This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
That's a strange form of censorship.
According to techdirt, it's "censorship" for Google to not show certain results in its auto-complete even though those same results show up in the full search. I'm simply applying techdirt's own definition of the word.
Oh AJ, your ability to play dumb is so entertaining.
And the ability of people on techdirt to hurl insults and venom at me never ceases to amaze me. I just don't get it. Why are people so angry when someone disagrees?
Of course not. That's kind of the point of this post. That jurors actually have the power of nullification, but the court system really doesn't want us to know that. Hence the order banning the handing out of the pamphlets.
They have the power, sure, but not the right. That's my understanding anyway.
It was curiosity on my part about a flipped version of jury nullification - the jury decided one thing but their verdict was 'nullified' afterward. That's all.
Exactly - it is the absolute worst case scenario for the prosecutor who is trying to get 'em all in one fell swoop; because if a single defendant can raise doubt then they (the defendants) would all be off the hook!
They'd only have to prove their case against the class representatives. Considering the thousands of potential representatives, I don't think it'd that hard to find ones that they could make a successful case against.
I didn't say jurors are supposed to interpret the law, so I don't understand why you think I did. I don't agree that the jurors role is "to be a check on legislation that goes against public interest." I've never seen that in the few jury instructions I've read.
You are not only too stupid, but too lazy to do a 30 second google search, as well as willfully ignorant (and refusing to learn) basic constitutional concepts and laws, to be a lawyer.
Now please GFY and FOAD.
See, this is the kind of abuse I receive systematically on techdirt. I have an opinion that differs from the herd, and I'm treated like shit because of it. I was going to respond to your points, RD, but then I got to the end of your post and realized that you don't want to have an honest, open discussion. You just want to hurl insults. You are not advancing the conversation. You are destroying it.
Completely untrue. The founding fathers considered jury nullification a necessary fourth check and balance to the other three in our government.
First of all, citation please. Secondly, even if the Founding Fathers were for jury nullification, that does not mean someone today has a First Amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and promote it.
... and the way to stop rape is to agree to have sex with every stranger
Why was this post censored? It was a valid analogy, IMO. And even if it weren't so, I disagree with the techdirt-sponsored censorship of ideas that differ from my own. Doesn't techdirt promote the value of non-censorship? Strange that a censorship feature is built right in to the website that so opposes censorship. What kind of message is that?
The poster's suggestion is that it's silly to think that the only way to stop someone from violating your rights is to just allow them to violate your rights. Marked as "insightful" by this reader.
The group has been handing out pamphlets to jurors which basically say that the jurors should vote with their conscience and not feel pressured into voting against what they believe. Seems like pretty standard stuff. *** Of course, you can't just say there's a compelling interest. There actually has to be one, and I'm struggling to see how better informing a juror of their rights as a juror could possibly be about manipulating a jury or would harm the integrity of the jury system. Wouldn't you think a juror who better understand what being a juror means increases the integrity of the system?
Jurors are not supposed to "vote with their conscience," and it is incorrect to state that that is their right. They are supposed to vote based on the facts in evidence and the law. To promote otherwise would certainly "harm the integrity of the jury system." That's all it would do. Pretty standard stuff.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm trying to have a polite and frank conversation, and people are jumping on me left and right.
Are you suggesting that since I've reacted badly to the abuse in the past, that it's game on and everyone can abuse me all they want? I hope not.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Yes, I'm biased towards people not having their rights violated by others. This bias is clearly not shared by most who post here.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
That's a strange form of censorship.
According to techdirt, it's "censorship" for Google to not show certain results in its auto-complete even though those same results show up in the full search. I'm simply applying techdirt's own definition of the word.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re:
And the ability of people on techdirt to hurl insults and venom at me never ceases to amaze me. I just don't get it. Why are people so angry when someone disagrees?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re:
They have the power, sure, but not the right. That's my understanding anyway.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re:
In civil cases the judge can issue a judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) where the judge throws out the jury verdict and institutes his own judgment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Whats the difference?
They'd only have to prove their case against the class representatives. Considering the thousands of potential representatives, I don't think it'd that hard to find ones that they could make a successful case against.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Whats the difference?
I don't think so, not any more than a false claim by a plaintiff that they were entitled to be in the class in a regular class action.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now please GFY and FOAD.
See, this is the kind of abuse I receive systematically on techdirt. I have an opinion that differs from the herd, and I'm treated like shit because of it. I was going to respond to your points, RD, but then I got to the end of your post and realized that you don't want to have an honest, open discussion. You just want to hurl insults. You are not advancing the conversation. You are destroying it.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re:
First of all, citation please. Secondly, even if the Founding Fathers were for jury nullification, that does not mean someone today has a First Amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and promote it.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re:
Why was this post censored? It was a valid analogy, IMO. And even if it weren't so, I disagree with the techdirt-sponsored censorship of ideas that differ from my own. Doesn't techdirt promote the value of non-censorship? Strange that a censorship feature is built right in to the website that so opposes censorship. What kind of message is that?
The poster's suggestion is that it's silly to think that the only way to stop someone from violating your rights is to just allow them to violate your rights. Marked as "insightful" by this reader.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Jurors are not supposed to "vote with their conscience," and it is incorrect to state that that is their right. They are supposed to vote based on the facts in evidence and the law. To promote otherwise would certainly "harm the integrity of the jury system." That's all it would do. Pretty standard stuff.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Next >>