40 Times Overconfident People Gave “Law Advice” And Got Shamed By The “Bad Legal Takes” Twitter Account
We all learnt from an early age that the world is an unfair place. But hundreds of Judge Judy episodes and thousands of AskReddit threads later, many of us surely feel like armchair lawyers ready to fight for what they feel is right.
The problem is that these bootleg law officers have more legal advice to give than anyone could have ever asked for. From sharing uninvited legal advice to posting fake legal news, there’s a whole law and order waiting on the other sides of the screens.
But there’s one account that’s ready to bust ‘em all, and it’s called “Bad Legal Takes.” With 181.5k followers, the page is dedicated to posting the worst legal takes on Twitter and some of them are more than cringy. So get your judge’s robe from the dry cleaners, everyone, we’re about to feast on some delusional drama.
This post may include affiliate links.
Legal advice from armchair lawyers happens quite often in the online world, where everyone feels like they know things better. But in the real world, being given unwanted advice is also no less annoying. In many cases, it causes stress, offends people, and annoys the hell out of them. So why do people repeatedly give unwanted advice if it's so annoying?
To find out about the psychology behind unwanted advice, Bored Panda talked to clinical psychologist Dr. Vicki Creanor, who focuses on helping people (adults, adolescents, and children) with anxiety, depression, and sleep problems. “First of all, I think it’s important to take into consideration that some people who give us advice are doing so from a good place, a thoughtful place,” Vicki said and added: “So try and recognize those people—even if you disagree with their opinions on the subject.”
Anyone who uses the word "libtard"is telling you what comes next will be crazy/ hateful
It is absolutely constitutional to murder. Read Idiot's opinion in BS vs Dumbass
“However, there are people in life (and we all know someone like this!) who like to assume the role of expert and feel the need to tell you how they would do something, what you should be doing, or what you’re doing wrong. And this gets our back up.”
Much of the time, Vicki believes these situations originate from someone needing to feel superior in some way, “often due to a deep-rooted low self-esteem.” According to the psychologist, “By taking on the role of ‘expert’ and imparting their knowledge, they might feel better about themselves.”
Um, this person has never even seen the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.
“So have a think about which type of person you’re dealing with, first of all. Someone who means well? Or someone who is solely aiming to meet their own needs through their expert status.” If it’s the former, Vicki suggests taking a breath, thanking them, and perhaps saying something like, “that’s an interesting idea. I’ll have a think about how best I can approach this.” If it’s the latter type, “the same approach may work, but this person can be more likely to check in with you again to see if you did what they suggested!”
On the other hand, when you are offered regular unwanted advice by these people, “setting boundaries is really important to help you stay calm, because it can be frustrating,” Vicki said. “Often, if those with low self esteem and a need for being in a superior role are met with an angry stance, they feel threatened and can lash out verbally and emotionally, making the situation worse.”
Here are a couple of statements that may come in handy when handling unwanted advice: “Thanks—I hear what you’re saying and I already have some ideas about how I can work this out”; “Thanks—I will let you know if I need any advice about it in the future, but I have some good options at the moment for how to handle it.”
“And for when you’re feeling a bit more assertive—or if advice is offered even when there isn’t an issue from your point of view: ‘I appreciate you’re trying to help, but I’m comfortable with what I’m doing just now and it would mean a lot to me if you could respect that.’”
Vicki reminds us that politeness goes a long way. “But boundaries are often required to separate out someone else’s needs from yours,” she adds.
No, HIPAA prevents a person with access to medical records from disclosing your medical records to a third party.
This idiot can't even write properly. What do you expect of her? Her reasoning and logic must be as unsound as her grammar.
Did this person just "invent" the definition of dictatorship?
I remember when The Onion wasn't my reality. Ah, I miss that...
Load More Replies...
No this is not defamation, and seems pretty clearly a case of parody which falls under Fair Use. You could probably make an argument either way so I don't think this one belongs here.
the Babylon Bee is satire (much like The Onion). it made a joke about the Cat in the Hat book, and Seuss Enterprises threatened to sue for "defamation". they can't sue. and anyway, it's just a joke on a satire website, so it's not exactly a big deal
Load More Replies...
I did find the idea of the Cat in the Hat being *that* naughty hilarious though
They used copyrighted images to write satire and profit from it. Can't do that.
At least in the US, where Babylon is based, what they did is the very definition of fair use. Stanford school of law has this to say about it: "In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner."
Load More Replies...
Some people will see the article at first glance and boycott it within seconds. They WILL lose SOME amount of money over this 'joke'. I don't see how it's okay to make it your choice to jeopardize someone elses reputation for your own gain, then when asked to stop you then attempt to humiliate them. In what world is it right?
Well, for satire or not, if you use a beloved character with a copyright, you have to ask for it... it is in the name copy - right.
Sorry but you are just wrong. Satire is considered “fair use” and permission is NOT required from the copyright holder.
Load More Replies...
