5 ms·

it’s only legal because there are no laws specifically making it illegal currently. This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the U

by jabits 4y ago

it’s only legal because there are no laws specifically making it illegal currently. This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US…

vorpalhex 4y ago
That is not quite correct. The question is undecided. It could be illegal and have been illegal this entire time.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Which makes it legal. When the courts interpret law it addresses a case and informs going forward. I don't believe, for instance, people can be retroactively tried for abortions during the period Roe V. Wade stood.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    I'm not sure this is true; it addresses a case, which means the interpretation already is ex-post-facto. I don't know the answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if, in states with anti-abortion laws standing for which the statute of limitations has not expired, abortion providers could be held legally liable.
    - fritztastic 4y ago
      Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution, both at federal and state levels. [1] At least, at this time, with current interpretation- "the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act" [2] (See also Weaver v Graham[3]) This might be subject to change. [1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013192/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-... [2]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-3/ALDE_00013193/#ALDF_00020335 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-... [3]http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usrep450024.pdf http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usr...
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        The laws are not ex post facto. They have been on the books, on some cases for over 100 years. States were not enforcing them, because they believed they were constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Roe v. Wade is a ruling that people have a right to abortions. Removing it removes the right. It doesn’t retroactively remove the right. A new law that is passed doesn’t have retroactive power A court ruling that the thing you’ve been doing for a year has been breaking an existing law can absolutely punish you for it. But it’s unlikely to punish random individuals doing things on a non noteworthy scale when a clear understanding of the law in a new context has not been established.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    Pedandtly, this is not true. You might think something you’re doing is legal, but when someone takes you to court, it’s because they’re arguing that what you’re doing is already illegal. And if the court sided with them, then what you were doing was illegal the whole time. Courts don’t make laws, they interpret existing laws. Everyone can interpret laws in their own favor, but it doesn’t make things ‘legal’ in the definitive sense
- astrange 4y ago
  The fact there’s multiple companies with lawyers on staff already doing it should suggest you shouldn’t claim it’s illegal based on no evidence. (It’s legal the same way Google Image Search is.)
  - Retric 4y ago
    Why would you assume companies only do legal things? Companies break the law constantly it’s consequences law departments care about not legality. This is why we do heath inspections etc, it’s all about shifting the risk vs reward calculation.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      > Companies break the law constantly That's obvious hyperbole and not a useful, or even factual, rebuttal.
      - Retric 4y ago
        It’s factual in much the same way the average person breaks multiple laws as written every day. Much of this is simple ignorance and many thing aren’t particularly relevant. 14 states still had sodomy laws in 2003 when the Supreme Court reversed its stance and declared them unconstitutional. At this point there are hundreds of years of crap at the federal, state, and local level much of which changes based on where you happen to be. What percentage of the US laws have you actually read?
      - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
        I don't think it's hyperbole at all. Wage theft alone costs American workers billions of dollars every year.
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        I see two ways of interpreting "companies break the law constantly". One, that there is always a company out there somewhere acting criminally. If that's the intended meaning, it is a factual statement, but doesn't not carry the original implication that companies do not try to avoid breaking the law. For instance, the fact that there is always a human out their somewhere committing crime doesn't not mean most humans do not actively avoid such. Two, that any given company breaks the law often. This carries the implication that companies do not worry about breaking the law, but is also factually incorrect.
wokwokwok 4y ago
> This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US… I think you're dancing around with words here. Let me be super specific: There's no law specifically saying I can't use a jelly coated toasted to beat someone to death... but there are existing laws that cover 'beating someone to death'. If you beat someone to death with a jelly coated toaster, you might argue for some obscure reason, your actions are not covered by the existing legal framework around beating people to death, but mostly likely you will not be protected by the claim you 'didn't know it was illegal' to do that. ...because the courts have not ruled that beating people to death with jelly coated toasters is legal. ie. a) There is no specific legal precedent or law around something but other laws related to it exist and b) Something has been determined to be legal by some precedent / law / whatever Are not equivalent. Regardless of what people want to believe, or have opinions one way or another, the assertion, made in the original article, that (b) was true, is not true. Only (a) is true, and that is, legally, a much weaker statement.

by jabits 4y ago

it’s only legal because there are no laws specifically making it illegal currently. This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US…

vorpalhex 4y ago

That is not quite correct. The question is undecided. It could be illegal and have been illegal this entire time.

