3 ms·

The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit overly expansive wording. The goal of background checks was to protect the most

The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit overly expansive wording. The goal of background checks was to protect the most vulnerable, not create a license to work required for a quarter of all jobs, etc, etc.

orf 8y ago
Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways. It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Relying on a jury nullifying is not something I'd like to depend on. It's little known, and discouraged (for obvious reasons). It is, of course, entertaining when it happens and gets some publicity. Occasionally it can make plain when the law is an ass. Most famous example is probably the Official Secrets Act prosecution of Clive Ponting after the Falklands war. No defence was valid, jury acquitted anyway, govt of the day was not happy.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says. They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist. And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no doubt will have accumulated. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.
DanBC 8y ago
Luckily people who draft laws are not fucking idiots and they include exemptions for people who don't know what the content of the link is before clicking, and for journalists, and for researchers: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacte...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I grant you this is mostly true. They sure have their moments and give us some horribly vague legislation, open to overreach, now and then.

orf 8y ago

Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways. It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Relying on a jury nullifying is not something I'd like to depend on. It's little known, and discouraged (for obvious reasons). It is, of course, entertaining when it happens and gets some publicity. Occasionally it can make plain when the law is an ass. Most famous example is probably the Official Secrets Act prosecution of Clive Ponting after the Falklands war. No defence was valid, jury acquitted anyway, govt of the day was not happy.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says. They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist. And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no doubt will have accumulated. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.

DanBC 8y ago

Luckily people who draft laws are not fucking idiots and they include exemptions for people who don't know what the content of the link is before clicking, and for journalists, and for researchers: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacte...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I grant you this is mostly true. They sure have their moments and give us some horribly vague legislation, open to overreach, now and then.