you can call it whatever you want.
08:32Some companies chose to capitulate.
08:34Google and Apple both labeled the Gulf of Mexico,
08:37the Gulf of America in their various map apps.
08:40And some companies like the Associated Press
08:42made a conscious decision to call it the Gulf of Mexico
08:45and not call it the Gulf of America.
08:47And because no good deed goes unpunished,
08:49the Trump administration,
08:50when they saw the AP style guide,
08:51kicked the AP out of the White House press pool.
08:54Local Concern asks,
08:55what is the point of multiple life sentences
08:57when there is no possibility of parole?
09:00Well, there's a couple of concerns.
09:01One is symbolic.
09:02If someone, let's say, commits multiple homicides,
09:05you want to have a punishment that reflects the severity
09:09of the crime that they have committed.
09:11But also there are some pragmatic considerations.
09:13Let's say there are multiple homicides involved
09:15in a single case.
09:16You might imagine that with respect to one of those homicides
09:20or murders, let's say it gets overturned.
09:23If they were only convicted of a single life sentence,
09:26they might go free.
09:27But if they are convicted of multiple life sentences,
09:30then they'll still be serving time in jail,
09:32regardless of what happens
09:33to one of those particular charges.
09:35At U.S. Colchi asks,
09:36serious question for lawyers, please.
09:38How is breaking into the Capitol resulting in misdemeanors
09:41for these J6 criminals?
09:42Would breaking into a military base or embassy
09:44or any other restricted government building
09:46always be a misdemeanor too, not understanding?
09:49There were about 1,600 people who were arrested
09:51in connection with the riots inside of the Capitol.
09:53There were probably many more people associated
09:55with that riot, but one of the problems was that
09:58there just weren't simply enough police officers
10:00to arrest all of those people.
10:02But of those 1,600, about 700 or so were convicted
10:07of misdemeanors or those people just simply pled guilty
10:09to misdemeanors.
10:10And there's a lot of reasons why some people would get misdemeanors
10:14and some people would be convicted or plead guilty
10:17to a felony.
10:17A lot of it depends on the severity of the actions
10:20they took on that day.
10:21Absolutely anyone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer
10:25would have received a felony.
10:26But some people obviously didn't break down any doors.
10:29They didn't put their feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk.
10:31And under those circumstances, they might be guilty
10:35of a bare misdemeanor of trespass in a federal building.
10:39And apart from the legality of everything,
10:40there's also pragmatic reasons why the US Attorney's Office
10:43might want to get rid of a lot of the cases just simply
10:46on a misdemeanor basis.
10:48It probably conserves resources to just get them to plead
10:51to a misdemeanor and then they can focus their time
10:53on the people who engaged in things like seditious conspiracy
10:56and treason.
10:58Though all the prosecutions were for naught
11:00because as you probably know, all 1,600 people
11:02in connection with the January 6 riots got a pardon,
11:05which wiped out the convictions entirely.
11:07While a handful of people like Stuart Rhodes,
11:09the founder of the Oath Keepers received a commutation,
11:12which leaves the conviction intact,
11:14but simply reduces his sentence.
11:16At Danny Pick 6, why did I just hear
11:18about the Menendez brothers?
11:19I don't think they should be in jail.
11:21The Menendez brothers captivated the attention of America
11:24really in the same way that the OJ Simpson trial did.
11:27It was a national phenomenon.
11:28In part because of the severity of the crime,
11:31the nature of the accused, two very, very wealthy brothers,
11:35and also the fact that they received two trials.
11:37In the first trial, they had a hung jury,
11:39so the jury could not come to a conclusion
11:41as to whether they were guilty or not.
11:43And during the second trial,
11:45a lot of the evidence of their abuse
11:48at the hands of their father
11:50did not make it into the courtroom.
11:52Now, interestingly, under a 2018 law
11:54that was passed in California,
11:56because the Menendez brothers were under the age of 26
11:59when they committed these homicides,
12:01they are arguably eligible for parole.
12:04So there's gonna be a hearing
12:05on whether they are eligible
12:06and whether they can be released coming up soon.
12:08A Reddit user asks,
12:10is the death penalty unconstitutional?
12:12Well, it depends.
12:13There are a lot of people
12:14who believe that under the text of the Constitution,
12:18it is always considered a cruel and unusual punishment.
12:21But right now, the Supreme Court says
12:23that the death penalty is constitutional.
12:25In a 1972 case called Furman versus Georgia,
12:27the Supreme Court established that the death penalty
12:29can be considered cruel and unusual punishment
12:31in violation of the Eighth Amendment
12:33if the penalty is too severe
12:36for the crime that is established.
