6 ms·

It'a civil suit, and MindGeek is a defendant. You should probably read the article.

• ss108 4y ago
  Fair, but my point was merely that the judge wasn't deciding to go after anyone and the potential liability of other actors is irrelevant. It's really the same thing; x party brought the suit against Visa, and that's why Visa is in this position as opposed to anyone else who the poster thinks would or should also be liable under the same logic.
  • nowrong 4y ago
    What the logic of a ruling would dictate in other hypothetical situations is one of the most important factors for whether it's a good ruling.
    • ss108 4y ago
      I don't really view that as precisely the same thing as what we're talking about, though I might be taking the above poster too literally. My interpretation was that the above poster was making more of a fairness argument. Like "why is Visa being singled out and not the ISP, the x, the y". To which the response is simply that nobody sued them. Like I said, I am probably taking them too literally. I express no opinion on whether the ruling is good as a matter of law or policy. Assuming this is a district court judge, btw, the judge may very well not be viewing their ruling as setting precedent. A lot of judges hew to the fiction that they're just deciding individual disputes in front of them, and not making law. While that may be plausible at the trial court level, it's obviously not true of most appellate courts. Yet, appellate judges often say the same thing. Just the other day I was reading a SCOTUS opinion by Rehnquist or Scalia and one of them said "yup, we just resolve individual controversies here, we don't make the law, we just apply it..."