2 ms·

>What does this change from the perspective of the person who is trying to comply with the law? You don't know what the law makes illegal but if you do somethin

>What does this change from the perspective of the person who is trying to comply with the law? You don't know what the law makes illegal but if you do something the government doesn't like then the government will decide whether it's illegal after the fact and punish you for doing it even though they never made it clear that it was actually illegal. Yeah, for things that are not readily apparent, you might need a lawyer to help you understand if your conduct is illegal. Have you looked up the statutory definitions for what a work is in copyright? For like 99% of people and businesses it is clear. What do you propose as an alternative? This is a pretty absurd conversation because you seem to not acknowledge the reasons for WHY the law functions this way and just posit a world that doesn't have the problems the real world does. >This is still not an argument for purposeful ambiguity. The fact that absolute perfection is impossible is a lame excuse for not even trying. Feel free to describe a better system. It's gotta be real though, you can't just say "a system where everything is already prescribed"... that's just fantasy

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Yeah, for things that are not readily apparent, you might need a lawyer to help you understand if your conduct is illegal. You're just talking about case law. That isn't actually any different. If something is made unambiguous by case law then it is unambiguous. What I'm talking about are laws that a lawyer cannot tell you with a high degree of certainty what the outcome would be in court, because it was made purposely fuzzy specifically to allow the law to be retroactively interpreted adversely against anyone who draws the ire of the government. > Feel free to describe a better system. Here you go: In matters of statutory construction when the government is the prosecutor/regulator, the parties submit their briefs, they're read by 9 independent judges who are all told to construe the statute against the government if it's ambiguous, the judges don't get to talk to each other, the defense gets to choose which judge's interpretation to use, and that interpretation becomes precedent until the legislature changes it by statute. The government's only appeal is to the legislature (which then only applies to future cases). Now if there is an ambiguity, it is likely to actually be construed against the government, so the government has an incentive to resolve it ahead of time whenever reasonably possible. When that isn't possible, it goes in favor of the defense in the original case and then the legislature has the opportunity to clarify what they want for future cases by passing new legislation.
- freejazz 7y ago
  > You're just talking about case law. No, I'm not. Statutory interpretation isn't inherently clear just because you SAY it would be. Interpreting statutes does not have to be done with an eye towards previous cases. It can be done in a vacuum, as I pointed out to you in another thread - that's how it works in civil law. Even in common law, the factual circumstances of a case dictate whether or not precedential cases are relevant. Nevertheless... there is an INTERPRETATION LAYER. >What I'm talking about are laws that a lawyer cannot tell you with a high degree of certainty what the outcome would be in court, because it was made purposely fuzzy specifically to allow the law to be retroactively interpreted adversely against anyone who draws the ire of the government. Ok - give an example of such a law... > Here you go: In matters of statutory construction when the government is the prosecutor/regulator, the parties submit their briefs, they're read by 9 independent judges who are all told to construe the statute against the government if it's ambiguous, the judges don't get to talk to each other, the defense gets to choose which judge's interpretation to use, and that interpretation becomes precedent until the legislature changes it by statute. You are suggesting that a defendant get to set precedent merely based upon their own selection. You are aware that, save for that, this exactly how the appeals circuit functions? Like, I'd be happy to have this conversation genuinely with you, but you clearly have no experience in the legal world. Ambiguity is ALWAYS construed against the government and it's a foundational principal of our legal system. It seems more like the problem is your own ignorance, not how the law actually functions. Also, it seems like you do not understand the distinction between civil courts in the united states and criminal courts.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Yeah, for things that are not readily apparent, you might need a lawyer to help you understand if your conduct is illegal. You're just talking about case law. That isn't actually any different. If something is made unambiguous by case law then it is unambiguous. What I'm talking about are laws that a lawyer cannot tell you with a high degree of certainty what the outcome would be in court, because it was made purposely fuzzy specifically to allow the law to be retroactively interpreted adversely against anyone who draws the ire of the government. > Feel free to describe a better system. Here you go: In matters of statutory construction when the government is the prosecutor/regulator, the parties submit their briefs, they're read by 9 independent judges who are all told to construe the statute against the government if it's ambiguous, the judges don't get to talk to each other, the defense gets to choose which judge's interpretation to use, and that interpretation becomes precedent until the legislature changes it by statute. The government's only appeal is to the legislature (which then only applies to future cases). Now if there is an ambiguity, it is likely to actually be construed against the government, so the government has an incentive to resolve it ahead of time whenever reasonably possible. When that isn't possible, it goes in favor of the defense in the original case and then the legislature has the opportunity to clarify what they want for future cases by passing new legislation.

freejazz 7y ago
> You're just talking about case law. No, I'm not. Statutory interpretation isn't inherently clear just because you SAY it would be. Interpreting statutes does not have to be done with an eye towards previous cases. It can be done in a vacuum, as I pointed out to you in another thread - that's how it works in civil law. Even in common law, the factual circumstances of a case dictate whether or not precedential cases are relevant. Nevertheless... there is an INTERPRETATION LAYER. >What I'm talking about are laws that a lawyer cannot tell you with a high degree of certainty what the outcome would be in court, because it was made purposely fuzzy specifically to allow the law to be retroactively interpreted adversely against anyone who draws the ire of the government. Ok - give an example of such a law... > Here you go: In matters of statutory construction when the government is the prosecutor/regulator, the parties submit their briefs, they're read by 9 independent judges who are all told to construe the statute against the government if it's ambiguous, the judges don't get to talk to each other, the defense gets to choose which judge's interpretation to use, and that interpretation becomes precedent until the legislature changes it by statute. You are suggesting that a defendant get to set precedent merely based upon their own selection. You are aware that, save for that, this exactly how the appeals circuit functions? Like, I'd be happy to have this conversation genuinely with you, but you clearly have no experience in the legal world. Ambiguity is ALWAYS construed against the government and it's a foundational principal of our legal system. It seems more like the problem is your own ignorance, not how the law actually functions. Also, it seems like you do not understand the distinction between civil courts in the united states and criminal courts.