12:37So in the US, you could never have a death penalty
12:39for shoplifting, for example.
12:41And that case resulted in a four-year moratorium
12:43on the use of a death penalty.
12:45Then in 1976, the Supreme Court established
12:47that under some circumstances,
12:48and probably under most circumstances,
12:50the death penalty is allowed under the Eighth Amendment,
12:52and it's not necessarily cruel and unusual punishment.
12:55Demon the Knees asks,
12:56explain like I'm five,
12:57the difference between civil and criminal court.
12:59If someone commits a crime against you,
13:02they might be prosecuted by the state.
13:04That is a criminal offense.
13:05And they might go to jail as a result of that offense.
13:08But if you're the victim,
13:10you probably aren't getting any compensation back
13:12from the person who committed this crime against you.
13:15So you need a vehicle to receive compensation,
13:18to make you whole for damages that happened
13:20as a result of someone's actions.
13:21And that's what the civil court is for.
13:23At UGBear1 asks,
13:25bro, but I don't get it.
13:26Why pardon the creator of Silk Road,
13:27a drug trafficking site, why?
13:29Trafficking drugs is not legal.
13:31How could getting him out of jail
13:32be a good or fair idea?
13:34Well, the reason he's out of jail
13:35is because he supported President Trump's campaign.
13:38Now the difference between Ross Ulbricht
13:40and Mexican drug lords,
13:41I will let you draw your own conclusions.
13:43Whether it's a good idea,
13:44that never entered into the equation.
13:47At D Quarrels asks,
13:49how many folks beat RICO charges?
13:51Add Young Thug to the list,
13:52just recuse the judge in the case,
13:54I smell hashtag mistrial.
13:56Maybe that tweet was a little bit premature
13:58because eventually Young Thug did plead
14:00to crimes related to the trial
14:02that he was being prosecuted for.
14:04Now the Young Thug trial was fascinating
14:07for many different reasons.
14:08It was filed under the Georgia version of RICO,
14:12which is not exactly the same as federal RICO charges.
14:15RICO on the federal level was created as a vehicle
14:18to convict people who the prosecutors would have had
14:21a really hard time convicting under traditional criminal laws.
14:24These are people like mafia heads
14:26who are issuing multiple sets of orders
14:29that get filtered down to the people
14:30who are actually doing the dirty work.
14:32That RICO trial was the longest criminal trial
14:35in Georgia history.
14:36It went on for years and years.
14:38And there's a saying among prosecutors,
14:41you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
14:43Meaning that you might ultimately win at trial,
14:46but the process that you're gonna go through
14:48is going to be excruciating.
14:50And there's some things that Young Thug
14:52could have been convicted of
14:52where he would have spent less time in jail
14:55than he did just simply waiting for the trial to conclude.
14:58But the RICO trial of Young Thug
15:00took a bunch of twists and turns.
15:02At one point, the judge had to recuse himself
15:05because he was having ex-party communications
15:07with the prosecutors.
15:08Meaning that he was communicating
15:09with the prosecutors in chambers
15:11without defense counsel being present,
15:13which is absolutely a no-no.
15:15Anything that happens in a criminal trial,
15:17both sides need to be present.
15:19So eventually he recused himself.
15:21A new judge came in and things wrapped up pretty quickly,
15:24but it was an absolute mess.
15:26Sus Scrofa asks,
15:28what exactly is so difficult about the bar exam?
15:31Oh yeah.
15:32What's so difficult about learning all of American law
15:34in the span of about eight to 10 weeks
15:37during a time when you don't have a job
15:39and you're not getting paid.
15:40And whether you pass or fail defines
15:42whether you can actually practice law,
15:44which is the vocation that you've chosen
15:45and you've gone to law school for three years
15:47and probably incurred, I don't know,
15:49200 to $300,000 in debt for?
15:52Yeah, that doesn't sound difficult at all.
15:54Mimshot asks,
15:55change my view.
15:56If I'm not guilty,
15:57I wanna be tried by a judge rather than a jury.
15:59Most people don't realize that
16:01if you are being charged with a crime,
16:03you almost always have the option to be tried
16:06by a judge instead of a jury.
16:08Some people believe that
16:09if you have a really complicated technical case,
16:13a patent case involving technology
16:15or maybe a securities related case,
16:17you'd wanna judge because the common thinking
16:20is that the judge is going to be able
16:21to understand more complex topics.
16:23That's not always the case.
16:25Sometimes people believe
16:26that if you have a really emotional case,
16:28you'll want the jury
16:29because they are more easily swayable.
16:32That's also not always the case.
