3 ms·
(English) Common Law gives judges a wide latitude to decide, and in effect make law, as was the case with Roe v. Wade, in a way (Roman) Civil Law jurisdiction d
by fmajid 4y ago
(English) Common Law gives judges a wide latitude to decide, and in effect make law, as was the case with Roe v. Wade, in a way (Roman) Civil Law jurisdiction don't allow. Sometimes this goes in a liberal direction, sometimes the other way.
I would not assume anything about warrant canaries, and would expect the FBI et al to get the judge who gave them a gag order to also issue a warrant canary falsification order at the same time. Most organizations would not have the werewithal to resist, or the fortitude of a Judy Miller or James Risen and their willingness to go to jail rather than reveal their sources (yes, I know Judy Miller is a warmongering sorry excuse for a journalist, but her stand in this respect is admirable).
- brookst 4y agoRow v. Wade was not decided on anything like the purported logic making warrant canaries illegal. Roe v Wade found that the right to privacy includes medical decisions, or similar. That’s a far cry from a criminal court finding a defendant guilty because they achieved an end that was supposed to be illegal but which no actual statute made illegal. Also gag orders aren’t perpetual. If there were orders compelling businesses to lie, past examples would have come to light the same way we know gag orders exist.