"Seeing this come from someone in the legal profession is deeply concerning, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a "Biglaw first year" is in favor of restrictions on speech that would elevate their corporate clients' interests over the public's."
Pretty dumb ad hominem, and demonstrates you know few young lawyers (lawyers on the whole tend to actually be pretty left, and young lawyers in biglaw tend often to be pretty far-left compared to the general population). The corporations are not too harmed either way, in any event, at least far as I can tell.
Personally, one of my main motivations to go to law school was to sort of shore up the center. I wasn't surprised people were stupid enough to vote for Trump, but I came to realize that this stupidity and the often blind hatred for "the establishment" on both political fringes posed an actual threat to society. My classmates/peers tend to be more staunchly on the progressive side of things.
Even conceding you know more about the history of mass communication than I do, I don't see how what you're saying supports either side of this. But this is useful context, so thanks, I'm happy to be corrected (see this is actually good speech because you're lending knowledge to the situation).
That isn't an ad hominem. I haven't attacked your position because of your obvious conflict of interest, I've merely pointed it out. I didn't say, "This person is a corporate shill and so you shouldn't listen to them about free speech!" I said, "It makes sense that you would be in favor of restrictions on speech that benefit your clients." I'm not casting doubt on your argument because of your bias. In fact, I attack your position's substance head on by providing actual historic context.
I could not be further from an ad hominem if I tried.
And I'm well aware of the supposed leftist slant of younger biglaw lawyers. I just don't acknowledge it as a true value they hold. Actions speak louder than words, and biglaw on the whole works against liberal values.
Pretty dumb ad hominem, and demonstrates you know few young lawyers (lawyers on the whole tend to actually be pretty left, and young lawyers in biglaw tend often to be pretty far-left compared to the general population). The corporations are not too harmed either way, in any event, at least far as I can tell.
Personally, one of my main motivations to go to law school was to sort of shore up the center. I wasn't surprised people were stupid enough to vote for Trump, but I came to realize that this stupidity and the often blind hatred for "the establishment" on both political fringes posed an actual threat to society. My classmates/peers tend to be more staunchly on the progressive side of things.
Even conceding you know more about the history of mass communication than I do, I don't see how what you're saying supports either side of this. But this is useful context, so thanks, I'm happy to be corrected (see this is actually good speech because you're lending knowledge to the situation).