6 ms·
It is awfully sad that we need laws that describe what we're allowed to do rather than what's forbidden.
by d--b 9y ago
It is awfully sad that we need laws that describe what we're allowed to do rather than what's forbidden.
- Invictus0 9y agoI don't really see it that way. From a legal perspective, it's just preventing legitimate parenting techniques from being dragged into an over-broad definition of neglect.
- d--b 9y agoI understand the intent. And this makes sense. I'm just saying that we're seeing a case of "negligence is everything except what is specifically mentioned as being authorized".
- mieseratte 9y agoWell, we're seeing a case where a type of parenting is viewed as neglectful, so we're adding a law to enshrine it's legality in the face of changing cultural norms among certain sets of the population. This is not the same as "Anything not enshrined in law is unauthorized."
- proofbygazing 9y agoThis seems like a matter of the legislature reining in law-enforcement whose interpretations have become overly broad, something legislatures (and Congress) also sometimes does to the judicial system. I agree that it can be cast in an awkward light but it's not uncommon.
- Naritai 9y agoYeah I think OP is highlighting the presence of the over-broad definition of neglect in the first place.
- mtgx 9y agoYeah, the blacklist approach to legislation is much preferable to the whitelist approach, at least in terms of human rights and societal evolution.
- OtterCoder 9y agoThe exact opposite approach of good (e.g. network) security. Coincidence? I think not.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoDoes your work computer only allow access to whitelisted websites? I hope not, because that would make it really hard to get anything done. Security always involves trade-offs. Unthinkingly choosing the most restrictive policy every time is not a good security practice.
- OtterCoder 9y agoI'm speaking more from the database/XSS side of things, where a blacklist is about as useful as no list at all. There are absolutely times where security has to be compromised, even abandoned, in the name of usability, and times where security must be ironclad, even user-hostile. Civil rights law is definitely the former.
- jostmey 9y agoThe original constitution carefully outlined people's rights so as to limit the power of government. Law's affirming people's rights can be very powerful
- thaumasiotes 9y agoIf you're talking about the bill of rights, the fact that they're all "amendments" should be a hint that they're not part of the "original constitution".
- burkaman 9y agoThat's the wrong way to look at it, this is a law limiting what the government can do. For really broad, difficult to define crimes like "neglect" or "child abuse", it makes sense to pass additional legislation limiting how those laws can be applied.
- robotrout 9y agoThe parent is correct. It is sad that this is necessary. Similarly, the bill of rights was almost not included at all, because the original premise was that you had ALL rights that were not specifically prohibited in the constitution. That the bill of rights has turned out to be necessary at all, is also sad. I am thankful for this law, and for the bill of rights, but it is sad that we require either. We were not supposed to.
- burkaman 9y agoI don't understand the issue. Do you agree that child abuse should be a crime? If so, do you think you could correctly define it in legally precise language on the first try, with no unintended consequences? Legislators are human and make mistakes. It's good that they're proactively considering potential unintended effects of a law, and it's not that sad that they didn't get it exactly right the first time.
- Retric 9y agoI don't think child abuse necessarily needs to be a separate law from general harm.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sbov 9y agoIt has to be separate because your responsibilities towards your kids are different than your responsibilities towards other people. There are things you can do to your kids you can't do to other people (e.g. grounding). There are things you can't do to your kids that you can do to other people (e.g. refuse to provide shelter).
- dragonwriter 9y agoLaws do describe what is forbidden. Utah legislators noticed that in some states with language similar to Utah's laws on what is prohibited, the laws were applied or interpreted in ways that don't match what they wanted for Utah, and passed a law correcting Utah's existing prohibitions to clearly and explicitly prevent similar application in Utah.
- toss1 9y agoPerhaps. But, but it could be arising more from a need to codify the unwritten rules of society. Why do they now need to be codified when they've worked (more or less) as implicit rules for so long? Seems like different reasons for everything. In this case, the protective tendencies and govt agencies started to over-run the 'free-range' tendencies, and this just pushes it back a bit.
- drb91 9y agoYou mean like the bill of rights?