4 ms·
The US Supreme Court has actually called this a Gate Up/Gate Down approach and that if anyone can get in at any time the Gate is down. This is in respect to the
by mikeryan 4y ago
The US Supreme Court has actually called this a Gate Up/Gate Down approach and that if anyone can get in at any time the Gate is down. This is in respect to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
It seems the Korean Courts have affirmed this right as well.
- danso 4y agoI wonder if the Korean ruling cited SCOTUS as a reference point
- olliej 4y agoI would kind of hope not - that would imply that they were considering US laws as in someway relevant to Korean law.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 4y agoThe US references legal happenings from abroad.
- hugh-avherald 4y agoIt's common for courts around the world to regard the decisions and reasoning of foreign courts as having good persuasive authority, even if they're not technically binding. Naturally, this is even more the case if the law is nearly identical across borders (as through trade agreements).
- throwaway14356 4y agoit should be mandatory for law makers. If other countries spend millions figuring stuf out you should at least have to explain what is wrong about it
- beachy 4y agoSo you're saying the rest of the world should be obliged to study SCOTUS reversing roe vs Wade when making their own abortion legislation?
- drewrv 4y agoAbsolutely. Train wrecks should get studied to find out what went wrong.
- throwaway14356 4y agoI've looked at a tiny number of laws by country and it blew my mind how different the approaches were. A Japanese version seemed to expect various degrees. I have no idea about the culture but I can imagine a Japannees official carefully keeping his mouth shut if he has no relevant degree. Belgium and Iceland were deeply involved with public opinion. Dutch is about boiling the frog slowly. It was facinating
- anon291 4y agoYes Indeed. That way they'd learn that courts don't make legislation, which you seem to be confused by. Now that Roe v Wade is gone, we can actually legislate on the issue and reduce the polarization in American politics by coming to democratic compromises, rather than be subject to rule by court fiat.
- chottocharaii 4y ago
- anamax 4y agoI don't know whether SCOTUS mentioned other countries, but it basically said that abortion was the legislature's call, just like it is in almost all of the rest of the world. FWIW, the restriction upheld was significantly less restrictive than almost every European country. You have been protesting France's law, right?
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
- slaymaker1907 4y agoFor civil law, my understanding is that judges are more likely to cite academic legal opinions published in journals rather than other prior cases. It would make sense in that context that it is fine to look at case law in other countries.
- killingtime74 4y ago(I am a lawyer) courts routinely consider foreign judgments especially in the case of the highest court where they are at the bleeding edge of the law. They are not binding of course.
- golem14 4y agoThat's how a lot of law systems were constructed: many countries are basing their law on roman practices. That's not inherently bad, IMO.
- jahewson 4y agoGate up = open, gate down = closed. It’s echoing a medieval portcullis.
- mikeryan 4y agoHah! Good to know.
- mirkules 4y agoWhat are some examples of this? E.g. if a website is free but requires an account to access (i.e. valid email address), is it still considered publicly accessible or not?
- jffry 4y agoI do not know for sure either way, but my assumption is that it would be different if you must create a user account and in the process agree to terms of service that prohibit scraping.
- markdown 4y agoAccording to the Korean Supreme court, if it requires an account to access, then the TOS applies. In this instance, an account was not required to access the data, therefore the TOS did not apply. > (ii) Yanolja’s general terms of use was clearly applicable to registered users only;