3 ms·
Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. That makes the Crime Stoppers comparison st
by pseudo0 5y ago
Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. That makes the Crime Stoppers comparison still pretty fair, in my opinion.
And no, the Supreme Court didn't decide that, the people bringing the suit failed on procedural grounds and will get a chance to argue the merits when they re-file properly. My guess is that this whole thing will be a tempest in a teacup that will get sorted out in short order.
- magicalist 5y ago> Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. You wouldn't be "violating" anything, but if we sidestep that issue, you appear to be arguing that all behavior that someone has standing to sue over should be called "illegal". That seems like a semantic game most everyone should have a serious problem with.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago> you appear to be arguing that Careful: you wouldn't want to be unfairly misrepresenting somebody else's views! That would be libellous. (You don't want to say something illegal, now, do you?) But yeah: not all torts are crimes, and there's good reason for that. Lumping them together under the same “illegal” banner is how IP-as-control got started.
- pixl97 5y agoSo I should be able to make a civil law in my state that says pseudo0 cannot post on the internet under the threat of civil suit? The issue here is you don't have the right to steal, but we do have the right both to communicating on the internet and to an abortion.
- verall 5y agoYou are misunderstanding the Texas law. There is intentionally not a criminal statute being violated because Texas does not want the law to be overturned in court.