To defuse the clickbait for what amounts to a long commercial for a law firm, the âfive wordsâ the title refers to is the Bivens act, a proposed law which would add the five words âof the United States orâ to an existing law allowing people to seek recourse against State or Local officials for abuse of Constitutional rights, basically adding Federal officials to those State and Local constrained by the law. (This is my understanding as a layperson, Iâm no lawyer and Iâd appreciate any corrections.)
As a proposed law which has been floating around in Congress since 2024 and is effectively dead now, and which certainly doesnât align with the fascist controlling partyâs goals, it has approximately a snowballâs chance in hell of anything coming of it besides masturbatory videos like this making some chumps some change.
With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.
However, an important part of the video, the "We Are Not Powerless" chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but itâs a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.
Personally, I think itâs a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.
However, if you donât have time to watch a ~30 min video. Iâll help you skip to the end.
TLDR: If the 5 words âof The United States or âŚâ were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue âfederal agentsâ for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and itâs amendments.
PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.
âjust watch the video, itâs fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded adâ is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
(While itâs stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me âi did watch the videoâ cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway
Because that is how modern content is consumed these days. No one reads anymore, and that presumably includes this very message.
Edit: The pair of comments attached to this are kind of a case in point, and not doing anything to restore my faith in anybodyâs literacy. Although perhaps this is intentional as some subtle form of satire.
PeachPie đ
CubitOom
Ascrod
To defuse the clickbait for what amounts to a long commercial for a law firm, the âfive wordsâ the title refers to is the Bivens act, a proposed law which would add the five words âof the United States orâ to an existing law allowing people to seek recourse against State or Local officials for abuse of Constitutional rights, basically adding Federal officials to those State and Local constrained by the law. (This is my understanding as a layperson, Iâm no lawyer and Iâd appreciate any corrections.)
More info:
As a proposed law which has been floating around in Congress since 2024 and is effectively dead now, and which certainly doesnât align with the fascist controlling partyâs goals, it has approximately a snowballâs chance in hell of anything coming of it besides masturbatory videos like this making some chumps some change.
Why do we need a video to share five words!?
Specifically, why do we need a 25-minute long video to share five words?
Because the channel is a lawyer. They usually bill by the minute.
Video is just another form of media.
With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.
However, an important part of the video, the "We Are Not Powerless" chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but itâs a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.
Personally, I think itâs a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.
However, if you donât have time to watch a ~30 min video. Iâll help you skip to the end.
TLDR: If the 5 words âof The United States or âŚâ were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue âfederal agentsâ for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and itâs amendments.
PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.
Donât even need those 5 words. Just need congress to enforce that the congressional record and the federal register are actually in agreement.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
That law was illegally amended, by a single secretary in 1884. Which is what has led to the QI crisis.
âjust watch the video, itâs fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded adâ is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
(While itâs stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)
how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me âi did watch the videoâ cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway
To monetize saying five words is my guess
Because that is how modern content is consumed these days. No one reads anymore, and that presumably includes this very message.
Edit: The pair of comments attached to this are kind of a case in point, and not doing anything to restore my faith in anybodyâs literacy. Although perhaps this is intentional as some subtle form of satire.
Deleted by moderator
Upvote bate comment. Clever.
lol lib bullshitâŚ
You only need two words: âAbolish ICEâ.
I agree, being able to sue the fascist doesnât fix the issue but itâs better than them having total immunity.