3 ms·

> Courts usually require parties making a motion for some relief to submit a proposed order.. I don't follow the complaint here. What the article said was corr

• rayiner 11y ago
  A motion for injunction asks the court to make some party do or not do something. Injunction orders have lots of routine but fact-specific details. Anyone filing a motion for injunction will file a proposed order, to save the court the hassle of pulling those details from the motion and typing them into an order, and also to eliminate any "loss in translation" from that process. Lawyers know that submitting a proposed order is routine (not just for injunctions, but almost any motion), and that the judge will strike or rewrite anything he or she does not agree with. But when you phrase it the way the article does--that the media companies get to write the order (as if everyone else doesn't)--that falsely implies special treatment and influence.
  • thrownaway122 11y ago
    Except that not all judges strike things. A lot just rubber stamp whatever the Big Co rights holders has submitted.
    • ghayes 11y ago
      Then that should be the argument, not the drafting of the order.
    • McElroy 11y ago
      Citation needed.
  • guelo 11y ago
    To me "initially drafted" implied exactly what you're saying. Feels like you're nitpicking.
    • danielweber 11y ago
      It's like a pull request. The court doesn't want you to say "this code is dumb, it should sort numbers better." The court does want you to say "here is how the code should sort numbers: <diff.txt>" And the opposing side can critique your diff.txt. If you cannot arrange your thoughts sufficiently to get into the second format, you do not belong in the courtroom yet.
• anigbrowl 11y ago
  Because the EFF is misleading readers about how the US legal system works. How is it bad that the media companies are drafting the orders? They are parties to the case. The other side is also drafting orders and then the court picks whichever one has the better legal argument. Suppose you get in a dispute with someone. You got to court asking that the court order the other person to stop doing something, or to hand over the money they owe you, or do whatever it is you think they should do that made you sue them. The judge will tell your lawyer to draft the order that you (the client) would like the judge to sign. How do you think the defenedant will feel about this if you win the case? 'OMG it was so unfair, the order was actually written by fenomas' lawyer and all the judge did was rubber-stamp it, what has our justice system come to etc. etc. etc.'...unless the dispute goes int eh defendant's favor in which case you'll probably say the same thing about the defendant's lawyer writing the motion that the judge signed off on. This is the normal operation of our adversarial legal system. the EFF should be using their position to educate people about that and then explaining where they disagree with the merits of the media companies' arguments, instead of pretending that there is some sort of procedural sleight-of-hand going on. After all, when the EFF goes to court the EFF's lawyers submit the motions that they would like the judges to sign, just like in any other dispute.
  • the_ancient 11y ago
    > instead of pretending that there is some sort of procedural sleight-of-hand going on. except for the fact that there is sleight of and going on, the MAFFIA get ex parte rulings all the time, this is not "adversarial" this is the court system bending to the will of large corporations. The MAFFIA believes it alone should be the sole arbitrator of who is allowed and not allowed to post content to the Internet, and the courts have been more than willing to cede this power to them with rubber stamp orders.
    • Dylan16807 11y ago
      If there's sleight-of-hand going on elsewhere in the process, even more important not to imply it in the wrong place.
    • tptacek 11y ago