4 ms·

>> illegal efforts Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.

Someone1234 8y ago
True. Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
paulcole 8y ago
Stomach churning? Un-American?
- organsnyder 8y ago
  All too American, I'm afraid.
- vkou 8y ago
  Union busting is as all-American as Wal-Mart.
SEJeff 8y ago
Don't feed the trolls. He's a new account perhaps a UAW shill.
- Jasper_ 8y ago
  Yes, I agree. The only people who could possibly have problems with Tesla's hazardous working conditions and union-busting efforts are UAW shills, and as everybody knows, you can't be a valuable contributor to a conversation if you registered your account today. I think Merriam-Webster even lists the definition of "Internet troll" as "someone who has been on Hacker News for less than a month".
jfoutz 8y ago
Is it imprecise? I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is. The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)
- icelancer 8y ago
  >> The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties. Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    Certain contexts DO allow Laymen authority to determine the legality of things. Juries and voting come immediately to mind. Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    > involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug
snackbugs 8y ago
This itself seems like an imprecise argument. If there are well-known laws against doing something that has gone unpunished so far, is it then legal?
- mlindner 8y ago
  That claims you know what's going on at Tesla, which you don't. So you can't make such a statement.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  It is illegal to trespass, but you can also acquire the property you trespass upon by adverse possession. If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property. If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void. One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.

Someone1234 8y ago

True. Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

paulcole 8y ago

Stomach churning? Un-American?

organsnyder 8y ago
All too American, I'm afraid.
vkou 8y ago
Union busting is as all-American as Wal-Mart.

SEJeff 8y ago

Don't feed the trolls. He's a new account perhaps a UAW shill.

Jasper_ 8y ago
Yes, I agree. The only people who could possibly have problems with Tesla's hazardous working conditions and union-busting efforts are UAW shills, and as everybody knows, you can't be a valuable contributor to a conversation if you registered your account today. I think Merriam-Webster even lists the definition of "Internet troll" as "someone who has been on Hacker News for less than a month".

jfoutz 8y ago

Is it imprecise? I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is. The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)

icelancer 8y ago
>> The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact. As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties. Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
- MrLeap 8y ago
  Certain contexts DO allow Laymen authority to determine the legality of things. Juries and voting come immediately to mind. Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  > involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug

snackbugs 8y ago

This itself seems like an imprecise argument. If there are well-known laws against doing something that has gone unpunished so far, is it then legal?

mlindner 8y ago
That claims you know what's going on at Tesla, which you don't. So you can't make such a statement.
logfromblammo 8y ago
It is illegal to trespass, but you can also acquire the property you trespass upon by adverse possession. If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property. If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void. One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.