3 ms·

> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. More specifically, t

> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. More specifically, the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo".

uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
I know very little (read: nothing) about any relevant laws, but I'm still struck by your answer. You say two things: (1) the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. (2) The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo". Aren't those two very different statements? I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that (1) leads to them saying (2), or whether (1) and (2) are two different things that both happen to be true. I'm not trying to nit pick. (1) seems like a good thing: There is intent behind law, and I see it as an important, worthwhile, and even critical part of the judicial system to treat laws as more than hardcoded rules -- intent (i.e. the difference between following "the letter" vs abiding by "the spirit" of a law) and similar contextual aspects of law seem like essential things to take into account when applying old laws to new, previously unforseen situations (which most commonly occur as a result of technological and social changes). This is certainly a very debatable and controversial question, and I'm not qualified to argue for either side, but as far as I can tell this is a controversial and fundamental issue that divides people, including experts (judges, lawyers, scholars of law). (2), on the other hand, sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a group of people who are some combination of stupid, xenophobic, very conservative (as in "hate progress", not just the "old-fashioned/traditional" sense) and/or have vested interests in embellishing the status quo. In other words, not something you ever want to see from a supreme court, though clearly (a) it may actually be true and (b) these traits aren't necessarily negative in trace amounts, especially for an institution as powerful as the supreme court. Basically, my question is: (1) suggests something I find arguably good, but certainly worthy of debate. (2) reeks of dangerous bigotry. Are you saying that (1) and (2) are both true based on this ruling? Do you agree that (1) and (2) are entirely separate questions, or do you think I am wrong in drawing that distinction?

uaygsfdbzf 12y ago

I know very little (read: nothing) about any relevant laws, but I'm still struck by your answer. You say two things: (1) the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. (2) The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo". Aren't those two very different statements? I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that (1) leads to them saying (2), or whether (1) and (2) are two different things that both happen to be true. I'm not trying to nit pick. (1) seems like a good thing: There is intent behind law, and I see it as an important, worthwhile, and even critical part of the judicial system to treat laws as more than hardcoded rules -- intent (i.e. the difference between following "the letter" vs abiding by "the spirit" of a law) and similar contextual aspects of law seem like essential things to take into account when applying old laws to new, previously unforseen situations (which most commonly occur as a result of technological and social changes). This is certainly a very debatable and controversial question, and I'm not qualified to argue for either side, but as far as I can tell this is a controversial and fundamental issue that divides people, including experts (judges, lawyers, scholars of law). (2), on the other hand, sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a group of people who are some combination of stupid, xenophobic, very conservative (as in "hate progress", not just the "old-fashioned/traditional" sense) and/or have vested interests in embellishing the status quo. In other words, not something you ever want to see from a supreme court, though clearly (a) it may actually be true and (b) these traits aren't necessarily negative in trace amounts, especially for an institution as powerful as the supreme court. Basically, my question is: (1) suggests something I find arguably good, but certainly worthy of debate. (2) reeks of dangerous bigotry. Are you saying that (1) and (2) are both true based on this ruling? Do you agree that (1) and (2) are entirely separate questions, or do you think I am wrong in drawing that distinction?