3 ms·

> lawfare is the most effective tool Wow, I didn't expect you to openly admit you're in favor of lawfare, especially based on wealth discrimination; but after

> lawfare is the most effective tool Wow, I didn't expect you to openly admit you're in favor of lawfare, especially based on wealth discrimination; but after reading that stark confession in the first sentence it saved me some time, because I didn't keep reading past that.

shadowgovt 2y ago
I mean, I chose to use your terminology for your convenience. Lawfare is also called "People exercising their rights under the law," And it shouldn't carry any negative connotation. But apparently some people have decided that it isn't good when individuals protect their rights legally. This is a weird post-legal era we live in, where it appears people hold the law itself in contempt. I'm not super excited to see what happens next, because we've tried alternatives to rule of law and they haven't generally worked great... > because I didn't keep reading past that. As, of course, is your right. I don't generally make these posts for individuals; I share these thoughts for the larger discourse on Hacker News. If, as an individual, you don't wish to use your time to consider this alternate viewpoint, it is your time.
- quantadev 2y ago
  > lawfare is the most effective tool You knew precisely what the word meant when you used it.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    And I stand by my use of it. The Sandy Hook families were private individuals; the only thing they had in common is a man killed their kids and then another man told his hundreds of thousands of listeners, over and over again, that those kids didn't exist. They had no platform to shout down his lies. They had no corporation to fund an antidote to his lying. They had no resources to stop the harassing phone calls and death threats from the people Jones convinced they were monsters. What they had was a right, under common law in the United States, to not have their names dragged through the mud. And they took the man who did that to court and they won. In a country where, we should note, truth is an affirmative defense (and not one that Jones proffered, because truth was not on his side). This is the story of victory of the marginalized and powerless over a media mogul who hurt strangers for a buck. It is good that they live in a country where such people can hold the powerful to account. And hey. If injustice was done he can counter-sue to rectify it. Perhaps we should take note that he won't because the law is not on his side... They didn't wrong him.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      I know you stand by it. That's what I just said.

shadowgovt 2y ago

I mean, I chose to use your terminology for your convenience. Lawfare is also called "People exercising their rights under the law," And it shouldn't carry any negative connotation. But apparently some people have decided that it isn't good when individuals protect their rights legally. This is a weird post-legal era we live in, where it appears people hold the law itself in contempt. I'm not super excited to see what happens next, because we've tried alternatives to rule of law and they haven't generally worked great... > because I didn't keep reading past that. As, of course, is your right. I don't generally make these posts for individuals; I share these thoughts for the larger discourse on Hacker News. If, as an individual, you don't wish to use your time to consider this alternate viewpoint, it is your time.

quantadev 2y ago
> lawfare is the most effective tool You knew precisely what the word meant when you used it.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  And I stand by my use of it. The Sandy Hook families were private individuals; the only thing they had in common is a man killed their kids and then another man told his hundreds of thousands of listeners, over and over again, that those kids didn't exist. They had no platform to shout down his lies. They had no corporation to fund an antidote to his lying. They had no resources to stop the harassing phone calls and death threats from the people Jones convinced they were monsters. What they had was a right, under common law in the United States, to not have their names dragged through the mud. And they took the man who did that to court and they won. In a country where, we should note, truth is an affirmative defense (and not one that Jones proffered, because truth was not on his side). This is the story of victory of the marginalized and powerless over a media mogul who hurt strangers for a buck. It is good that they live in a country where such people can hold the powerful to account. And hey. If injustice was done he can counter-sue to rectify it. Perhaps we should take note that he won't because the law is not on his side... They didn't wrong him.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    I know you stand by it. That's what I just said.