5 ms·
Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.
by altcognito 6y ago
Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.
- edoceo 6y agoAll laws in the USA; as is tradition.
- jaywalk 6y agoAll laws everywhere.
- sixstringtheory 6y agoThis is all so true. Law enforcement depends on the individual doing the enforcement at a particular time and place; the actual law and your interpretation don't matter. Justice depends on groups of individuals coming together to make decisions, as does legislating. All of these people are going to make mistakes, at best. To bring it back around to the topic at hand, I think this enforcement action is a mistake.
- pionar 6y agoThe US does have a small amount of protection against this. Selective prosecution can be a reason for a judge to dismiss a charge. I'm not aware of how often it's used/successful, though.
- donatj 6y agoGDPR was explicitly stated to be intended to be enforced selectively.
- esarbe 6y agoExtraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
- mhh__ 6y agoLaws are always enforced by humans, so this is always true. What is different about these proposals is that they are explicitly prompted by partisan (and personal i.e. Trump) motives which, although it's true of other laws too, is supposed to be the quiet part not said out loud. The whole premise of investigating for "bias" is clearly designed to be abused - similar to HUAC asking you to prove that you aren't a communist
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoWhat is partisan about antitrust action? Dont we want an open market of ideas ?
- luckylion 6y agoOn the other hand, they're a reaction to that exact thing in e.g. Twitter's enforcement of their rules. They'll decide what's kind and what's not. If you're on Twitter's good side and retweet somebody with "get em!", you're good. If you do the same while not aligned with Twitter politically, you're asking your followers to harass individuals and will be punished.