mouthporn.net
#law – @zenosanalytic on Tumblr
Avatar

Racing Turtles

@zenosanalytic / zenosanalytic.tumblr.com

"Why run, my little Phoenician?"
Avatar

You might think that I'm joking when I say that we need cyborg rights to be codified into law, but I honestly think that, given the pace of development of medical implants and the rights issues raised by having proprietary technologies becoming part of a human body, I think that this is absolutely essential for bodily autonomy, disability rights, and human rights more generally. This has already become an issue, and it will only become a larger issue moving forwards.

Avatar
mmeveronica

No but seriously we need cyborg rights, in case you don't know how many people count as cyborgs here are some examples;

  • People with cochlear implants are cyborgs
  • People with pacemakers are cyborgs
  • People with insulin pumps are cyborgs

There are even edge cases revolving around how much electricity and integration into the body are necessary to make someone a cyborg.

  • People with replacement hips or other bones are by some definitions cyborgs
  • People with implanted medical devices such as artificial valves or stents are by some definitions cyborgs
  • People with prosthetic limbs are by some definitions cyborgs
  • People with ostomy bags are by some definitions cyborgs
  • People in wheel chairs, electric or not, are by some definitions cyborgs

The list could go on but I think I made my point that cyborgs are a lot more than just people with robot arms, they are the disabled deserving of the rights to the technology their lives literally depend on.

This is needed.

Earlier this year, a woman was forcibly deprived of a brain implant that was treating her epilepsy because the company that made the implant went bankrupt. Here's a link to one of several articles about it:

This story happened back in the 2010s according to the first article but is still relevant. Also if my cochlears were repossessed by the company for some asinine reason I would literally stop being able to do 80% of the things I do and my future would be ruined. Cyborg rights are necessary and should have been codified decades ago

Avatar
elfwreck

There are also people with prosthetic eyes that went dark when the software company that managed them went bankrupt.

We need a set of rights that say, "if your software is installed in LIVING HUMAN BEINGS, you have a legal obligation to maintain it, and when/if your company dissolves or can no longer maintain it, that software becomes open source and may be freely picked up by other people to manage."

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
roach-works

you need to stop equating legality with morality

i know im shouting into the void here but i'm really stressed out over how many gen-z kids seem to think that all bad things are illegal and therefore all good things are legal. this is a child's system of ethics and furthermore it's one that fascist bigots REALLY REALLY WANT YOU TO KEEP

here are some things that are legal in the united states of america:

-you can marry a child in 46 states. "The organization Unchained At Last found nearly 300,000 children under the age of 18 were legally married between 2000 and 2018."

-it's not murder to shoot someone to death in 28 states under Stand Your Ground Laws.

-officers of the law can take and keep your personal property "in the course of conducting an investigation." you have to go to court to get it back. since the year 2000, cops have taken and kept personal property totaling a profit of at least 68.8 billion... that we have records for. Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

here are things that are illegal in an increasing number of states:

-birth control hrt, and abortion

-dildos

-telling kids anything about homosexuality or transexuality

-helping a minor access birth control or an abortion without their parent's consent

-dressing in drag

-protesting against corporate malfeasance

-protesting against police brutality

-suing a company for knowingly endangering your health through exposure to infectious diseases, chemical toxins, or oil pollution

-inhibiting private logging, fracking, and mining operations, even those conducted on public lands, even those conducted without the requisite permits, even those conducted against treaty regulations

IN CONCLUSION:

a country's legal system is not a nice little collection of good rules for proper people. it is a system of top-down control that determines, in broad and violent strokes, which people get what they want, and which people don't.

the sooner you realize that it is a moral imperative to break unjust laws, the sooner you can stop saying shit like 'dni if you support illegal/immoral behavior' and sounding like a fucking chump.

to add to this: I don't know how many states have done it, but many Republican-controlled states have passed laws making it legal to murder someone with a vehicle if they're "protesting" or you "reasonably" feel "threatened", which tbh wasn't actl necessary since most US police these days won't even arrest people for vehicular murder and manslaughter cases.

