|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I wonder how the reasonableness test will work in the future with the current "triggered" generation.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I wonder how the reasonableness test will work in the future with the current "triggered" generation. Kids today!  When I was a kid you threatened to rape women and kill their families all the time, and everyone had a good laugh!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's a self-correcting definition, whatever people think is reasonable is reasonable. If society moves away from what you personally perceive as reasonable, that's your problem. If society diverges along some sort of divide, then what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If society diverges along some sort of divide, then what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:You'll get a bunch of hung juries I suppose. I don't see that as a problem, if there is an activity that society legitimately can't come to agreement on whether it should be a crime, I'm ok with it being not a crime. Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I plan to demonstrate to you that the defendant is not guilty by reason of self-defense. I will be presenting evidence to you which will illustrate how the defendant had no choice but to drag the deceased behind his truck and hang the deceased from a tree, all in self defense. The deceased, you see, has a history of parking tickets. This long-storied history of traffic infractions can give us some insight into what may have been the deceased's cause for vandalizing the defendant's vehicle - there on the screen, you can see where the defendant's fender and hood were damaged by the deceased...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
So are you mounting an attack on the "reasonable man" standard in general here, or what? I mean, if we're going down that road, theoretically juries can just nullify all accusations of rape or whatever by choosing to not believe the woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So are you mounting an attack on the "reasonable man" standard in general here, or what? My problem is the prospect of extending the current problems of race versus justice into online discourse. "He said 'watch yourself' on my Facebook wall" being the new "I just knew he wanted to kill me when he fought back, so I stood my ground." It's not the reasonable man standard that's at issue, it's how loving hazy that poo poo can get when you're dealing with words on a webpage. It's bad enough that "reasonable" is shifting away from expecting the defendant to try to escape at least a little bit and towards "shoot first and put the other guy on trial for his own murder," but taking all of those problems and mainlining that into the vitriolic cesspit of online commentary? gently caress me. I'd love to feel secure in the knowledge that nobody would be able to successfully claim self defense in killing someone over facebook posts but that's drat hard given how hosed up that kind of poo poo is in-person these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:My problem is the prospect of extending the current problems of race versus justice into online discourse. "He said 'watch yourself' on my Facebook wall" being the new "I just knew he wanted to kill me when he fought back, so I stood my ground." It's not the reasonable man standard that's at issue, it's how loving hazy that poo poo can get when you're dealing with words on a webpage. It's bad enough that "reasonable" is shifting away from expecting the defendant to try to escape at least a little bit and towards "shoot first and put the other guy on trial for his own murder," but taking all of those problems and mainlining that into the vitriolic cesspit of online commentary? gently caress me. I'd love to feel secure in the knowledge that nobody would be able to successfully claim self defense in killing someone over facebook posts but that's drat hard given how hosed up that kind of poo poo is in-person these days. Are you under the impression this is some sort of stand-your-ground thing? It's not. Nothing about self-defense law is involved here. This is about if you can prosecute someone through the criminal justice system for threats and what standards you apply there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:My problem is the prospect of extending the current problems of race versus justice into online discourse. "He said 'watch yourself' on my Facebook wall" being the new "I just knew he wanted to kill me when he fought back, so I stood my ground." It's not the reasonable man standard that's at issue, it's how loving hazy that poo poo can get when you're dealing with words on a webpage. It's bad enough that "reasonable" is shifting away from expecting the defendant to try to escape at least a little bit and towards "shoot first and put the other guy on trial for his own murder," but taking all of those problems and mainlining that into the vitriolic cesspit of online commentary? gently caress me. I'd love to feel secure in the knowledge that nobody would be able to successfully claim self defense in killing someone over facebook posts but that's drat hard given how hosed up that kind of poo poo is in-person these days. in the case though it was a former intimate partner, which would make the threats credible if they were considered to be actual threats, which seems to be what's at issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Are you under the impression this is some sort of stand-your-ground thing? It's not. Nothing about self-defense law is involved here. This is about if you can prosecute someone through the criminal justice system for threats and what standards you apply there. Well then I'm in the wrong. I was interpreting it as setting a precedent to include threats online as a venue in which someone may be justified in defending themselves with deadly force - if you can prosecute then it lends credence to someone claiming self-defense after gunning down their kid's classmates for getting mouthy on facebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Everyone should read the 3d Circuit decision in Elonis - the facts are ... well, extensive. I'm not sure it's the best set of facts to test this principle because of the egregiousness/extensiveness, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Everyone should read the 3d Circuit decision in Elonis - the facts are ... well, extensive. I'm not sure it's the best set of facts to test this principle because of the egregiousness/extensiveness, to be honest. See, if the decision had the effect of making threats like this (though the egregiousness of it isn't something I'd say is a bar to be crossed, that poo poo's pretty heinous) illegal while still establishing a barrier between online and in-person interactions as to keep it wholly out of the hands of the self defense brigade, I'd feel a lot less uneasy about it. Make it illegal to be an rear end in a top hat online but keep it illegal to go and gun down an rear end in a top hat after they talked poo poo on the internet. I just have this sinking feeling of seeing some non-white kid getting murdered in front of his own house after which the murderer walks because he saw the kid flashing gang signs on facebook and had to make sure that rear end in a top hat wouldn't get away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:See, if the decision had the effect of making threats like this (though the egregiousness of it isn't something I'd say is a bar to be crossed, that poo poo's pretty heinous) illegal while still establishing a barrier between online and in-person interactions as to keep it wholly out of the hands of the self defense brigade, I'd feel a lot less uneasy about it. Well, the thing is that for true threats to be true threats, there has to be a certain degree of direction and specificity. The jurisprudence has grappled with this since Vietnam, but basically if a jury acquits on the basis that a Facebook gang sign was a true threat to the person who killed the kid specifically, that jury was not going to convict unless Jesus Christ himself returned to Earth to say "that poo poo is murder."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
