You're correct, now I want to see this film more than anything else put out this year.
J. D.
@jdetc.bsky.social
2.1K followers 982 following 11K posts
Chicago/ish. Civil/ish litigator. Left-center/ish. Elder Millennial. He/him. Interests/etc.: 1A/defamation, lolsuits, half of true crime, food, Cubs, Chi teams other than the Sox, EPL/soccer, art/architecture, film, indie music, enviro issues, tech
![Second, the district court speculated that some libraries and bookstores may
try to comply with § 1 by “creating strict adults-only areas — into which would go
potentially hundreds of books, from disposable paperback romance novels to
classics of literature like Romeo and Juliet, Ulysses, Catcher in the Rye, The
Handmaid’s Tale, or The Kite Runner.” But courts cannot conjure up their own 18-
hypotheticals en route to striking down laws as overbroad. See Snider v. City of
Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he fact one can conceive
of an impermissible application of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible
to an overbreadth challenge.”). Rather, they must “perform the necessary inquiry
set forth in NetChoice,” GLBT Youth, 114 F.4th at 670, which turns on the plaintiff’s
actual evidentiary record. See N.Y. State Club Ass’n v. City of New York, 487 U.S.
1, 14 (1988) (holding plaintiffs must “demonstrate from the text of [the law] and
from actual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which the [l]aw cannot
be applied constitutionally” to prevail on overbreadth challenges).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ohzrxr6bqzrfkdwxtosdflxv/bafkreiblfshr2zxmkk3punrdj4ufoj57dp7w57byypkxn4ztlau6g74tvy)
![ChatGPT created a roughly 30-page report that included the line “From a technical and standard-of-care standpoint, 3M is 0% responsible for the January 24, 2020 explosion.” This line did not make it into the final report filed with the court, because when Autenrieth later asked ChatGPT to “review this as the opposing council,” ChatGPT determined that writing “‘0% responsible’ is an easy target” for a lawyer to poke holes in, and is one of several "phrases [that] let opposing counsel paint you as an advocate rather than an expert."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ohzrxr6bqzrfkdwxtosdflxv/bafkreifmfsmxn3sxawum5wiwbtnnli4v22da5yoercx7dvqnpxrh2i4c34)
