3 ms·

There is a difference though. In the US, something has to explicitly be made legal to be permitted. There has to be a law saying you have the right to do somet

There is a difference though. In the US, something has to explicitly be made legal to be permitted. There has to be a law saying you have the right to do something. In the UK, something has to be specifically forbidden by law, and even then it's very unlikely that such a law will ever be enforced unless you're really making a nuisance of yourself.

jerf 4y ago
US uses Common Law as derived from the UK's Common Law. In theory in both countries something has to be specifically forbidden. In practice that's not something I'd bet my not-being-in-jail on in either country. Whatever foundation of "anything not forbidden is permitted" has been crusted up with so many layers of governmental power grab that whatever the theory may be, the practice is that if it is not explicitly permitted it is forbidden, and the only reason things not explicitly permitted are allowed is because they just don't happen to make a fuss about it today.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> In the US, something has to explicitly be made legal to be permitted. There has to be a law saying you have the right to do something. Well that's just flat-out incorrect.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's fairly correct regarding copyright, where the default is essentially that the creator owns the material and then every fair use is carved out as an exception to that default assumption. This makes fair use an affirmative defense, which is default risky because the process starts with somebody accusing you of wrongdoing (potentially criminal wrongdoing).
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    But that is also the case in the UK. Indeed more so, the UK has nothing as wide ranging as US Fair Use, just a much more narrow list of permitted allowances.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  Yeah that is incorrect, and The Founders of the United States are crying right now. One of the reasons that some members were opposed to the bill of rights was because they were afraid that the population would take it as a defining list of things they were allowed to do, as opposed to the stated: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

jerf 4y ago

US uses Common Law as derived from the UK's Common Law. In theory in both countries something has to be specifically forbidden. In practice that's not something I'd bet my not-being-in-jail on in either country. Whatever foundation of "anything not forbidden is permitted" has been crusted up with so many layers of governmental power grab that whatever the theory may be, the practice is that if it is not explicitly permitted it is forbidden, and the only reason things not explicitly permitted are allowed is because they just don't happen to make a fuss about it today.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

> In the US, something has to explicitly be made legal to be permitted. There has to be a law saying you have the right to do something. Well that's just flat-out incorrect.

shadowgovt 4y ago
It's fairly correct regarding copyright, where the default is essentially that the creator owns the material and then every fair use is carved out as an exception to that default assumption. This makes fair use an affirmative defense, which is default risky because the process starts with somebody accusing you of wrongdoing (potentially criminal wrongdoing).
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  But that is also the case in the UK. Indeed more so, the UK has nothing as wide ranging as US Fair Use, just a much more narrow list of permitted allowances.
themaninthedark 4y ago
Yeah that is incorrect, and The Founders of the United States are crying right now. One of the reasons that some members were opposed to the bill of rights was because they were afraid that the population would take it as a defining list of things they were allowed to do, as opposed to the stated: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."