7 ms·

Shouldn’t this say “immunity”, not “impunity”? One is a legal term of art, which appears over a dozen times in the linked legal opinion, and the other is a simi

Shouldn’t this say “immunity”, not “impunity”? One is a legal term of art, which appears over a dozen times in the linked legal opinion, and the other is a similar word that has no specific legal meaning, and which does not appear in the linked opinion at all.

xp84 3y ago
Yes, it seems like the linked site either doesn't realize those are two separate words, or enjoys using the latter because maybe it sounds slightly more scandalous? For a factual news story like this, I think a source less dripping with a particular POV would be great.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
IANAL but this seems like a good call
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Shouldn’t this say “immunity”, not “impunity”? Legal immunity is impunity in the common English sense, so the headline is an accurate factual description of the impact either way. > the other is a similar word that has no specific legal meaning, and which does not appear in the linked opinion at all. Neither of those is relevant to the evaluation of the headline (were the word in quotes, the fact that it is not a quote from the opinion would be relevant, but its not, so its not.)
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Legal immunity is impunity in the common English sense The headline says "rejects claim of impunity". There is no such thing as a "claim of impunity", even if the word "impunity" can often be substituted for "immunity"
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The headline says "rejects claim of impunity" And its accurate. > There is no such thing as a "claim of impunity", Yes, there is; every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. The fact that its not a legal term of art doesn't change that those English words accurately describe what occurred.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. This is especially true when the substituted word sounds like the word most lawyers would use. It makes the author sound like he doesn't understand that this is a term of art. It might add variety to the piece, but when I'm reading reporting on legal matters, I'd rather see terms of art used throughout, rather than have the author "mix it up" with these sorts of substitutions.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. If you are reporting for a lay audience it makes sense, esepcially in a headline, to use the common English that best conveys the impact. This is true regardless of the subject matter. > I'd rather see terms of art used throughout That's a valid aesthetic preference, but failure to align with it doesn't make a headline accurately describing the facts into an inaccurate reference to something that doesn't exist.
        SilasX 3y ago
        Layperson here. “Claim of impunity” is muuuch more confusing than “claim of immunity”. The former sounds like they’re claiming that, in practice, they don’t get prosecuted (cf. “the gangs commit crimes with impunity”), rather than that they legally should not be prosecuted.
        gnicholas 3y ago
        As SilasX points out, using the phrase "claim of impunity" could also confuse laypeople about what the legal term of art is. But more importantly, no one ever claimed impunity. You could say they "cannot do x with impunity following this decision" perhaps, but you cannot say that the TSA "claimed impunity" — which they did not ever do.
dfxm12 3y ago
Consider the source. If you poke around the about us section, there's not much there, so it's not clear what their legal or reporting, etc. bona fides are. You gotta take it as amateur journalism and be glad there is at least a link to the decision.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I read lots of law blogs (former lawyer) and some of the language used made it seem very law-blog-ish. For example, non-lawyers typically don't note/congratulate the attorneys representing one party or the other, which this post did at the end. That's why it was so weird to have the word "impunity" mixed in at various places, which is something a lawyer or legal-focused journalist would not do (especially "claim of impunity" in the headline).
- riffic 3y ago
  the site has been previously known to be the work of Edward Hasbrouck (https://icannwiki.org/Edward_Hasbrouck https://icannwiki.org/Edward_Hasbrouck) His name still seems to be on the author byline in this post.

xp84 3y ago

Yes, it seems like the linked site either doesn't realize those are two separate words, or enjoys using the latter because maybe it sounds slightly more scandalous? For a factual news story like this, I think a source less dripping with a particular POV would be great.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

IANAL but this seems like a good call

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Shouldn’t this say “immunity”, not “impunity”? Legal immunity is impunity in the common English sense, so the headline is an accurate factual description of the impact either way. > the other is a similar word that has no specific legal meaning, and which does not appear in the linked opinion at all. Neither of those is relevant to the evaluation of the headline (were the word in quotes, the fact that it is not a quote from the opinion would be relevant, but its not, so its not.)

gnicholas 3y ago
> Legal immunity is impunity in the common English sense The headline says "rejects claim of impunity". There is no such thing as a "claim of impunity", even if the word "impunity" can often be substituted for "immunity"
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The headline says "rejects claim of impunity" And its accurate. > There is no such thing as a "claim of impunity", Yes, there is; every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. The fact that its not a legal term of art doesn't change that those English words accurately describe what occurred.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. This is especially true when the substituted word sounds like the word most lawyers would use. It makes the author sound like he doesn't understand that this is a term of art. It might add variety to the piece, but when I'm reading reporting on legal matters, I'd rather see terms of art used throughout, rather than have the author "mix it up" with these sorts of substitutions.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. If you are reporting for a lay audience it makes sense, esepcially in a headline, to use the common English that best conveys the impact. This is true regardless of the subject matter. > I'd rather see terms of art used throughout That's a valid aesthetic preference, but failure to align with it doesn't make a headline accurately describing the facts into an inaccurate reference to something that doesn't exist.
      - SilasX 3y ago
        Layperson here. “Claim of impunity” is muuuch more confusing than “claim of immunity”. The former sounds like they’re claiming that, in practice, they don’t get prosecuted (cf. “the gangs commit crimes with impunity”), rather than that they legally should not be prosecuted.
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        As SilasX points out, using the phrase "claim of impunity" could also confuse laypeople about what the legal term of art is. But more importantly, no one ever claimed impunity. You could say they "cannot do x with impunity following this decision" perhaps, but you cannot say that the TSA "claimed impunity" — which they did not ever do.

dfxm12 3y ago

Consider the source. If you poke around the about us section, there's not much there, so it's not clear what their legal or reporting, etc. bona fides are. You gotta take it as amateur journalism and be glad there is at least a link to the decision.

gnicholas 3y ago
I read lots of law blogs (former lawyer) and some of the language used made it seem very law-blog-ish. For example, non-lawyers typically don't note/congratulate the attorneys representing one party or the other, which this post did at the end. That's why it was so weird to have the word "impunity" mixed in at various places, which is something a lawyer or legal-focused journalist would not do (especially "claim of impunity" in the headline).
riffic 3y ago
the site has been previously known to be the work of Edward Hasbrouck (https://icannwiki.org/Edward_Hasbrouck https://icannwiki.org/Edward_Hasbrouck) His name still seems to be on the author byline in this post.