16:33It's definitely not always one or the other.
16:36Banned Yet Me Here asks,
16:37is AI art trained on stolen art or is it fair use?
16:40There are a ton of cases
16:42that are looking to answer that exact question.
16:44In general, copyright law protects artists
16:46from other people just reusing the art that they created,
16:50but there are exceptions to that.
16:51And the big one is considered fair use
16:53where there are some circumstances
16:55where people are allowed to use that underlying art
16:58without asking for permission.
16:59A classic example on YouTube is a reaction video.
17:03There are some cases from the early 2000s,
17:05a lot of them involving Google,
17:06where Google did things
17:08that some people characterized as copyright infringement.
17:10In one of the cases, for example,
17:12Google was creating a huge database
17:14of lots of images that were on the internet.
17:16And when people would search for images
17:18on the Google search engine,
17:20Google would show a thumbnail of that image.
17:22That arguably could be considered copyright infringement,
17:25but the court allowed Google to do this
17:27under a fair use analysis,
17:29because it's really helpful for people to be able
17:31to have a thumbnail of an image
17:33without having to go to the website
17:35and see the full resolution image.
17:38And a lot of people are arguing
17:39that what AI is doing is very similar to that,
17:41and that there are similar pro-social reasons
17:44why we should allow it.
17:45And then on the other side,
17:46you have a lot of people arguing
17:47that unlike the Google case,
17:49AI is coming through,
17:50training itself on all of this original art,
17:52and then creating bad art
17:54that is replacing the original art itself.
17:58So you have a lot of vested interests on this,
17:59and both sides are arguing it out in court right now.
18:02Stormlight82 asks,
18:04do sovereign citizen defenses ever work?
18:07I'm not aware of a single sovereign citizen
18:09ever being successful.
18:11There are these people that argue
18:12that under some ridiculous interpretation
18:15of the constitution,
18:16they are not bound by the laws of the United States.
18:19They often say that they are passing through
18:22an area and therefore they're not considered drivers
18:24with respect to driving laws.
18:26If that sounds ridiculous,
18:28it's because it is.
18:29It seems to be becoming more popular.
18:31Now I've been in court
18:32when I've seen people try to pull this stuff
18:34in front of a judge,
18:34and the judges will just simply not put up with this.
18:36Ghanials asks,
18:38to what extent are Mr. Beast's illegal lotteries
18:40actually illegal?
18:41A lottery is in general illegal in the United States.
18:45We sometimes forget that
18:46because lots of states have a state-sponsored lottery,
18:49which means that they had to have a carve out
18:51in the law that says we're the state,
18:53we're allowed to do a lottery
18:54that would otherwise be illegal if an individual did it.
18:57But an individual can get around this
18:58by running a sweepstakes,
18:59which is something that looks like a lottery,
19:01but it allows someone to participate for free
19:03or by doing something
19:05that doesn't have much hardship associated with it.
19:07And it seems like back in the day,
19:08Mr. Beast, along with a lot of YouTubers,
19:10was running basically a lottery
19:12where someone had to actually make a purchase
19:15to participate in it.
19:16If there is no free or nearly free option,
19:20it will be considered an illegal lottery,
19:22but I don't think this is gonna be something like a felony.
19:25If they are prosecuted for it,
19:27it would be a very small slap on the wrist.
19:30Moment M on YT asks,
19:31high school student,
19:32I'm not allowed to sit for the pledge,
19:34despite being in a public school
19:35and despite having warned multiple staff.
19:37Well, that's a big no-no.
19:39One of the foundational cases on the First Amendment
19:42for both freedom of speech
19:44and also freedom of religion
19:45is West Virginia versus Barnett
19:47that established in 1943
19:49that individual students can't be compelled
19:52to participate in the flag salute.
19:54So while this is not legal advice,
19:55if you're not gonna talk to a lawyer,
19:57maybe you can go online
19:58and print out that particular case
19:59and show it to your teacher and your principal,
20:01because they should not be forcing you
20:03to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.
20:05Shellshock321 asks,
20:06why is double jeopardy a thing,
20:07especially if evidence can be brought forward
20:09after the trial?
20:10Well, the founders were very concerned
20:12about a practice that was going on in continental Europe
20:15before and at the time of the founding of this country.
20:18Some countries allowed for multiple prosecutions in serial
20:22if the crown or the state
20:24was unable to get a prosecution the first time.
20:26They would just simply refile the same charges
20:28and keep doing it until the person ran out of resources.
20:32So the founders included the prohibition
20:34against double jeopardy to prevent being charged
20:37with the same crime multiple times.