What constitutes a criminal threat for harassment purposes and what constitutes a threat for self-defense purposes are two different things. Something can be a criminal threat without it being an actionable self-defense threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What constitutes a criminal threat for harassment purposes and what constitutes a threat for self-defense purposes are two different things. Something can be a criminal threat without it being an actionable self-defense threat. This, too - though I read FAUXTON as more concerned with the theory of "speech can create reasonable fear" than the application of the statute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This, too - though I read FAUXTON as more concerned with the theory of "speech can create reasonable fear" than the application of the statute. That's a good way to put it, better than I've been trying, certainly. That bar for reasonable fear justifying a homicide keeps getting kicked around recklessly in some areas and it's unsettling to think it'll end up acquitting someone for killing someone else over poo poo on facebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's a good way to put it, better than I've been trying, certainly. That bar for reasonable fear justifying a homicide keeps getting kicked around recklessly in some areas and it's unsettling to think it'll end up acquitting someone for killing someone else over poo poo on facebook. It's not being expanded through judicial decisions. It's being expanded through states passing new laws to deliberately make it easier to shoot people in "self-defense" and eliminate various judicial doctrines that reasonably restrict when you can shoot people in "self-defense".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not being expanded through judicial decisions. It's being expanded through states passing new laws to deliberately make it easier to shoot people in "self-defense" and eliminate various judicial doctrines that reasonably restrict when you can shoot people in "self-defense". And I am worried that this decision could lay the groundwork for further legislative expansion. A high court decision assigning legitimacy to internet threats emboldens the kind of actors who keep lowering the "justifiable homicide bar." I'm really hoping they figure out a way to classify those threats as legitimate/criminal but make it illegal to act in defense against them alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:And I am worried that this decision could lay the groundwork for further legislative expansion. A high court decision assigning legitimacy to internet threats emboldens the kind of actors who keep lowering the "justifiable homicide bar." The problem is this has nothing to do with that. You want to fight that, you fight that at the legislative level. This case is not about "assigning legitimacy to internet threats". Internet threats are threats. The issue is what counts as a threat: something that makes a reasonable person believe its a threat, or something that the sayer actively intends to be a threat. The Supreme Court will not say it is illegal to act in defense against them alone because these things are not related and that statement is not needed: even the most redneck of "you can shoot whoever" laws in red states require an actual threat that something will happen right now. Not sometime in the future, now. And those laws are not about what a reasonable, objective person would believe - they are about what the shooter himself actually believes in the moment (at times how reasonable that was, but reasonability is a restriction - you have to believe there's a threat and that belief must be reasonable given the situation). This case is not about self-defense. There is nothing in this case that would be applicable to self-defense. There is no reason the court should rule on anything relating to self-defense because either rule the court will draw will make many more threats a "threat" than would qualify for shooting someone in self-defense. If I tell you that I'm going to kill you in disturbing, threatening language over the internet or over the phone or by mail and intend you to be terrified, under either standard I'll be making a threat the law is allowed to punish, and under neither rule will you be permitted to shoot me for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:And I am worried that this decision could lay the groundwork for further legislative expansion. A high court decision assigning legitimacy to internet threats emboldens the kind of actors who keep lowering the "justifiable homicide bar." For self defense the threat has to be imminent. You can't just go stalk and murder someone for sending you a letter and claim self-defense. If you would have had time to go to the police station or call the cops then by definition you can't be acting in self-defense if you choose to hunt down and kill someone instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's a self-correcting definition, whatever people think is reasonable is reasonable. If society moves away from what you personally perceive as reasonable, that's your problem. Incidentally, this is the scary thing about privacy, since it depends on "a reasonable expectation of privacy". If everyone's happy letting their private lives show on Facebook, then where goes any "reasonable expectation"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Incidentally, this is the scary thing about privacy, since it depends on "a reasonable expectation of privacy". If everyone's happy letting their private lives show on Facebook, then where goes any "reasonable expectation"? I think there can still be a standard, eg " as private as poo poo you don't post on Facebook, " right up to the point when everyone has an always-on webcam mounted in their skull. The real threat is companies, government agencies, whatever using statistical analysis to infer things that deliberately weren't shared. That is, the bigger problem is the question being circumvented entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Incidentally, this is the scary thing about privacy, since it depends on "a reasonable expectation of privacy". If everyone's happy letting their private lives show on Facebook, then where goes any "reasonable expectation"? You don't have a free-floating expectation of privacy in general that is what you seem to be alluding to here. What you have is an expectation of privacy