What are you, a child, who thinks an argument can be deflected by yelling, "Look behind you!" Put up or shut up, hack. Where are the defamatory statements?
-
-
Replying to @Azuaron @supersarr and
Again. There are no defamatory statements until a court has made a judgement. There may be potentially defamatory statement. I might think something is defamatory. You might think that. But until tested in court they are just statements.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MFnP @supersarr and
"There are no murders unless a court has made a judgment."


Again. Courts punish defamatory statements. The statements are defamatory independent of the courts.2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @Azuaron @supersarr and
Weird non sequitur. But in essence not 100% wrong. Which is why in England we have unlawful killing verdicts in the coroner’s courts, as well as a specific crime of manslaughter. The evidence is tested. However the relevance to defamation is tenuous to say the least
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The idea that no crime is committed until the court decides it is actually beyond horrible. For example, the idea that marital rape really isn't rape when the law says it isn't is, well pretty evil.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
There's different levels of legal realism Like, there's the statutory level, and the argument over whether it makes sense to argue that something "objectively is" a crime (or "objectively should be" a crime, not quite the same thing) when the law clearly says it isn't
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
There's very few people who would say that the law as it is perfectly reflects the law as it should be (or there'd be no need for lawmakers)
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Whether that means the law-as-it-should-be "exists" (and it's meaningful to say "It was a crime even though it was legal") is this philosophical thing
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
What FnP is arguing, about legal realism on the case-by-case level -- objectively speaking there is no individual crime until you've been convicted of it -- is very disturbing to me on a different level
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Like it's not like saying marital rape isn't rape because it's legal, that's an argument most of us are much more comfortable with having It's saying that if you *do* break the law but you *don't get caught* then "in reality no crime occurred"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
It's a very cynical POV, and it's one that is useful for certain purposes Like it's true that if in real life no one ever gets prosecuted for a crime then whatever it says on paper, that crime isn't really illegal then But that doesn't make that okay
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Like from the perspective of an ordinary person in the system if you actually believe that personally then why not just do whatever your power lets you get away with If our collective faith in the law as something that really exists doesn't matter then why even have a law
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
If nothing else if *judges and juries* believe this then nothing stops them from just being tyrants Juries can decide collectively that a white man murdering a Black man just isn't illegal via nullification without ever having to argue it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.