4 ms·
> When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.
by SEMW 10y ago
> When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
- tacos 10y agoAny activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
- themartorana 10y agoMight be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
- tacos 10y agoWhen a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
- tptacek 10y agoThat's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.