3 ms·

> This is [...] a threat to the rule of law. Could you elaborate on this point?

by _Nat_ 7y ago

noirbot 7y ago
Not the OP, but my guess would be that they're worried about the precedent set by fairly explicitly using a law meant to outlaw X to punish someone for doing Y just because the government dislikes that someone is doing Y. If the government wanted to outlaw promoting self-serving doubt/misinformation, they could do that, but that's not really what "fraud" is for. Part of the rule of law is that the government doesn't just get to make up laws because it wants to punish you. It's why there's generally a prohibition for punishing people for things they did before it became illegal to do them. A lot of this is symptomatic of both sides of the political spectrum feeling impotent to pass laws that actually do what they want, so they're doing what they can do bend existing law to do what they don't have the votes to do in new law. The whole situation is bad on a number of levels.
- _Nat_ 7y ago
  I think I'd understand the concern if a regulatory body within Massachusetts were directly penalizing Exxon without judicial oversight. But since they're taking Exxon to court for the legal system to determine if the case is valid, isn't this just what the rule-of-law looks like?
  - noirbot 7y ago
    For sure, that would be a worse case. That said, defending a case against the government, even for a company as large as Exxon, isn't without cost. They're certainly an unsympathetic victim here, but in general, you want the government not to be bending the law to bring a case against an unpopular defendant. It's one thing for private citizens/companies to file vague or spurious lawsuits against each other, only to have the courts throw it out. It's another for the government, who hypothetically represents the Law, to be bending/testing the limits of it. It also presupposes that the court system is fair, and not inclined to side with the government. Obviously in this case, there's a claim to be made that it might be biased towards a massive corporation too, but in general prosecutors tend to get what they want in cases. I'd be shocked if this gets thrown out/refuted by the court without going to trial.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Exactly. We've gotten to the point where even due- process is punishment.

> This is [...] a threat to the rule of law. Could you elaborate on this point?

by _Nat_ 7y ago

> This is [...] a threat to the rule of law. Could you elaborate on this point?

Not the OP, but my guess would be that they're worried about the precedent set by fairly explicitly using a law meant to outlaw X to punish someone for doing Y just because the government dislikes that someone is doing Y. If the government wanted to outlaw promoting self-serving doubt/misinformation, they could do that, but that's not really what "fraud" is for. Part of the rule of law is that the government doesn't just get to make up laws because it wants to punish you. It's why there's generally a prohibition for punishing people for things they did before it became illegal to do them. A lot of this is symptomatic of both sides of the political spectrum feeling impotent to pass laws that actually do what they want, so they're doing what they can do bend existing law to do what they don't have the votes to do in new law. The whole situation is bad on a number of levels.

_Nat_ 7y ago
I think I'd understand the concern if a regulatory body within Massachusetts were directly penalizing Exxon without judicial oversight. But since they're taking Exxon to court for the legal system to determine if the case is valid, isn't this just what the rule-of-law looks like?
- noirbot 7y ago
  For sure, that would be a worse case. That said, defending a case against the government, even for a company as large as Exxon, isn't without cost. They're certainly an unsympathetic victim here, but in general, you want the government not to be bending the law to bring a case against an unpopular defendant. It's one thing for private citizens/companies to file vague or spurious lawsuits against each other, only to have the courts throw it out. It's another for the government, who hypothetically represents the Law, to be bending/testing the limits of it. It also presupposes that the court system is fair, and not inclined to side with the government. Obviously in this case, there's a claim to be made that it might be biased towards a massive corporation too, but in general prosecutors tend to get what they want in cases. I'd be shocked if this gets thrown out/refuted by the court without going to trial.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Exactly. We've gotten to the point where even due- process is punishment.