PLEASE do not take cops, or US law, for the end-all-be-all on Morality

Avatar

“Let us put it generally: if a regime is immoral, its citizens are free from all obligations to it.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago.

[Pictured: Captain Pia Klemp sitting in a chair beside her controls.

@VivianAngrisani on Twitter wrote on 6/8/2019: “Pia Klemp, a German biologist & boat captain faces 20 yrs in prison for rescuing 1,000+ migrants at risk of drowning whilst crossing the Mediterranean. Seeking asylum is a human right. Only 1 in 100 sea captains are female. This woman is a humanitarian, not a criminal. #FreePia”

@Galactic_Rabbit quote-tweeted on 6/10/2019 and wrote: “Thinking about all those videos of people honored in their old age for hiding/protecting Jewish people.”]

To all the people commenting that she’s an accessory to “illegal immigration,” note that seeking asylum is a human right. Countries which refuse asylum are in violation of the Geneva Convention. They get away with this and propagandize complacency towards the victims by using bureaucracy to complicate immigration proceedings. During times of genocide, this is tantamount to hearing a would-be murder victim knocking on your door and locking the deadbolt.

People who risk dying getting smuggled across borders do so out of sheer desperation because the situation they’re leaving is worse. Finally, you are missing the entire point: violation of the law is warranted when the laws violate human rights and criminalize existence. Laws which call immigrants “illegal” are tools of a systemic negligence designed to condemn those who need legal protection the most.

Hiding Jewish people or smuggling them out of Germany was illegal too.

as of 10 february 2023, the petition is still just short of its goal of 500k signatures.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

My gf is an actual amab cis girl. They wrote male on her birth certificate by mistake

holy shit tell your girlfriend congrats on the fun gender

Avatar

In an odd inversion, my cis grandfather was marked as female on his DEATH certificate.

afad

I’m male whenever I’m on Brazilian soil because when I applied for a visa, the lady didn’t believe I was a cis woman and put male on my documents even after I complained twice, so I’m also amab (Assigned Male At BrazilianBorder)

Avatar
muirneach

my bestie is a cis woman and is amad (assigned male at drivingliscense)

While this is funny this really should highlight to people how deep transphobia runs. It diesn’t matter if you’re cis or trans, strangers in the world will just DECIDE based on apparent visual indicators that simply arent accurate. Cis women are not excempt from harrassment and being accused of being “secretly a man”. All arguments about single-sex spaces crumble when perceptiona of what women SHOULD look like simply arent accurate at all.

And even for simple admin errors, it highlighrs further how much these systems do not care about you. They won’t change your gender on your papers regardless of if you are or aren’t trans. It’s a simple mis-click that could result in you being accused of something like fraud and no one is going to listen to you or take your complaints seriously to fix it before that happens.

Tranaphobia is not exclusive to trans people, its a far wider issue and its time transphobes (and TERFs especially) picked up on that reality and realised what theyre actually doing to themselves.

Avatar

Hey y'all. With the Writer's Guild of America on strike, you might be hearing a lot more about something called "residuals," which are payments that the writers get for the studios continuing to air their work on reruns and such. Already I'm seeing people trying to frame the union trying to bargain for better residuals as greedy and unreasonable, so I just wanted to give you guys a peek into my dad's full, 100% real residual payments for writing some of the most watched episodes of American late night television.

Yeah lol. If u hear anyone trying to frame the conversation around residuals as writers being greedy, please do me a favor and punch them straight in the face ❤️🙃🙃

Avatar

Really do not get the arguments about who the strongest avatar is. Like, the answer is clearly Szeto. Dude canonically worked as court bureaucrat, meaning he not only mastered the four elements but on top of that also administrative law. Administrative law. This is a man to fear.

