Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim

Just straight up saying “some people at the last eyes wide shut party were really uncomfortable so you must pay”

Finally something both Republican and Democratic congresspeople can agree on.

Don’t we love common law folks? Don’t we love being ruled by Judge Kings?

Speak with your doctor to see if Free Speech™ is right for you

I'm not sure why people would think this type of legal action is no longer possible. I understand the inclination to thinking it if someone doesn't really think that much about it though.

Let me explain my thinking. If we're looking at like "The breakdown of rules, laws, and norms" in the US or adjacent to the US, there's definitely been some of that in the past ~10 years (just to put some timeline for analysis). For example, the total ignoring and pressures put on the ICC. Trump actually being charged (although that's unique for the opposite reason) but then totally getting away with everything he clearly did (well, back to the norms there...). CEOs have effectively never been held really accountable. So no change there. Monopolies used to sometimes be broken up. Now they never are. That's a change for sure.

I could go on and on, but I'll just cut to the conclusion here. There's definitely a pattern of the wealthy getting away with shit... but that goes back 10 years and all the way back forever basically. However, there's no indication, to my knowledge, that the very, very basic stuff like "You can't just arrest someone, dumbass..." has been thrown out. A lot of people that are illegally detained and have some amount of legitimate "This was incredibly fucked up" get settlements. Shit is slowrolled, individual cops never pay of course, but courts do pay out settlements for the most egregious shit. I think being falsely arrested for what cannot in anyway by any sane person he deemed "a threat" (also threats require more than words to be criminal typically. Like specifics that show intent and ability to commit the crime being threatened. A clearly articulated threat is also sort of required... otherwise, what the fuck?) is fairly egregious. It could be worse. It can almost always be worse. But this is a clear cut first amendment violation that even the hogged up judges will go "yeah, that's kinda fucked..."

There's also the optics situation. Do some health insurance fuck sticks want their name dragged for months online where literally everyone will side with the lady or just pay her whatever amount to shut up about it? They are very aware that they only get to do this evil when no one pays much attention. Right now everyone is paying attention. If she files suit though, who knows the political landscape at that future moment. People always hate the bloodsucking insurance corps though, so, good bet with the right lawyer she can get big positive PR.

Tl;dr the institutions are rotting but it's not like laws don't exist at all or that nobody can get "justice" (not really, but what the shitty system calls justice). Of course that doesn't mean it's easy to get payouts. That's why I say you need a uniquely egregious scenario and a skilled lawyer who knows how to apply pressure.

And before someone suggests it... no, they aren't gonna "Boeing whistle blower" your ass over a small (in grand scheme) defamation suit (and whatever else). They roll out the Boeing special for when a significant part of the bag is being threatened. (Remember that time Boeing just straight up assassinated whistle blowers btw??? Talk about memory hole)