And the idea that something that involves your personal life is automatically "private information" is absurd What if someone cheats on their wife by parading their mistress in front of everyone at the office Christmas party, then feels bad and tries to kill the story
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
Anyway to answer your question, no, laws don't have to be consistent They have exceptions and qualifications and ask that shit both written into the statute and carved out by case law all the time That's half the fun
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
I don't think "anti-doxing laws" that specifically prohibit sharing certain specific facts about someone constitute some kind of logical inconsistency with the First Amendment But I also don't actually care
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Isn't the very point of case law to maintain consistency?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @AB9RF @arthur_affect and
So the same situation doesn't end up with two different outcomes depending on the judge?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @AB9RF and
The same situation absolutely can and does end up with two different outcomes with two different judges. You don't know what you are talking about.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Interpreting law isn't always straightforward, case laws ensure interpretation is consistent in similar situations. Isn't that the whole point?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
You're not even keeping your use of the word "consistent" consistent You're talking about application of the same law being consistent over time, not laws themselves all being "consistent" with some overarching principle you think they logically imply
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
There is nothing "inconsistent" about making a law that says "It's illegal to mow your lawn on Thursdays but not any other day of the week" You can say it's *arbitrary*, but so the fuck what The whole point of a law is to add more granularity to what you're allowed to do
3 replies 2 retweets 10 likes
You're saying I can't ban propagation of one specific kind of "private information" without banning *all* sharing of *all* information that *someone* could define as "private" That's fucking stupid I absolutely can -- that's the whole point of making laws
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.