3 ms·
One tree is not a forest. A million trees is a forest. Nobody can tell you which single tree delineates the difference. That doesn’t stop us from calling a tree
by shaki-dora 8y ago
One tree is not a forest. A million trees is a forest. Nobody can tell you which single tree delineates the difference. That doesn’t stop us from calling a tree a tree and a forest a forest.
The tech community has this idea that it’s impossible to make laws affecting such concepts that cannot easily be expressed as an algorithm giving boolean answers. But in reality, that’s exactly what jurisprudence does for a living. Otherwise there would be no need for lawyers and judges and juries.
The “I know it when I see it” quote is, obviously, one coined by a judge, and a supreme one at that. It became famous for both being somewhat true, and for leaving us wanting for something better. And even though the definition of pornography has somewhat advanced since then, and become somewhat less relevant, there still is a gray area: some gangbang on pornhub is probably porn. A bag of Doritos is not porn. In between are the image of Kim Phuc, Michelangelo’s David, and many a work of art. But the existence of that gray area does not negate the possibility to definitively say that the bag of Doritos is not porn, as far as the law is concerned.
- sbmassey 8y agoLegislation requires more precise definitions if it is to be useful in court.
- shaki-dora 8y agoThere are quite a few laws concerning both pornography and forests, and civilization has steadfastly refused to die.
- timthorn 8y agoThe view of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus is useful in court but not very precise...
- pjc50 8y agoYou'd be amazed how much legislation just says "reasonable" and leaves the court to the details.
- C1sc0cat 8y agoAs some one said to me "as so many MP's are lawyers its a favour (billing opportunity ) for their lawyer friends"
- RHSeeger 8y agoThe problem with laws that allow for "I'll know it when I see it" is that - The need to be vague/broad enough to allow anything that could be <thing> to be classified as <thing> under the law - The government actors are well know for acting in bad faith, ruining the lives of people that did nothing wrong because the law allowed for it. A teenage couple tried as adults for child pornography because they sent each other naked pictures of themselves. That is clearly not what the law intended, but the state went after them for it anyways. Vague/overly-broad laws can be abused. Any law that can be abused will be abused.