5 ms·
Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the go
by c0pium 3y ago
Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can (try) to change it but that has to go through the actual process. They are welcome to be as mad as they want that their law is poorly written but it is still their law.
- skeaker 3y agoI believe "their law" is what is being criticized, and GP's "government that I help elect" would do away with "their law." Pointing out that the law being criticized as bad is in fact a law is at best a tautology...
- gemstones 3y agoAs a voter, I’m OK with them not following the process on this one!
- realusername 3y agoEvery law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.
- sokoloff 3y agoI hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts. Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people to not kill each other, and Foo meant to, therefore Foo is guilty of 1st degree murder.” Rather, they have to prove Foo’s actions met all required elements of the charge. If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter. I think the IRS step doctrine is relatively rare in legal interpretations, but at a minimum, it’s not “every other law is interpreted that way”. I don’t take a position on Microsoft’s actions here, other than “if it can be shown to be plainly compliant with the law as written, I’m uncomfortable with the law being changed during interpretation such that it’s deemed to be non-compliant.”
- mathgeek 3y agoYou should probably clarify that intent doesn’t matter in terms of baseline fault, as it definitely matters in terms of punishment and charges.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. Bullshit. If you intended to do it, it’s something like assault or attempted murder. If you didn’t, it’s likely a civil traffic ticket and an insurance claim. SCOTUS precedent permits use of legislative intent to resolve ambiguously worded legislation, too. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern_Pacific_Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern_Pacific_Co...> > The rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly does not permit such a construction as defeats the obvious intention of the legislature.
- tw04 3y ago> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter. Huh? In both of these examples, intent 100% matters. If I rear ended you because I had a medical emergency vs I was texting on my phone vs I had a bout of road rage and wanted to kill you vs I know who you are and you’re sleeping with my wife so I followed you from work to try to kill you: All VERY different levels of potential punishment based entirely on my intent.