3 ms·
The same 'sophistry' that might serve authority here may be the sophistry that goes against authority elsewhere in the legal framework, so I'd be careful about
by mpyne 13y ago
The same 'sophistry' that might serve authority here may be the sophistry that goes against authority elsewhere in the legal framework, so I'd be careful about drawing additional inferences from what tptacek has written. He's describing how the law actually is, whether you agree with it or not. A notable example is "treason", which has a very precise definition that is not friendly to authority.
Have you read legal code, by any chance? Often modern laws include at the beginning of each section a wordy definition of what each term actually means, despite each of those terms having perfectly good and reasonable meanings in the common vernacular. It is later in accordance with those terms that the court interprets the law (assuming, of course, that the law is not deemed unconstitutional).
Given that plethora of examples of this in the law (and case law) I don't see how pointing out that legal principles are being misapplied is somehow subservient to authority. The journalists have tried to explain things in the context of legal principles and not reason, so they should be evaluated on legal principles. Otherwise we risk people trying to rely on that flawed logic in the courts in good faith, with nothing to show for it, when they should have been taking action that had a shot at success.
- rhizome 13y agoHuh? Sorry, while I should probably just bow out, I have no idea what the substance here is. It reads as metacommentary to me.
- mpyne 13y agoTo rephrase, the article seems written from the idea that the journalists have found some innovative change in how the law was applied by the FISC. But it's not really innovative since the journalists didn't understand the reason why 'relevant' in this context would not be the same 'relevant' from the Supreme Court case they were discussing. They are trying to play law and messed it up, must like the first time I used Python I messed it up because I didn't realize that it's pointers, pointers everywehre. So PRISM and all the rest may very well be bullshit, but it will be because it's actually bullshit and not because (in this case) some reporters have spotted some glaring bright-line change instituted by a panel of 12 judges. The risk with these types of arguments is that the technically skilled opponent points out the flaw in your reasoning and derails the whole thing, even though your overall point may have actually been valid. In this case, the government can go 'No conspiracy here, the reporters didn't understand that the definition of relevance for these cases comes from <whatever case law>, so all hunky-dory now, eh. Oh look, Egypt!'