Wait I just realised this makes a scene like this possible: Zuko: I really want to pass this law but that one nobleman on the council keeps blocking me and I know no way around him  Aang: *Enters avatar state* Aang: So actually there are 3 ways on how to make this work legally 

Avatar

for the past few years i’ve had a personal rule that i do not sign anything i haven’t read - mostly because i genuinely think it’s a good idea, but also as a kind of social experiment - and i wanna share some observations

  • when i worked at an amusement park, i was one of like two or three people in a group of around twenty young adults who read the employment contract
  • i gave up on reading every TOS and privacy policy early on - now i only read them if it’s a website or company i’ll be giving personal information to (and even then i only skim them) - but i’ve never found anything super suspect in one
  • i also have an exception for when i’m made to feel like i’d be an asshole for stopping to read something. notable examples of this going into effect include the patient-intake paperwork at the ER when i went in a few months ago. (i really wish i’d just gone ahead and been the asshole in that situation, even though i have no reason to think there was anything bad in it)
  • i think the only time i was the only one to read something that the people who gave it to us actually wanted us to read was the waiver at a cat café, which included a lot of safety information about how to interact with the cats
  • one time i was approached by a guy with a petition who told me it was an anti-fracking petition (which was a real petition that was going around at the time), but the paper he handed me was a petition to instate a “citizenship requirement” for voting. i pointed this out to him and he tried to convince me that even though that’s what it said, it’s not really what my signature meant, and then named the university he graduated from as though it gave him some level of extra credibility??
  • i have more than once been given a HIPPA form at a doctor’s office where my signature certifies that i’ve been offered a copy of their privacy practices, when i had not, in fact, been offered a copy of their privacy practices. the last time this happened, the receptionist didn’t actually have a copy of their privacy practices, and had to get me to me sign it several days later once she got a copy from her manager
  • 99% of people are very accommodating when you tell them “i want to read this before i sign it,” but it’s never what they’re expecting
  • on a related note, if someone thinks it’s important that you know what’s in something they’re giving you to sign, they won’t wait for you to read it - they’ll go through, point to each section, and tell you what it says. this is what happened when i signed my lease, and it’s actually a pretty common instance of using my asshole exception, because then i feel like i’m calling the person a liar if i stop to read it myself

the moral of the story is… like… we treat a signature like it’s the absolute most surefire way of saying “yes i understand this and agree to it,” but in practice there’s not even a pretense that a signature means you’ve READ whatever you’re signing. in fact, handing someone a piece of paper and saying “sign here” is one of the LEAST effective ways to make sure they understand and agree to something, and PEOPLE KNOW THIS, and we do it ANYWAY because what else are we gonna do? notarize it??

i don’t have a solution but like. that’s kinda fucked up, you know?

i need to practice saying “most people are fundamentally honest, but by handing me a contract/waiver to sign you’ve already chosen not to take me at my word. it’s only fair that i should do the same by reading it first”

Avatar

okay so those court cases about what category a product falls into for tariff purposes are kinda funny but they just make me think about how stupid tariff law is. like. why is the tax rate different for cameras and video cameras, or for dolls and figurines, or for shoes and slippers. this feels like an immense waste of human time and effort, for tariff law to be anything but maximally simple

Domestic tax law also has this problem, like Britain’s rule that no VAT is paid on plain gingerbread, but standard rate VAT is paid on gingerbread men decorated with chocolate “unless this amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes”

i wonder what the cause of this is? is it just like, pure corruption/lobbyin? getting laws modified either to tax your foreign competitors more or tax you less? opposing model: law is built up patchwork, so you can imagine that each time an area has tarriffs for the first time, theyre likely to be slightly different than tarriffs for some other area, and then eventually the edges of the patchwork meet up and dont fit right, and things that are near the edges fight to stay on the cheap side

Primary cause of this is corruption/lobbying. Industry and company-specific exemptions like this require minimal political capital but can produce large profits. Read an article once about how an Oregon Senator modified excise taxes on certain types of arrows because there’s a certain kind of bow-and-arrow manufacturer in their state

democracy in action!

