21–30 of 30 posts
Cant they just have a plain speech normal copy and let this be translated into proper referenced legal documents (for various jurisdictions) by people who know what they are doing?
Neat idea, but the current version of the document just looks like a jumble of loosely related points, somewhat like the laundry list of demands that somebody claiming to represent OWS posted on Reddit a few months ago. What does a damage cap on copyright infringement have to do with a general prohibition of censorship? Why does the document suddenly make up an arbitrary definition of derivative content? Closely rela…
Why do they want to write this sort of stuff in stuffy 19-th century pseudo-legalese? Cant they just have a plain speech normal copy and let this be translated into proper referenced legal documents (for various jurisdictions) by people who know what they are doing?
Why do they want to write this sort of stuff in stuffy 19-th century pseudo-legalese? Cant they just have a plain speech normal copy and let this be translated into proper referenced legal documents (for various jurisdictions) by people who know what they are doing?
'Legalese' isn't just obfuscated English. It's very precise English designed to smoothly interface with the entire corpus of law. Since Redditors were trying to draft a bill it seems appropriate.
Having said that, some of the contributors (and yourself assumedly) seem to feel the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Legalese' isn't just obfuscated English. It's very precise English designed to smoothly interface with the entire corpus of law. Since Redditors were trying to draft a bill it seems appropriate.
Looking at the various Reddit pages, I assumed this was not just for the USA. Words have different legal meanings in different legal environments. Having said that, some of the contributors (and yourself assumedly) seem to feel the opposite.
More effective may have been a memo for legislators defining the minimum requirements for a country to have "Internet freedom".
Why do they want to write this sort of stuff in stuffy 19-th century pseudo-legalese? Cant they just have a plain speech normal copy and let this be translated into proper referenced legal documents (for various jurisdictions) by people who know what they are doing?
Looks like the vandals have taken their toll... Instead of open google doc, this should be a git repo. edit: Created one: https://github.com/bradherman/Reddit-Free-Internet-Act
There has never been an amazing piece of 'legislation' drafted by a huge group of people. There's a very good reason why that's the case. Intelligent discourse in which critical differences and conflicts can be sorted out, can't occur at hyper scale because it becomes an echo chamber - all you'll end up hearing is everybody shouting back and forth, resulting in absolutely nothing.
The only way they can do this, if they're serious about it, is through using a representation system, in which a group of people empowers one person to speak, negotiate and resolve on their behalf so that things actually get done.
> Censorship is only permitted if content is found to be illegal content in accordance with this treaty. > All false information stored to misguide, scam, cause damage, trap users financially, or mutilate collateral are illegal content. The italicized text concerns me. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because I can easily imagine an unscrupulous politician claiming (for instance) that arguments critica…
Looks like the vandals have taken their toll... Instead of open google doc, this should be a git repo. edit: Created one: https://github.com/bradherman/Reddit-Free-Internet-Act
While I at first agreed that this should be a Git repo, it could in the end defeat the document's purpose. This document is meant to be seen and governed by everyone, not only those who know how to use Git.