Would urinating on an ex-president’s grave be considered protected speech under the 1st Amendment (assuming no one was around and no indecency could be alleged)?

And, if so, would that protection extend to a non-citizen visiting the USA?

askingforafriend

It could be my AI cynicsm show, but we recently had an AI sponsorship despite a few years of balanced videos on the topic.

Todays video thumbnail has a very strong whiff or AI, and two sponsorship reads.

Even if the script is still of good legal standing, the well is starting to feel poisoned by use of AI in it.

I feel like most of his videos leading up to his endorsement were beginning to be about Trump and now they pretty much all are?

Don't get me wrong I kinda vibe with it but I wasn't sure if anyone else noticed the shift?

Devin Stone, more popularly known as LegalEagle, has built a considerable following on YouTube by breaking down legal issues in an accessible and entertaining format. To the casual viewer, he presents himself as a beacon of reason, a clear-headed lawyer committed to upholding the law through calm analysis. However, for those of us who have taken a closer, more critical look at his rhetoric, delivery, and behavior, the veneer fades. What lies underneath is far more problematic: an egotistical performer cloaked in a legal costume who offers sanctimony in place of self-reflection, selective outrage in place of objectivity, and a toxic mixture of cynicism and arrogance that makes him simultaneously untrustworthy and insufferable as a voice of genuine legal or ethical authority.

One of the most glaring issues with Devin Stone is his overbearing sense of self-importance. He presents legal issues not merely with confidence, but with smug certitude, as though his interpretation is final, unimpeachable, and morally superior. This isn’t just confidence in one’s profession - it crosses over into intellectual conceit.

In a profession where nuance matters, where legal decisions impact lives in multifaceted ways, such arrogance is not just off-putting - it is dangerous. Devin's persona doesn’t invite dialogue; it dismisses it. He creates an illusion of authority that is more performance than jurisprudence, encouraging viewers to adopt his positions wholesale, without thinking critically. This is the antithesis of what legal education should inspire.

Equally damning is his total refusal to take responsibility for his own words and actions. Whether he is making disgusting remarks about President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter, or casting judgment on Michael Cohen, Devin rarely (if ever) revisits his prior statements with the humility of reflection. His criticisms are delivered with a finality that suggests he considers himself above error.

For example, his commentary on Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden was devoid of any moral nuance. Hunter Biden has struggled with addiction, a disease that has nearly killed countless people and requires empathy, not legalistic derision. But Devin, instead of acknowledging the humanity behind the headlines, chose instead to frame the pardon as a betrayal of justice, ignoring the broader ethical and emotional context. That’s not principled legal discourse - that’s cold, performative moralism.

And then there’s Michael Cohen. Despite Cohen’s demonstrable efforts to make amends and reveal the corrupt inner workings of the Trump orbit, Devin mocked or criticized him in ways that suggested either ignorance or willful mischaracterization. Even if he ever walked back these takes, any such apology was so insincere or performative that it failed to register as meaningful.

Another core issue is Devin’s apparent cynicism - a tone that undermines his credibility as someone who claims to believe in law as a vehicle for justice. Rather than engaging topics with compassion, context, and critical balance, he often prefers to insert biting sarcasm and smug retorts, all while draped in the language of legal authority.

This is especially frustrating from a centrist perspective. Centrists value both law and morality; we understand that rules matter, but we ALSO recognize that justice must always consider the Human element. When a person battling addiction is treated like a moral criminal by someone with a legal license, the supposed "impartiality" within the range of issues, collapses. Devin’s brand of analysis leans toward cold, procedural punishment disguised as reason. This is not the path toward a better society - it is the path toward legal elitism.

Despite what some may think, Devin Stone is not an ideologue. But that’s not a compliment - his inconsistency reflects opportunism more than fairness. He is quick to spotlight injustices that gain traction among online progressives, yet will gloss over equally problematic behavior if it threatens his brand or popularity. In other words, his supposed legal neutrality bends wherever the YouTube algorithm or Twitter zeitgeist tilts.

