4 ms·
No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase: If someone has a history of complaining about absurd l
by _jal 7y ago
No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase:
If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.)
On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently.
> That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.
You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.
- lostjohnny 7y ago> if someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum that's a big IF and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software! that's his bread and butter. > if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, that's false premise > You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Yes. Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened. It's a fabricated lie.