BobbyJo 4y ago
Which makes it legal. When the courts interpret law it addresses a case and informs going forward. I don't believe, for instance, people can be retroactively tried for abortions during the period Roe V. Wade stood.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I'm not sure this is true; it addresses a case, which means the interpretation already is ex-post-facto. I don't know the answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if, in states with anti-abortion laws standing for which the statute of limitations has not expired, abortion providers could be held legally liable.
  - fritztastic 4y ago
    Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution, both at federal and state levels. [1] At least, at this time, with current interpretation- "the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act" [2] (See also Weaver v Graham[3]) This might be subject to change. [1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013192/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-... [2]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-3/ALDE_00013193/#ALDF_00020335 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-... [3]http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usrep450024.pdf http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usr...
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      The laws are not ex post facto. They have been on the books, on some cases for over 100 years. States were not enforcing them, because they believed they were constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Roe v. Wade is a ruling that people have a right to abortions. Removing it removes the right. It doesn’t retroactively remove the right. A new law that is passed doesn’t have retroactive power A court ruling that the thing you’ve been doing for a year has been breaking an existing law can absolutely punish you for it. But it’s unlikely to punish random individuals doing things on a non noteworthy scale when a clear understanding of the law in a new context has not been established.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  Pedandtly, this is not true. You might think something you’re doing is legal, but when someone takes you to court, it’s because they’re arguing that what you’re doing is already illegal. And if the court sided with them, then what you were doing was illegal the whole time. Courts don’t make laws, they interpret existing laws. Everyone can interpret laws in their own favor, but it doesn’t make things ‘legal’ in the definitive sense
astrange 4y ago
The fact there’s multiple companies with lawyers on staff already doing it should suggest you shouldn’t claim it’s illegal based on no evidence. (It’s legal the same way Google Image Search is.)
- Retric 4y ago
  Why would you assume companies only do legal things? Companies break the law constantly it’s consequences law departments care about not legality. This is why we do heath inspections etc, it’s all about shifting the risk vs reward calculation.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    > Companies break the law constantly That's obvious hyperbole and not a useful, or even factual, rebuttal.
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s factual in much the same way the average person breaks multiple laws as written every day. Much of this is simple ignorance and many thing aren’t particularly relevant. 14 states still had sodomy laws in 2003 when the Supreme Court reversed its stance and declared them unconstitutional. At this point there are hundreds of years of crap at the federal, state, and local level much of which changes based on where you happen to be. What percentage of the US laws have you actually read?
    - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
      I don't think it's hyperbole at all. Wage theft alone costs American workers billions of dollars every year.
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        I see two ways of interpreting "companies break the law constantly". One, that there is always a company out there somewhere acting criminally. If that's the intended meaning, it is a factual statement, but doesn't not carry the original implication that companies do not try to avoid breaking the law. For instance, the fact that there is always a human out their somewhere committing crime doesn't not mean most humans do not actively avoid such. Two, that any given company breaks the law often. This carries the implication that companies do not worry about breaking the law, but is also factually incorrect.

wokwokwok 4y ago

> This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US… I think you're dancing around with words here. Let me be super specific: There's no law specifically saying I can't use a jelly coated toasted to beat someone to death... but there are existing laws that cover 'beating someone to death'. If you beat someone to death with a jelly coated toaster, you might argue for some obscure reason, your actions are not covered by the existing legal framework around beating people to death, but mostly likely you will not be protected by the claim you 'didn't know it was illegal' to do that. ...because the courts have not ruled that beating people to death with jelly coated toasters is legal. ie. a) There is no specific legal precedent or law around something but other laws related to it exist and b) Something has been determined to be legal by some precedent / law / whatever Are not equivalent. Regardless of what people want to believe, or have opinions one way or another, the assertion, made in the original article, that (b) was true, is not true. Only (a) is true, and that is, legally, a much weaker statement.