3 ms·

Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/co

Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc. It is these annotations that are copyrighted by the large legal companies contracted to write, compile and publish them. For that reason it is a common occurrence that the version of the law citizens are held to is not a version of the law that is freely available.

leereeves 7y ago
> the large legal companies contracted to write Are private companies actually writing annotations that affect judges decisions? That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. Or, if they're just compiling judges' writings, how do they have copyright on those?
- airstrike 7y ago
  IANAL but I believe those annotations are written by renowned jurists and approved by the state, so presumably they are "writing the law" in the way the state wants it to be written
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. That isn't unprecedented. When Congress passes a law, the executive branch has wide discretion on how to interpret the law into executive action.
unlimit 7y ago
> Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc So its the interpretation that is used. Then shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this? The kind where a federal court tells the State of Georgia to do exactly that.
- thechao 7y ago
  Personally, I feel that the interpretation is almost 100% in the public domain. This is a document created for the state (of Georgia) at the expense of the people of the state (of Georgia); it naturally falls into public domain. The lower court ruled that the annotations were public domain, and the Supreme Court will (hopefully) concur. The state (of Georgia) has a ... requirement(?) to defend (and enforce) the statutes (and contracts) as passed by its legislator. If the state (of Georgia) didn't enforce its own laws, now, that would be a lawless, chaotic state; they'd also not be able to engage in contracts with companies (too much risk). Instead, this thing is going through the well-understood & time-worn constitutional process, as intended: the state (of Georgia) did a thing; a citizen did a thing; they sue each other; and, now, the Supreme Court will decide: is the citizen in the right or is the state (of Georgia) in the right.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >What kind of justice system is this? The best that money can buy. I think it is time for people to stop having faith in the legal system. It is dangerous waters to tread, but our current system is filled with abuses that are only allowed to continue because people maintain faith.

leereeves 7y ago

> the large legal companies contracted to write Are private companies actually writing annotations that affect judges decisions? That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. Or, if they're just compiling judges' writings, how do they have copyright on those?

airstrike 7y ago
IANAL but I believe those annotations are written by renowned jurists and approved by the state, so presumably they are "writing the law" in the way the state wants it to be written
macspoofing 7y ago
>That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. That isn't unprecedented. When Congress passes a law, the executive branch has wide discretion on how to interpret the law into executive action.

unlimit 7y ago

> Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc So its the interpretation that is used. Then shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this? The kind where a federal court tells the State of Georgia to do exactly that.
thechao 7y ago
Personally, I feel that the interpretation is almost 100% in the public domain. This is a document created for the state (of Georgia) at the expense of the people of the state (of Georgia); it naturally falls into public domain. The lower court ruled that the annotations were public domain, and the Supreme Court will (hopefully) concur. The state (of Georgia) has a ... requirement(?) to defend (and enforce) the statutes (and contracts) as passed by its legislator. If the state (of Georgia) didn't enforce its own laws, now, that would be a lawless, chaotic state; they'd also not be able to engage in contracts with companies (too much risk). Instead, this thing is going through the well-understood & time-worn constitutional process, as intended: the state (of Georgia) did a thing; a citizen did a thing; they sue each other; and, now, the Supreme Court will decide: is the citizen in the right or is the state (of Georgia) in the right.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>What kind of justice system is this? The best that money can buy. I think it is time for people to stop having faith in the legal system. It is dangerous waters to tread, but our current system is filled with abuses that are only allowed to continue because people maintain faith.