20:39If you are acquitted by a jury,
20:41you cannot then be re-prosecuted by that same sovereign.
20:45Now, there are quasi exceptions to this.
20:47Sometimes if you are acquitted on a federal level,
20:50the states can sometimes file charges
20:52over the same conduct.
20:53But for the most part, once you're acquitted,
20:55that's it, you get to go home forever.
20:57Marvelman1788 asks,
20:59can the president of the United States pardon himself?
21:01That's open for debate.
21:03Article two, section two of the constitution states
21:05that the president quote,
21:06shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
21:08for offenses against the United States,
21:10except in cases of impeachment.
21:12Now that doesn't include an exception
21:14for the president pardoning themself.
21:16It simply says the president has the pardon power
21:19regarding offenses against the United States,
21:20which means the president can pardon infractions
21:23of federal law, but not state law.
21:25And there is an exception for cases of impeachment.
21:28Now, some people say that that means that the president
21:30cannot pardon themself if they are being impeached
21:33for that particular offense.
21:35And since some people argue that the only thing
21:36that can be done to a president is impeach them,
21:38the president can never pardon themself
21:40for any particular crime.
21:41And while a self-pardon has never been tested in court,
21:44the Office of Legal Counsel,
21:45which is the part of the Department of Justice
21:47that examines things for constitutionality,
21:49they wrote a memo saying that the president
21:52did not have the power to self-pardon,
21:54but OLC memos do not have the force of law.
21:57So until the Supreme Court weighs in
21:59on this particular question, we'll never know for sure.
22:01Mart1373 asks, under the second amendment,
22:04can you openly carry a bomb, mortar,
22:06or even a nuclear bomb as your arms?
22:08Why or why not?
22:09Well, the second amendment
22:10to the United States constitution states,
22:12a well-regulated militia being necessary
22:13to the security of a free state,
22:15the right of the people to keep and bear arms
22:17shall not be infringed.
22:18Now, still to this day, the Supreme Court
22:19hasn't worked out all the limitations on the rights
22:22that this second amendment confers on individuals
22:24at this point.
22:25Now, certainly there are a lot of people
22:26who have argued that the kinds of arms
22:28that are covered by the second amendment
22:29should be the ones that are analogous
22:30to the ones that the founders of the constitution had
22:32at the time of the drafting of the second amendment.
22:35And there are lots of people that argue
22:37that people should be allowed to have basically anything
22:40that would be helpful in overthrowing
22:41a tyrannical government.
22:42And they look to the precatory language
22:44of the second amendment that says that it exists
22:46for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.
22:49And there were certainly a lot of people
22:50that argued that that same language
22:52about a well-regulated militia being necessary
22:54to the security of a free state
22:56meant that this was never supposed to be
22:57an individual right for citizens in the first place.
22:59But at this point, I don't know
23:00that there is a satisfying definition of arms
23:02that would allow handguns and rifles,
23:04but not allow bombs and mortars and nuclear bombs.
23:07We'll see what the Supreme Court comes up with.
23:09TheDarkestCharizard asks,
23:11why exactly can't felons vote?
23:13Well, whether you can vote as a convicted felon
23:14depends on the particular state that you're in.
23:17Some states say that if you're convicted of a felony,
23:19you can never vote again.
23:20Others say that you can only not vote
23:22while you are currently serving your punishment as a felon.
23:25And some states say you absolutely can still vote.
23:28I happen to think that if you have served the punishment
23:31for your crime, you have served your debt to society
23:33and thus you should be able to participate
23:36in the voting process again.
23:37MythicMango asks,
23:39why are social media companies responsible
23:41for the content their users post?
23:43Well, actually, it's basically the other way around.
23:45Almost all social media companies are not responsible
23:48for the content that their users post.
23:51And the reason is twofold.
23:52One is the First Amendment.
23:53And the second is a law called Section 230
23:57of the Communications Decency Act.
23:58Section 230 says that if you have a website or a platform,
24:02generally speaking, you are not responsible
24:05for the content that another person posts.
24:07So for example, if someone uploads a video
24:09that engages in copyright infringement,
24:11YouTube is generally not responsible for that.
24:14Or if you're buying something on Craigslist
24:17and someone puts a fraudulent post up there,
24:19Craigslist isn't responsible for that fraudulent post.
24:22And Section 230 is one of the fundamental laws
24:24that allows the internet to be what it is.
24:27If every website was responsible for every single post
24:31that a user created,
24:33there probably wouldn't be platforms
24:34as we understand them today.
24:36So one of the other important factors of Section 230
24:39is that it allows platforms to remove offensive or violence
24:44or spam content from their platforms
24:47without taking on ownership of that particular speech.
