21 ms·

disguising yourself in order to attempt to circumvent the ban would be an additional offense. Though the point is less the examples and more the principle: tha

disguising yourself in order to attempt to circumvent the ban would be an additional offense. Though the point is less the examples and more the principle: that an offense can be made up of multiple inoffensive-sounding parts which are only problematic when taken together.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
But if there are no examples of the principle, the principle would seem to be questionable. Disguising yourself being an additional, quasi-separate offense puts it into the pattern of hate crimes, where a legal action harshens the penalty for an illegal one. But it doesn't illustrate the idea that an offense can be composed solely of actions which are all individually OK; if you're banned from a store you commit an offense by entering it, and entering in disguise necessarily involves entering. It's probably worth mentioning blackmail, which is a standard example of a crime made up solely of legal acts. But that very property of blackmail has meant that judges (and some legal theoreticians) hate it and try not to extend what sorts of conduct might be considered blackmail or draw analogies to blackmail when considering other crimes.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "if there are no examples of the principle" it's a big stretch from "I didn't happen to describe any perfectly" to "there aren't any". > "an offense can be composed solely of actions which are all individually OK" An offense can be composed of actions which all sound like they're OK when described without the context of the other actions. (See, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235034 -- changing IPs is OK and accessing a website is OK, but when you've received a C&D letter and you circumvent an IP ban, that's lawsuit-worthy.) Going back to the Monsanto case, it sounds like it's OK to grow the seeds you happen to have, and it sounds like it's OK to spray your crops with roundup, and it sounds like it's OK to replant seeds that survive. But the combination, clearly intended to acquire a RR crop (and use roundup on it) without paying the appropriate fee, is illegal.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    > changing IPs is OK and accessing a website is OK, but when you've received a C&D letter and you circumvent an IP ban, that's lawsuit-worthy I don't see how this differs from the situation of entering a store while banned (and optionally disguised). It's quite clear that visiting the website was an offense regardless of IP cloaking. > Craigslist gave the world permission (i.e., “authorization”) to access the public information on its public website. Then, just as Brekka instructed that an “authority” can do, it rescinded that permission for 3Taps. Further access by 3Taps after that rescission was “without authorization.” > The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The IP ban was considered evidence that the requirement to stay off the website was properly communicated, but the C&D is surely sufficient for that purpose. (Orin Kerr actually blasts the judge for misunderstanding the law, saying that in his [Kerr's] view accessing the website after receiving a C&D would not in itself be an offense... but the judgment is officially the law, and Orin Kerr isn't.)
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      All of these are examples of actions which could be described in ways that make them sound like non-offenses (ie, a sequence of individual actions which don't sound like offenses if you ignore the context) but which are actually offenses when you look at all of the actions together. You can misleadingly describe 3taps' actions, entering a store you've been banned from disguised, or luring someone to the forest to shoot them, in ways that make them sound legit (please don't be that guy who takes issue with my not presenting them cleverly enough; you don't pay me enough to take the time to make the analogies airtight.) Taking this back to the original point about Monsanto: it's not legal to isolate their seeds and then grow them while using roundup, without first paying the fee to have their patented roundup-ready seeds. Because it's illegal to skip the license fee. Several layers of posts back, you described certain farmers' actions in ways that sound legit, but when you take the actions all together they're clearly attempting to use the special properties of Monsanto's seeds without paying, which is illegal.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago

thaumasiotes 12y ago

But if there are no examples of the principle, the principle would seem to be questionable. Disguising yourself being an additional, quasi-separate offense puts it into the pattern of hate crimes, where a legal action harshens the penalty for an illegal one. But it doesn't illustrate the idea that an offense can be composed solely of actions which are all individually OK; if you're banned from a store you commit an offense by entering it, and entering in disguise necessarily involves entering. It's probably worth mentioning blackmail, which is a standard example of a crime made up solely of legal acts. But that very property of blackmail has meant that judges (and some legal theoreticians) hate it and try not to extend what sorts of conduct might be considered blackmail or draw analogies to blackmail when considering other crimes.

lotharbot 12y ago
> "if there are no examples of the principle" it's a big stretch from "I didn't happen to describe any perfectly" to "there aren't any". > "an offense can be composed solely of actions which are all individually OK" An offense can be composed of actions which all sound like they're OK when described without the context of the other actions. (See, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235034 -- changing IPs is OK and accessing a website is OK, but when you've received a C&D letter and you circumvent an IP ban, that's lawsuit-worthy.) Going back to the Monsanto case, it sounds like it's OK to grow the seeds you happen to have, and it sounds like it's OK to spray your crops with roundup, and it sounds like it's OK to replant seeds that survive. But the combination, clearly intended to acquire a RR crop (and use roundup on it) without paying the appropriate fee, is illegal.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > changing IPs is OK and accessing a website is OK, but when you've received a C&D letter and you circumvent an IP ban, that's lawsuit-worthy I don't see how this differs from the situation of entering a store while banned (and optionally disguised). It's quite clear that visiting the website was an offense regardless of IP cloaking. > Craigslist gave the world permission (i.e., “authorization”) to access the public information on its public website. Then, just as Brekka instructed that an “authority” can do, it rescinded that permission for 3Taps. Further access by 3Taps after that rescission was “without authorization.” > The banned user has to follow only one, clear rule: do not access the website. The IP ban was considered evidence that the requirement to stay off the website was properly communicated, but the C&D is surely sufficient for that purpose. (Orin Kerr actually blasts the judge for misunderstanding the law, saying that in his [Kerr's] view accessing the website after receiving a C&D would not in itself be an offense... but the judgment is officially the law, and Orin Kerr isn't.)
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    All of these are examples of actions which could be described in ways that make them sound like non-offenses (ie, a sequence of individual actions which don't sound like offenses if you ignore the context) but which are actually offenses when you look at all of the actions together. You can misleadingly describe 3taps' actions, entering a store you've been banned from disguised, or luring someone to the forest to shoot them, in ways that make them sound legit (please don't be that guy who takes issue with my not presenting them cleverly enough; you don't pay me enough to take the time to make the analogies airtight.) Taking this back to the original point about Monsanto: it's not legal to isolate their seeds and then grow them while using roundup, without first paying the fee to have their patented roundup-ready seeds. Because it's illegal to skip the license fee. Several layers of posts back, you described certain farmers' actions in ways that sound legit, but when you take the actions all together they're clearly attempting to use the special properties of Monsanto's seeds without paying, which is illegal.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago