3 ms·

I agree 100%, but there is precedent for lawyers to follow, so that is considered when pursuing each new case. Much like "I didn't mean to" is not an excuse, it

I agree 100%, but there is precedent for lawyers to follow, so that is considered when pursuing each new case. Much like "I didn't mean to" is not an excuse, it is stated in law that ignorance of the law is not an excuse either. It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I stand by the fact that the aspects of law mentioned in the article are simply very poor jurisprudence.

roc 17y ago
> It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. You seem to have a faith in the intent of a law and reasonableness of its enforcement that just isn't backed up by fact. There is no shortage of cases where minors are facing child pornography charges for sexting other minors. It seems a week can't even pass by without yet-another poor kid having his life ruined by adults ignoring intent and enforcing the precise language of a law.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I don't think that works. In a legal system based on precedent the more that is left open to interpretation the more big cases one needs to decide what the locus of the law is. Then it's not a case of getting your lawyer to read the law in order to understand the majority of what's allowed but instead they can only know a minority of the law from the statute and have to infer the majority from the caselaw. When the law is drafted perhaps a book of usecases should be created such that those that draft the law can agree on a list of common uses and whether those things are intended to be allowed or not.

roc 17y ago

> It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. You seem to have a faith in the intent of a law and reasonableness of its enforcement that just isn't backed up by fact. There is no shortage of cases where minors are facing child pornography charges for sexting other minors. It seems a week can't even pass by without yet-another poor kid having his life ruined by adults ignoring intent and enforcing the precise language of a law.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

>What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I don't think that works. In a legal system based on precedent the more that is left open to interpretation the more big cases one needs to decide what the locus of the law is. Then it's not a case of getting your lawyer to read the law in order to understand the majority of what's allowed but instead they can only know a minority of the law from the statute and have to infer the majority from the caselaw. When the law is drafted perhaps a book of usecases should be created such that those that draft the law can agree on a list of common uses and whether those things are intended to be allowed or not.