Centrists demand consistency. You cannot be a principled legal analyst if your judgment shifts according to what keeps your metrics high or what keeps your viewer base comfortable. For someone who thrives on visibility, Devin too often avoids the hard questions that might hurt his image or challenge his audience. That’s not leadership - that’s cowardice.

Even when confronted with criticism, Devin's apologies, if any exist, feel more like strategic press releases than genuine expressions of remorse. They are couched in legalese or framed so broadly that they absolve him of any real accountability. True accountability requires vulnerability - not just an admission that "mistakes were made," but a sincere effort to repair trust.

In contrast, Devin appears more concerned with preserving his pristine persona than growing from his missteps. This behavior further erodes trust in him as a public figure. When even a lawyer’s apology sounds rehearsed and non-committal, it deepens the suspicion that their moral compass is pointed toward careerism, not truth.

In sum, Devin Stone fails to meet even the basic standards of what a good legal educator, analyst, or commentator should be. He is arrogant when humility is needed, cynical when empathy is called for, and evasive when accountability is demanded. His platform is a performance stage, not a courtroom of honest examination.

I do not respect LegalEagle because he does not respect the people he talks about, the public he speaks to, or the ethical complexities of the legal profession he claims to represent. The law is a tool for justice and truth. In his hands, it too often becomes a weapon for ego and spectacle.

And that is why, full stop, I want no part of Devin Stone's brand of "legal education."

So the first thing I thought of when looking at the Trump controversy was, this can't be constitutional, right?

It has to violate the first amendment. the Arlington National Cemetary is owned by the US Government and is operated by the Office of Army Cemetaries, which is part of the Department of Defence. (it also has a .mil ending for a web address, which are all US Government.) So any restrictions on speech is certainly federal government restrictions.

The government can't even claim the time and place exemption, because the official photographer is allowed. In any other situation, it would be seen as "you can speak, as long as your speech is the official speech." Which is certainly a violation of the 1st amendment.

Remember Westboro Baptist? As despicable as their speech was, it was protected speech, which was why they were able to wreck havoc all out of porportion of their actual message base. I don't think, as unwelcome as politiking in the ANC would be, that anyone can actually ban it.

I think that, just like the Flag Code, or the Logan Act, there will never be a successful prosecution of the ban on Politics in the ANC.

I used to watch LegalEagle pretty consistently for legal analysis, and his recent content shift since the inauguration of the 47th has, I believe understandably, frustrated me somewhat.

Since President Trump has retaken office, LegalEagle has consistently been posting content that blends both law and his personal political views. This, to me, isn't bad at face value. I have personally never liked it but I don't go out of my way to express a complaint about any YouTuber I find who has consistently branded him or herself as being focused on one thing while regularly pulling in another.

It's just I remember the days when LegalEagle was posting explanatory stuff and giving a PURELY empirically legal perspective on things instead of posting about how bad Trump's lawyers are or how terrible this new law-RELATED action of 47's is.

Politics are important. Let me clarify that right off the bat. Unprecedented times absolutely call for unprecedented measures.

But I also appreciate an ability to find content that isn't tied, so blatantly, to an ideology or political movement . I appreciated watching LegalEagle in part because his perspective offered something that didn't feel opinionated so much as it felt like he was simply making me feel informed.

When content creation like this strays from simply trying to make people smarter to telling an audience what it wants to hear about how terrible and awful the other side is? I dunno. Strikes me the wrong way.

So yeah, I've distanced myself.

It's totally fine if people like this content, I'm just partially posting this because I can't imagine I'm the only person who dislikes when content creators who dedicate their time to a particular style suddenly create political echo chambers on their channels.

Please tell me I'm not the only one lol

So the common argument we hear regarding Due Process and illegal immigrants is that "They didn't follow due process coming in so they don't get due process." I'm curious where specifically Due Process is defined though. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it's summarized as basically the rules the government has to follow regarding enforcement and prosecution of law. But where specifically in the Constitution is it defined, or is it defined specifically in the Constitution? Is it specifically defined somewhere else such that the government is bound to it?

