3 ms·
> Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endang
by adolph 3y ago
> Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone?
Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, premeditated murder, hate crime additions, etc.
If one were to balance benefit/harm, if the jury found that the would-be defamers benefited Mann personally and professionally in the manner of the "Streisand Effect," would Mann need to pay them?
- Spivak 3y agoBy my reading you're agreeing with me. Attempting murder is also a crime where here there isn't really "attempted defamation" despite the actions and intent of the would-be defamer being identical. If you believe any part of the justice system is supposed to act as a deterrent then sincerely trying and failing to harm someone else is an act worthy of punishment. You might argue that punitive damages ought to be collected by the state or destroyed but regardless their function is identical.
- adolph 3y agoI don’t agree and not agree, just exploring the idea. I think the deterrent part of a justice system is to deter the person harmed from initiating or continuing a cycle of retribution that reduces civilization to ruin. If it could be a deterrent for people who do wrong, then it does a bad job of it. In reality the wrongs and rights people do are not their own, just random happenstance that configured a person to be in the position to act in a certain way at a certain time.