4 ms·

Is that not what the courts are for? Do you want Cloudflare to act as a judge? If they find your calling out misinformation resonable you then want them to act

by clan 2y ago

Is that not what the courts are for? Do you want Cloudflare to act as a judge? If they find your calling out misinformation resonable you then want them to act as a legal shield for you? I do understand and accept the need for privacy when running such a blog. But who should judge whether you got your facts wrong? Surely it is no fun going to court. But around here I would not be afraid to go myself for a simple case. And I do mean simple: If you are damn sure what the facts are. But then it might be the thing with judicial lineage: Objective vs subjective truth. French or British style system. In the US I would be scared senseless without representation. Is that inherited from the UK way of thinking?

nullc 2y ago
> But around here I would not be afraid to go myself for a simple case That's naive. You wouldn't be afraid to suffer 100k in costs up front just to deal with a completely meritless case? ... and if the litigant is aggressive and dishonest enough to survive summary dismissal then in the UK you can easily be immediately on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in their legal costs for your failed attempt to get it summarily dismissed. (As the UK will award costs hearing by hearing) The courts are an adversarial system where you're at risk of ruin, you have to put forward your best fight even if the case is stupid. If you phone it in, get less than completely competent representation, put in a lackluster defense you're in grave risk of losing. Our civil courts has replaced the duel as a method of resolving disputes, but in many senses it is still a duel. Less bloody, somewhat more biased towards justice, sure. But when you're standing there pistols at dawn and your opponent draws, standing there complaining that they suck and their duel is dumb will only get you shot. You have to draw and you only get one chance. The severity of the case is the severity of the credible worst case outcome. And totally losing even an absurd case is, sadly, almost always a credible outcome. Sure, you're more likely to win a stupid and meritless case (presuming you don't flub the defense by not taking it seriously)-- but the consequences should you lose aren't diminished by the case being dumb.

by clan 2y ago

nullc 2y ago

> But around here I would not be afraid to go myself for a simple case That's naive. You wouldn't be afraid to suffer 100k in costs up front just to deal with a completely meritless case? ... and if the litigant is aggressive and dishonest enough to survive summary dismissal then in the UK you can easily be immediately on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in their legal costs for your failed attempt to get it summarily dismissed. (As the UK will award costs hearing by hearing) The courts are an adversarial system where you're at risk of ruin, you have to put forward your best fight even if the case is stupid. If you phone it in, get less than completely competent representation, put in a lackluster defense you're in grave risk of losing. Our civil courts has replaced the duel as a method of resolving disputes, but in many senses it is still a duel. Less bloody, somewhat more biased towards justice, sure. But when you're standing there pistols at dawn and your opponent draws, standing there complaining that they suck and their duel is dumb will only get you shot. You have to draw and you only get one chance. The severity of the case is the severity of the credible worst case outcome. And totally losing even an absurd case is, sadly, almost always a credible outcome. Sure, you're more likely to win a stupid and meritless case (presuming you don't flub the defense by not taking it seriously)-- but the consequences should you lose aren't diminished by the case being dumb.