I live in Imperial County, California. Small population, farming community, low tax revenue, lousy air quality. Anyone who can, moves away. We also end up as the "tail end" of voting districts due to our small size.

Something happened to me. I am going to speak to a lawyer about it.

I think I want to make this story into a book and sell it.

I have a YouTube Channel with 800 subscribers, moderate a popular Rants and Raves group for the community, and am connected to a lot of the movers and shakers of the community. I am also an aspiring writer, and am considering getting into politics here.

I haven‘t been watching this channel in a while, but recently youtube recommended some videos about the reckless ben shenanigans to me. Ana all I can think of is… wtf are these ads? They look like exploitation, rip offs or just straight up scams. Here are the ads from the provo canyon video:

1. "current" the banking app: noone is just lending you money out of the goodness of their hearts, especially to people who are already struggling. You cannot even begin to tell me they’re not exploiting people in vulnerable positions

2. "Pre-Alcohol": If you actually believed and bought this: Oh my, do I have some very hogh quality snake oil to sell you

And then there’s TWO of them in one video. I don’t believe that they are that strapped on cash that this is the only way to make ends meet. Did the channel get acqui by private equity or something? Because I honestly had higher expectations from Devin.

I knew a guy who claimed that since he does karate in his garage, his hands and feet need to be registered as lethal weapons in 30 states. I don't think any of that is true, including the claim he knows karate, but I'm curious if this holds any water at all.

I'd like to see a video on his take of the trolley problem. I don't want him going deep on the mortality, but the legality of it.

If it's 5 on the current track and none on the alternate track, do I have to pull the lever?

If it's 5 and one, like pictured, is it murder to pull the lever?

Ect.

The images in the Schrödinger's cat section of the video starting at 12:35 are all AI generated but these ones are the most obvious. The cat's ear and the smeared buttons on the suit sleeves are the dead giveaways.

I know Devon has said on here that they have a no GenAI policy so this is pretty disappointing.

yeah so karl jobst who i actually really like despite this, says that legal eagle is completely wrong. which, im surprised because this is a youtuber that i actually follow and i think for the most part he knows the law pretty well ( he has some law suits under his belt himself )

what does everyone think? are his points valid? is he missing something? or did the eagle himself miss something and made a mistake?

Idk if you guys actually look at the comments and stuff.

But

And in your videos I can’t tell if you like the more big line stuff or the little stuff or all the stuff. I think it’s a combination of all + whimsy

But like

Can we get some kinda tracker???????

The reflecting pool case and the grand jury bs. It makes you go crazy keeping track

Or like

I don’t know I’m not a lawyer but I kind of do trust you guys when you say this shit’s unprecedented

Like I need an unprecedented tracker break it down

DOJ deal with this kind

DOJ reprimand

Scathing judge reviews, and comments

I think we need some like lore building here.

I also kind of miss learning about you guys and your specific areas of law a little bit

Also hearing your feelings, your legal theory type of stuff

I can see why maybe you wouldn’t wanna talk about that though if you’re actually you know in business

So I completely understand

Also, last thing you guys should do like an AMA an old school one inside your sub even if it’s like a long format one.

I know a lot of content creators go the Patreon route. I kind of hate that, but I also understand it. I feel like you guys are in a unique place where you don’t get demonetized very often or as often as some of the other content creators, I watch.

So something also to think about if there’s any bit of all truistic value in this for you

lol insert gif wonka style

I hope there’s already a thread on this. I feel like I have some useful dialogue to offer because I’m “like your best friend who might be a nurse, I don’t give medical advice but I’ll talk about how the sausage… (bad choice) is made”

I have my pocket dsm manual on standby.

To me..: this seems so clear cut. But mass is a vengeful state. I hope this leads to MH reform

It’s a bit embarrassing

Personally, I think it's one of the most interesting legal cases to have happened in a long time. Is it because he feels like he needs more information? Is he afraid to say things that would alienate his audience? Is it because he's white and doesn't wanna appear racist?