Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:It has been a while since my logic classes, so you may be right here.

I mean, I know more about logic than any reasonable person should, so don't feel bad.

Melissia wrote:
But it's certainly quite likely that they'll do it again in my eyes.

I actually believe that its certain, largely because its what I would advise them to do, which is why I'm opposed to the bill.

Also, does that spoilered legal essay satisfy you for the legal interpretations behind my statements?

Melissia wrote:Also, does that spoilered legal essay satisfy you for the legal interpretations behind my statements?

I'll go past skimming it now, but at first glance, yeah.

It isn't that I don't understand your interpretation, I had similar thoughts, its that they aren't the only interpretations possible.

I have a personal philosophy towards law that people will always use, stretch, and abuse laws as far as they can go to get what they want out of them beyond what the laws were intended to do, so I suppose that particular interpretation rings with my philosophy.

Also I'm now glad I didn't go in to law.

Melissia wrote:I have a personal philosophy towards law that people will always use, stretch, and abuse laws as far as they can go to get what they want out of them beyond what the laws were intended to do, so I suppose that particular interpretation rings with my philosophy.

I have the same philosophy, I suppose I'm just more cynical.

Melissia wrote:
Also I'm now glad I didn't go in to law.

So am I, though likely for different reasons.

When will we know when this SOPA is on or off?

Brother Coa wrote:When will we know when this SOPA is on or off?

Essentially, never. Congress could theoretically bring it up for a vote every day until it gets passed. This is obviously extremely unlikely.

They'll probably wait until the furor dies down and pass it in the next few months or so.

Melissia wrote:I have a personal philosophy towards law that people will always use, stretch, and abuse laws as far as they can go to get what they want out of them beyond what the laws were intended to do, so I suppose that particular interpretation rings with my philosophy.

That's not a good approach to the law if you're going to study it. Especially since study of law is about what the law is rather than what it should be.

Also, sorry for not responding to your other post, I couldn't find a way to do so without making an offensive joke. Imagine there's one here.

Melissia wrote:Also I'm now glad I didn't go in to law.

Honestly, that's light reading.

While I respect Tribe, I disagree with his assertion that this is prior restraint.

Can someone answer my question.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I have a personal philosophy towards law that people will always use, stretch, and abuse laws as far as they can go to get what they want out of them beyond what the laws were intended to do, so I suppose that particular interpretation rings with my philosophy.

That's not a good approach to the law if you're going to study it. Especially since study of law is about what the law is rather than what it should be.

If I were talking about what law should be, I'd have said something different entirely.

That was my opinion on what law is right now, at least in the US.

Mind you I'm probably only keeping in mind the most extreme cases. But those ARE the cases that push the boundries...

biccat wrote:Especially since study of law is about what the law is rather than what it should be.

Is that why there are so many interpretations of Constitutional law?

For what its worth, I agree, study should be about the nature of things rather than what you want that nature to be. But very often studying things drives people to arrive at conclusions regarding what they want things to be.

In fact, people are employed specifically in order to determine if certain laws are in consistence with what their employers believe they should be, and they certainly pour over them there laws.

dogma wrote:Is that why there are so many interpretations of Constitutional law?

For what its worth, I agree, study should be about the nature of things rather than what you want that nature to be. But very often studying things drives people to arrive at conclusions regarding what they want things to be.

In fact, people are employed specifically in order to determine if certain laws are in consistence with what their employers believe they should be, and they certainly pour over them there laws.

Well...yeah.

We don't fight about what the law should be, we fight about what the law is. It's up to the legislators (and lobbyists) and judges to determine what the law is.

Although most cases, especially criminal, are all about what facts you can prove. Which is why most cases settle.

biccat wrote:
We don't fight about what the law should be, we fight about what the law is. It's up to the legislators (and lobbyists) and judges to determine what the law is.

My argument is that there is very little difference in practice.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:We don't fight about what the law should be, we fight about what the law is. It's up to the legislators (and lobbyists) and judges to determine what the law is.

My argument is that there is very little difference in practice.

Well, in practice there's actually a reasonably clear line. Maybe to laypersons it's not apparent, but it's pretty clear once you're on the inside.

It's like discussing a philosophical work. How much is actual interpretation of the work and how much is extrapolation from the work to develop a new theory?

biccat wrote:Well, in practice there's actually a reasonably clear line. Maybe to laypersons it's not apparent, but it's pretty clear once you're on the inside.

It's like discussing a philosophical work. How much is actual interpretation of the work and how much is extrapolation from the work to develop a new theory?

We're just going to disagree on this, because while the definition of the terms in question may be clearly delineated, even in the philosophical case, in practice the distinction is quite muddy.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Well, in practice there's actually a reasonably clear line. Maybe to laypersons it's not apparent, but it's pretty clear once you're on the inside.

It's like discussing a philosophical work. How much is actual interpretation of the work and how much is extrapolation from the work to develop a new theory?

We're just going to disagree on this, because while the definition of the terms in question may be clearly delineated, even in the philosophical case, in practice the distinction is quite muddy.

I completely understand your position, I think it's just a difficult perspective to explain to someone that doesn't have legal experience.