4 ms·

Can a new law explicitly permitting behavior that wasn’t previously prohibited really be said to be alleviating restrictions? Laws are inherently restrictive i

by bnj 4y ago

Can a new law explicitly permitting behavior that wasn’t previously prohibited really be said to be alleviating restrictions? Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.

mattmaroon 4y ago
Yes because things can be restricted due to legal precedent determined by a judge, rather than due to a law, but a law can redefine it to be less restrictive. Imagine as a hypothetical (I know next to nothing about AZ law) that AZ had a law that said cops could enforce a minimum distance from which you could record for safety reasons. Hypothetically, a court case could rule that a cop that wouldn’t let people record from under 25’ was following said law. There’s no law that specifies 25’ in this hypothetical, but now there’s a court precedent that effectively sets it at that. So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
- thfuran 4y ago
  >So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    But the interpretation of the law likely will - as soon as a judge rules you were 9 feet away and so ok, that establishes a precedent, based on this law.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Why would a judge ignore the clause that explicitly states that it doesn't grant any right or authorize any person to record? At nine feet away, this law has no bearing and the earlier precedent should still apply.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

by bnj 4y ago

mattmaroon 4y ago

Yes because things can be restricted due to legal precedent determined by a judge, rather than due to a law, but a law can redefine it to be less restrictive. Imagine as a hypothetical (I know next to nothing about AZ law) that AZ had a law that said cops could enforce a minimum distance from which you could record for safety reasons. Hypothetically, a court case could rule that a cop that wouldn’t let people record from under 25’ was following said law. There’s no law that specifies 25’ in this hypothetical, but now there’s a court precedent that effectively sets it at that. So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)

thfuran 4y ago
>So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  But the interpretation of the law likely will - as soon as a judge rules you were 9 feet away and so ok, that establishes a precedent, based on this law.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Why would a judge ignore the clause that explicitly states that it doesn't grant any right or authorize any person to record? At nine feet away, this law has no bearing and the earlier precedent should still apply.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]