The Babylon Bee is quality content, I can't believe how often someone threatens them with legal action over *satire*.
these guys who want to turn back the clock and MAGA....i wonder do they realize i knew girls in high school in the seventies who were legally able to get abortions behind their parents' back? sure, let's turn the clock back so some imaginary time that never existed in this reality...
I think their idealised decade is more the 1950s than the 1970s.
Load More Replies...
While it may technically fall under fair use as satire, a copyright holder must defend their exclusive rights, otherwise, they will lose them. If the Bee wants to defend this use, we have courts for that.
If this is fair use, the Seuss estate should leave this. They know they're better funded than the Bee and know Bee can't afford to go to court like they can. They're trying to manipulate this with their money
Load More Replies...
better than the onion who hasn't had anything funny since 2013
Load More Replies...
Probably as annoying as the Republican RINO Trump trash. You know, the cop killers. That's pretty annoying.
Load More Replies...
This is sadly a really common thing, be it incel or troll. Anonymity makes a hateful coward feel powerful
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! She doesn't even know which country she is throwing a fit about.
Actually, it was a bible, but it was her personal bible. AND there is no law that says a person has to be sworn in on the bible. Franklin Pierce, John Quincy Adams, and Theodore Roosevelt were sworn in without bibles. They raised their right hands and took the oath of office. Johnson used a book that Jackie Kennedy found in John's bedroom on Air Force One. It was a book of missives. Other elected officials have been sworn in on the Koran or the Jewish bible, a few have even used law books.
The First Amendment guarantees that a person won't be prosecuted or persecuted by the government for speech. It doesn't say anything about freedom from consequences. You can't tell your boss to f*ck off and expect to keep your job. You won't go to jail for telling him to f*ck off, but you most likely won't have a job any longer.
Honestly, I am quite impressed that she knows Nuremberg codes. But given that Krispy Kreme is not in a field of medicine nor clinical research, I don't think it applies to them.
If ur on roads built and owned by the state/country then you gotta be registered and pay 🤦♀️ you can't select which laws you follow. (There's a 'cops' style show here, police 10-7, and you see this crap so much. And majority that are the most angry and adamant are older, somewhat 'well educated' (ie have money and or white), and convinced they can just drive around not paying rego, not realising they are refusing one tax but paying several others via buying petrol and buying the car 🤦♀️ x Argh = Me atm
What a domestic terrorist. I'd be terrified if I ever found myself anywhere near his domocile
"And they do not have the legal authority to do so". I can't believe I share a planet with someone like this
"Should of".... is the common introduction to a lot of certified taurus fertilizer.
Note: this post originally had 73 images. It’s been shortened to the top 40 images based on user votes.
For the Law and Order Party, the conservatives know very little of the law.
American's are obsessed with their "rights" (that may or may not even exist...)
Did you spot the one where they also think THEIR constitution and Acts apply to the UK as well?
Load More Replies... 
All these people claiming companies are "public" like they are Socialist. Sigh.
Even funnier, they aren't even contesting that this would be a bad, commie, thing
Load More Replies...
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of f*cking reality!
Load More Replies...
Now I have to know... is it frozen in a cardboard can like orange juice? Or is it more of an extract in a tiny bottle?
Load More Replies...
I always wonder if americans have any idea what it truly takes to sue someone. It's as though they think they just get money directly from the person they want to sue and it's like cash... something like that.
It's not lack of context, it's lack of reality, but yes that's confusing
Load More Replies... Why.... does everyone think they know about the law? They're almost never right. Not even remotely. Plus so many laws differ from state to state or at least they differ on who will handle them how they will handle them.
It would have been nice if there was an explanation to the Tweets and to why they are wrong
It would be nice if there was a bit of explanation to why these are bad legal takes? Just for someone like me who isn't a lawyer or someone in the know to why the legal thing that the person has said is wrong.
The level of stupid in these tweets are enough to give anyone an aneurysm
For the Law and Order Party, the conservatives know very little of the law.
American's are obsessed with their "rights" (that may or may not even exist...)
Did you spot the one where they also think THEIR constitution and Acts apply to the UK as well?
Load More Replies... All these people claiming companies are "public" like they are Socialist. Sigh.
Even funnier, they aren't even contesting that this would be a bad, commie, thing
Load More Replies... There's a fundamental misunderstanding of f*cking reality!
Load More Replies... Now I have to know... is it frozen in a cardboard can like orange juice? Or is it more of an extract in a tiny bottle?
Load More Replies... I always wonder if americans have any idea what it truly takes to sue someone. It's as though they think they just get money directly from the person they want to sue and it's like cash... something like that.
It's not lack of context, it's lack of reality, but yes that's confusing
Load More Replies... Why.... does everyone think they know about the law? They're almost never right. Not even remotely. Plus so many laws differ from state to state or at least they differ on who will handle them how they will handle them.
It would have been nice if there was an explanation to the Tweets and to why they are wrong
It would be nice if there was a bit of explanation to why these are bad legal takes? Just for someone like me who isn't a lawyer or someone in the know to why the legal thing that the person has said is wrong.
The level of stupid in these tweets are enough to give anyone an aneurysm