for things given their circumstances. If I post (nearly) everything that happens in my life in real-time on facebook and share it with the world, but then have a hidden private diary where I record the few things I don't want the world to know that I keep hidden in my sock drawer, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of that diary. That's because a reasonable person would assume that the diary in my sock drawer would remain private. I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the things I've put on facebook and shared with the world because a reasonable person would know that's not private. If I share it with friends of friends, a reasonable person would probably know that's not really private either. But if I have it shared with no one, but you hack in anyway, I did have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. What you seem to be alluding to is if I say consider my sex life private. That's not really a thing the law recognizes. It will instead draw distinctions between specific information that I've put various places. If I don't tell my parents I'm gay, but I post pictures of myself having sex with men on the internet, I don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding those pictures (or the information you could glean from them). But if I don't, if instead you put a hidden camera in my bedroom to catch me having sex with men and then post those pictures on the internet, that is a violation of my privacy. Neither situation really asks what the rest of the world is doing, it's only asking what you expect the rest of the world to know given the situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Also what can be gleaned from semi public information is beyond the scope of what a reasonable person would expect. If I go to great lengths to secretly frequent a gay brothel, my actions are undone if I bring a cell phone: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0 Google (and the NSA, according to Snowden at least) will be able to piece together information that would otherwise be considered private. That sort of blows the whole reasonable expectation out of the water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Also what can be gleaned from semi public information is beyond the scope of what a reasonable person would expect. If I go to great lengths to secretly frequent a gay brothel, my actions are undone if I bring a cell phone: Yeah this sort of thing is really really tricky, but it does not depend on what various idiots are sharing on facebook. It's basically a problem of information leakage, and that the ability to put together public information to data-mine information you would not have reasonably expected was determinable from that public information has gotten out of hand. It probably requires a new framework to think about privacy to fix, or it may just turn out to be unfixable. But it's a very different problem than "those kids are oversharing and ruining what we expect for the rest of us".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I wonder how the reasonableness test will work in the future with the current "triggered" generation. I feel threatened by this statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Trigger Warning: This post contains death threats. Please don't kill me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trigger Warning: This post contains death threats. Please don't kill me. I totally want to express my facetious wish of death on you in a nonthreatening and completely legal manner now! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I'm a transpresident, voting against me is erasure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Does anyone have predictions on the pregnant worker rights case SCOTUS is hearing today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
In a 5-4 decision, women who want to be pregnant should stay at home and let their husbands work or keep their legs closed, with a dissent from RBG that consists of her giving the finger to the five.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
RBG's personal history would probably drive her to strap on a bomb vest, lock the other eight in a conference room with her, and threaten to detonate the drat thing until everyone writes glowing concurrences to her opinion. E: RGB's Wiki page posted:At the end of Ginsburg's oral presentation (Duren, 1978), then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist asked Ginsburg, "You won't settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar, then?" Ginsburg said she considered responding "We won't settle for tokens," but instead opted not to answer the question. I kind of wish she would have blurted that out to Rehnquist's face. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I kind of wish she would have blurted that out to Rehnquist's face.  "You want equal treatment before the law? Look ya broad, we put some chick's face on a coin, quit your nagging and like it already."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey Toobin was on Fresh Air talking about Obama, the Courts, Obamacare, and Ferguson: http://www.npr.org/2014/12/03/368228244/president-obama-and-the-courts-a-shift-in-balance tl;dr Scalia is a fucker and so are Republican strategists
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Rbg is straight up gangster
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Rbg is straight up gangster Punk motherfuckas wanna violate, now they 5-4 and the courts have set a mandate
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Does anyone have predictions on the pregnant worker rights case SCOTUS is hearing today? my guess is they will go for the plaintiff. the facts are not good for UPS, especially since they apparently accommodate drunk drivers. The plaintiff rarely had to lift over 20 lbs to begin with, so reassigning the few heavy boxes for a short period of time seems a much less burdensome accommodation than giving drunks a personal driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:my guess is they will go for the plaintiff. the facts are not good for UPS, especially since they apparently accommodate drunk drivers. The plaintiff rarely had to lift over 20 lbs to begin with, so reassigning the few heavy boxes for a short period of time seems a much less burdensome accommodation than giving drunks a personal driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't know if it would be used in the case, but apparently UPS has also changed this policy to allow pregnant workers to be reassigned less taxing work since the original incident took place. Geez, if that's true then it's pretty damning. There are at least analogous legal dispute settings under common law where that would be practically dispositive. Although, it's SCOTUS, so who knows?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Geez, if that's true then it's pretty damning. There are at least analogous legal dispute settings under common law where that would be practically dispositive. Although, it's SCOTUS, so who knows? Uh, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying: Federal Rule of Evidence 407 posted:When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove: edit: So evidence of subsequent remedial measures is, generally, excluded from a trial to show liability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:20
|
|