On TechRepublic: Windows 7: Slower to boot than Vista?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 32 of 61:
Next »
« Previous
Law is very subjective and based to interpetation...
Another judge might have ruled differently on this case even in the same state...even in the courtroom right next door to this judge.

I'm sure the judge, had he had a brain in his head, could have found multiple reasons why the spammer was breaking the law and ruled in favor of the prosecutor.

Face facts, most judges are grey haired men of a different era. They barely use technology and I would wager a lot of money they hardly understand technology, the abuses, the implications, and more. Since none of us were present at the trial, nor do we have trascripts of the case, we have no idea what evidence was shown, what was excluded, etc.

Also, the legal system is...EXTREAMLY flawed and needs a good enema. I won't even begin to start the laundry list of whats wrong, but I could refer you to books if you like...or studies...whatever you like.

It still doesn't change the fact that what people are writing here is esentially correct.

Also, no matter how you slice it, the concept of law is to protect the rights of people from harm by others. That harm can be physical, mental, emotional, financial, etc. It is a judges responsability to interpet the law and uphold the idea of the law to protect those people.

If law was the way you view it. Static, unchanging, regimented rules that need no interpetation, then we would not need lawyers, judges, etc. All we would need is a single person who reads the exact law and if it applies, then the person is guilty and if it doesn't they are innocent. We would also have about 10 million times the number of current laws in our legal system to attempt to cover every single and possible event that can happen.

Sorry No Ax...but you are grinding an ax right now and its not working...
Posted by: Stellardyne   Posted on: 12/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Suspicious basis  S.Howard-Sarin ZDNet Moderator | 12/15/04
That is probably the safest way to do it.  doe_z | 12/15/04
Had to happen  Roger Ramjet | 12/15/04
If you do not know where your email is going  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
"no way for a person sending e-mail to know where the e-mail is going"???  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
...then you shouldn't be sending it.  Jomo_z | 12/18/04
How does this differ from fax and telemarketing spam?  dvarona | 12/15/04
The stupidity of judges in the Internet Age...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
The stupidy of posters in any age.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
I Wholeheartedly agree  Roger Ramjet | 12/16/04
Well, technically,  rapson | 12/16/04
That's a very real possiblity  voska | 12/15/04
Spam is simple  ONEstar | 12/15/04
The Judge is RIGHT  RobertoSalazar | 12/15/04
The judge May be right, but you are WRONG!  Mack DaNife | 12/15/04
I'm Already Paying Enough To That Traitor Bush  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Where in the story does it say anything about the UN?  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
If you can get Junk Mail you can get Junk eMail  Kerensky97 | 12/15/04
Cost is the deciding factor  GregSalts | 12/15/04
Very well said GregSalts....so the solution is...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
GREAT IDEA!!!  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Here's an enhancement on that, I think.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Current technology yes...shortly after implementation, no...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Damn.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
One flaw..  Patrick Jones | 12/16/04
Even better solution.  Letophoro | 12/16/04
You're absolutely INCORRECT  d_jedi | 12/15/04
I'm Embarassed To Have Been A Maryland Resident  itanalyst | 12/15/04
The judge can only rule according to the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not exactly...you are forgetting some things...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Obviously your reasons don't change the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Law is very subjective and based to interpetation...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Sorry you are 100% dead wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not since 7th grade...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Hey, Don't Knock No_Ax  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Rant tulr, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant rule, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant Rules  SC-man | 12/17/04
No Ax, what state do you live in? I mean besides confusion...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Ok, you've used that at least twice today...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
Just because you were psnaked with it, don't start crying.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
judges judge, that's it  voska | 12/15/04
Strange as it sounds, I have to agree with No_Ax on this one.  Letophoro | 12/15/04
Even stranger,,,, you're right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
It'd be nice if the article told us what that law said  Michael Kelly | 12/15/04
The law in breif ...  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
I agree.  d_jedi | 12/15/04
The jurisdiction IS federal folks .. No_Ax is correct  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
If It's Legal For Them To Spam Us....  itanalyst | 12/15/04
This decision says nothing about the legality or illegality of spam  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
So the judge won't mind if we forward all our spam to him, right?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Is anyone sure interstate commerce laws apply here?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Obviously the judge is. I'm betting he knows more law than you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Uh... ok  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Sorry...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
LOL! (NT)  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
All I'm saying is that the judge could have done more...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
NO he can NOT! Judges can NOT ignore the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
This is why we have congress, God help us.  seosamh_z | 12/15/04
Courts Government on Spammer's side  cyberscan | 12/16/04
Anti-spam tools now unconstitutional too?  Sunny Jalolly | 12/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here