The intensifying legal battle between Apple and the Government of the United States of America is blowing my mind. The legal briefs coming out of Cupertino are awesome reading for those of us who care about silly stuff like freedom and liberty and iPhones. Here are some of the excerpts everyone was talking about on Twitter today.

Here, Apple is saying, "If it pleases the court, tell the FBI to go fuck themselves." pic.twitter.com/OxzaaOjNwj — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

On Twitter today, forensic scientist and O'Reilly author Jonathan Ździarski highlighted notable snippets of new legal briefs filed by Apple, which you can read here on Mashable's servers.

‏"Here," tweets Ździarski about the snippet screengrabbed above, "Apple is saying, 'If it pleases the court, tell the FBI to go fuck themselves.'"

From Ździarski's analysis today of what may happen next in FBI vs. Apple:

Should the government have carte blanche rights to force anyone to work for them? Should the privacy of people's entire past be subject to a warrant? Should people be allowed to have private conversations, private thoughts, private ideas – all things stored on people's iPhones – subject to search by the government? I am honestly in shock, and saddened by the fact that any of these questions could be raised at all in this country. The fundamental construct of our constitution, and the basic human rights they were based on, have answered these questions for hundreds of years – a free society cannot live without privacy. A free society cannot live without freedom from tyranny. A free society cannot live without free speech, or under the fear that your speech and thoughts will be used to imprison you. The questions that the Department of Justice is posing, at the very core of the matter, are questions of whether or not we should be a free people. The very government that we founded to protect our liberties is now, in a very raw way, questioning them. This should shock you. It should shock every American, and it is no doubt shocking the rest of the watching world. How can the freest country in the world, a beacon for those in oppressive countries, lay down their speech, their privacy, their identities over a dead terrorist's iPhone? The shootings that took place in San Bernardino were horrible and flat out evil, and I mourned for the victims… but the greatest damage that Syed Farook stands to cause is to our country and our constitutional rights as a whole; giving up our rights will ultimately affect the liberty and safety of generations to come. Make no mistake about it – Syed Farook would be pleased to see this agenda being played out in the court system today. We should not be pleased. We should be indignant. We should be deeply offended. Offended that anyone would attempt to curtail rights that our families have died, and continue dying, to protect.

More from Ździarski's tweeted analysis, and that of others who read the brief, below.

It's very clear from this brief that Apple is schooling DOJ, and doing it quite well. — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

As always, this is an excellent brief from Apple. I would read it regardless, like I would read a good book. https://t.co/ITNVeGJ0By — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander (Apple engineer) points out NIST defined Root of Trust as a "security component" and endorsed it. pic.twitter.com/lJeJVO3vf2 — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Today I learned that #Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ. — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 15, 2016

Craig Federighi reaffirms that, as the SVP of Software Engineering, he's never worked to create a backdoor. pic.twitter.com/jG5aIUMMTN — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

@GlennF Today's conf. call was very different in tone from last week's. Last week: slightly outraged. Today: measured logical confidence. — John Gruber (@gruber) March 15, 2016

Apple's brief was interesting reading. They make the DOJ/FBI lawyers sound like they are 8 year olds with a too-high Adderall dosage. — Glenn Fleishman (@GlennF) March 15, 2016

I suspect any Apple engineer sufficiently qualified to write the code, should she or he exercise conscience, would be employable elsewhere. — Glenn Fleishman (@GlennF) March 15, 2016

This is a really important point about the evidence contained on Farook's phone. Read this again. https://t.co/AzVfCppmej — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander: FBI must have been looking at the wrong screen when checking their facts. pic.twitter.com/7qLshyrh2t — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Props to Neuenschwander for completely dismantling many of FBI's inaccurate claims with the humility of a tech support specialist. — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander is saying that the lack of evidence found in Farook's iCloud *really does* indicate he had no mail, photos, notes to backup. — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander: Vulnerabilities and jailbreaking are EXACTLY why this code could be hacked to run anywhere. pic.twitter.com/MVC6RpehpH — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

As I (and many others) have been saying: Data backed up to iCloud is not encrypted with a user's passcode. BEWARE. pic.twitter.com/7rrFi9C0S5 — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander: There's hardly anyone at Apple that can even do this, and they're busy making SECURITY happen. pic.twitter.com/X8eZ4Z3rHz — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Neuenschwander: Employees will become high risk targets thanks to this, and we can't classify names like you can. pic.twitter.com/ZLS1kCYg3S — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Boeing is developing a secure version of Android exclusively for government use. pic.twitter.com/leafCCRXLB — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Apple: We're painters. We're singers. We're authors. We're these that dream dreams. You can't force our craft. pic.twitter.com/Pb97mvwDJn — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Apple: Cryptographic signatures mean we're endorsing [dangerous] code. pic.twitter.com/OcrqtF0YqX — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Apple decided to quote the San Bernardino Police Chief to drive their point home. pic.twitter.com/3C8Ng0BLyn — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Apple enumerates all of the excellent ways in which code is speech. pic.twitter.com/TUCoAVr0La — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016

Apple does an excellent job discrediting claims about the Aaron Burr case. pic.twitter.com/A0XkV3epwf — Jonathan Ździarski (@JZdziarski) March 15, 2016