4 ms·
Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court? > Here's how it was supposed to wo
by marmetio 4y ago
Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court?
> Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker.
Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the line to being considered as counsel, even if you said it wasn't. See my response to your other comment.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoBy providing the words to say and arguments to make to the court, in response to a specific case or circumstance, DoNotPay was giving protected "legal advice" as opposed "legal information". There is ambiguity to find between legal advice and legal information, but that isn't.
- yamtaddle 4y agoRight, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not touching you!" argument that basically never works in a court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any different than publishing a book, so this is just free speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, next case."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]