24:50And if those kinds of protections were removed,
24:52you'd basically see platforms either engaging
24:54in no filtering and removal at all,
24:57or it would engage in so much filtering
24:59that there would barely be anything on there at all.
25:01At Barstool Syria asks,
25:03can someone show me the law that says doxing is illegal?
25:06Doxing, generally speaking, revealing information
25:09about a particular individual is not itself per se illegal,
25:13but there are other laws that it can run afoul of.
25:15There are harassment and stalking laws.
25:18This often comes up in the context
25:19of social media platforms
25:21where there might be something in the terms of service
25:24that says, even though doxing itself might not be illegal,
25:27we think it's kind of a dick move.
25:29So we're not going to allow users to do it.
25:31And if you do do it, we might kick you off the platform.
25:34So even if doxing itself isn't illegal,
25:36you might get kicked off a platform if you engage in it.
25:38Jay Weller 12 asks,
25:39would aliens from other planets
25:41have legal basic human rights?
25:42So there's a couple of different ways to think about this.
25:44In the US, generally animals are considered chattel property,
25:48meaning they don't have human rights in and of themselves.
25:51In some European countries,
25:53more intelligent animals do have some rights
25:56that are bordering on human-like rights,
25:59like the greater apes, for example.
26:00But I think a lot of people would argue
26:01that a space-faring intelligence
26:03should be considered analogous to humans
26:06and therefore receive basically the same thing
26:08as human rights.
26:09But I think the more important question is,
26:11if you have a species that's so intelligent
26:14that they can travel through space and visit us on earth,
26:17what rights are they going to give humans?
26:19Sharp Cartographer 831 asks,
26:21can AI be blamed for a teen suicide?
26:23That's a really interesting question.
26:25And it probably depends on what you mean by blamed.
26:28Now, there was a very famous case involving two humans
26:31where a young woman was found guilty
26:34for basically encouraging the suicide of her boyfriend.
26:37Under those circumstances,
26:38that young woman was found guilty
26:40of involuntary manslaughter,
26:41and that was upheld on appeal.
26:43That being said, I'm not sure an AI algorithm
26:45could be held to a criminal standard in that respect.
26:49So you'd have to look to the programmers
26:51and the people running the company.
26:52If, for example, there's a defect found in the program,
26:55or they're found to have created a negligent product
26:58that they didn't uphold the industry standards
27:01that they should have,
27:02then it's possible that they might be found civilly liable.
27:05And this has come up recently in the AI context,
27:07because in 2024, a young boy in Florida
27:10developed a relationship with a character.ai chatbot
27:13that eventually encouraged him to commit suicide,
27:15and he followed through with it.
27:17Gip, Gip on that tip.
27:19If you shoot someone,
27:20because they invaded your house and they die,
27:22will you still go to jail for murder?
27:23Generally speaking, it depends on what state you're in,
27:26because some states have what's called the castle doctrine,
27:29which generally allows the use of deadly force
27:32for someone that has trespassed on your property itself.
27:34And it also depends on whether the state
27:36has a duty to retreat or not.
27:38Some states require you to retreat
27:40if you are reasonably able to do so
27:42before you are privileged
27:43to use deadly force against someone.
27:45ConsiderationReal995 asks,
27:47why does every state have its own laws?
27:50That's because the United States,
27:51at least when it was originally founded,
27:52was a very loose amalgam of different sovereigns.
27:55The founders were concerned
27:56that a very strong federal government
27:58would act like a king.
28:00And so they made sure that all 13 states
28:03retained a fair amount of power.
28:05And each state has what's called plenary authority.
28:07Now over time,
28:08the federal government became more powerful,
28:11but generally speaking,
28:12because the founders wanted to make sure
28:14that the states weren't trading one tyrant for another,
28:17they made sure that the states were able
28:19to exercise their own sovereign authority.
28:21A Reddit user asks,
28:21what are some laws you think every American
28:23should know about?
28:24I think the two most important ones are,
28:26the First Amendment allows you to speak your mind,
28:29but remember that just because you have the right
28:32to freedom of expression,
28:33when you do exercise that freedom,
28:35the First Amendment does not protect you
28:36from the consequences of saying something
28:38really, really stupid.
28:40But remember,
28:40if you do exercise those First Amendment rights,
28:42and the police come around asking you questions,
28:45you also have a right under the Fifth Amendment
28:47to shut the up.
28:48So that's all the questions,
28:49and I'm gonna exercise my own Fifth Amendment rights
28:51to shut up.
28:52And until next time,
28:53I will see you in court.