Isn't the very point of case law to maintain consistency?
-
-
-
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
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
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
I don't know about USA but over here some things are considered private - including who you fuck
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
I don't know where you live and I don't care
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
Scott lives in the US, and in the US it's always completely legal to tell people what someone's last name is, even if they don't want you to Sorry
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
Well, unless they're a minor (at least, it's highly likely to get you in some sort of legal hot water).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AB9RF @arthur_affect and
Or a rape victim (there are some shield laws which protect rape victims from having their names disclosed IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. It's still not a blanket ban though.)
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.