3 ms·
The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject. Off
by wool_gather 8y ago
The majority opinion thoroughly rebuts the arguments in the dissent. Have you read it as well? It's a good read if you've become interested in the subject.
Official link (PDF) for those who don't like Google: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 8y agoGP might or might not, but that isn't relevant - presumably everyone on HN could already mount a decent argument in favour of net neutrality, even without reading the opinion of legal experts. Law is a highly technical field that is full of detail, nuance and far-reaching consequences. There is a good reason why legal opinions are usually long written documents - the issues are complex. Anyone who selects one sentence as a soundbite and holds it up as the thing itself is (in an inconsequential way) undermining the integrity of the legal system. Judges write opinions that are about the length they need to be to express their reasoning. To criticise the opinion, it is necessary to have separate evidence of the result of the ruling or to have read the opinion. Quoting one sentence of the opinion from an article is not sufficient.
- wool_gather 8y agoI'm not defending the original comment, I'm just replying to the one I'm replying to. Whether or not that commenter has read both the dissent and the majority opinion is 100% relevant to their comment.