Avatar
raginrayguns

I think there’s this idea going around that democrcy is supposed to be a bunch of factions vying for little favors, and what’s good about it is that it distributes the favors somewhat evenly. Whereas I think governments are mainly about protecting us from each other, and democracy works because once you go to a high enough level of abstraction, you get principles that everyone should want. Like at most a certain number of people will agree with “let’s murder that guy, but not this guy”, whereas almost everyone can agree with “how about we all stop murdering each other.” The murder one is old, free speech I think is recent progress, and “taxes can’t be too specific” is one we haven’t gotten to yet

Well, it’s not that we haven’t gotten there yet, it’s more the reverse like: History doesn’t end(I know this seems like a complete non-sequitur to what you wrote, but thanks to the Hegelians it’s actl a theoretical point of dispute in History/Polisci/Law), and the longer a political system goes on, the more it’s going to accumulate Stuff like this.

Stuff like THIS is the legal-historical equivalent of junk-DNA, and we’re never really going to be free of it until we, like, design a perfectly just supercomputer to administer our legal and economic systems. Until then we’ve just gotta keep on scrubbin’(ie: periodically tearing this shit out of The Books)

Avatar
Avatar
gaphic

The MOMENT you use the word ‘normal’ to describe morally upright behavior you admit that you are not advocating for the abolition of unjust social norms, but rather for you to be included in them.

As soon as denying your own deviance starts taking priority over promoting unconditional acceptance, you admit that bigotry, bullying, and exclusion are ok, as long as it’s only the people you think are freaks.

Avatar

High Crimes and US Law

The problem with US law as it pertains to government officials isn’t that there’s some loophole leaving it unclear if they are covered, or some clause rendering them immune to punishment so long as it is an official act(though plenty of people will tell you that); it is that all laws rely for their integrity on the willingness of people to enforce them.

When Andrew Jackson ordered the US army to steal the homes of Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole residents at gunpoint, that was illegal. Transparently so. But too few members of Congress were willing to defend the rights of Native Americans for that body to do anything about it, and few(if any) prosecutors with the local standing to bring such cases wanted to. The SC was willing to call it illegal, at least in the case of the Cherokee, but no officer of the court was willing to act to prevent this massive act of organized armed larceny, or arrest Jackson after the fact for his crimes. Because most of the people entrusted and sworn to uphold the law refused to do so(indeed: were active participants in or advocates of the crimes), a President committed a terrible crime(really thousands of terrible crimes), thousands upon thousands died and suffered horribly as a result, much of that land remains stolen property today, and that President got away with it. The Framers didn’t establish a special entity to enforce the laws on government officials because they expected the normal authorities to do it; if the President or a Senator were stumbling around drunk in public, it’s the job of DC magistrates and police to arrest and process them just like any other drunk(but, of course, they never would).

This is how all official crime works. Our government officers swear to uphold the Constitution, rather than the government or a person or any office, because in the US the Law is supposed to be supreme, but historically those officials have routinely chosen, and routinely continue to choose in the modern day, to serve an office or a person or some conveniently nebulous(and thus self-defined) concept of the government(like “the flag”), all of which are often really just thin disguises for their own professional and political interests, over the Law, or just flat-out chicken-out when someone with authority(or, frequently, influence and money but no office) commits a crime they’re responsible for preventing or punishing. The Law, ultimately, cannot enforce itself, thus must rely on people for its proper enforcement, and people can choose not to enforce it.

THAT has been the problem of presidential(and legislative) criminality throughout our history, and it remains the problem today.

Avatar
Avatar
simaethae

so on the subject of stolen property, i’ve seen various arguments on this point but it is in fact true that inheriting something from a relative, when you know full well that it was stolen, does not make it yours.

this clearly goes doubly so for powerful magical artifacts, and especially for artifacts which are strongly implied to contain part of their creator’s soul!

you can talk about consequences - maybe the artifact in question has benefits for you, maybe you’re not convinced its rightful owners would use it responsibly - but talking about the consequences doesn’t erase the fact that whatever benefits you think you’re getting are achieved through wrongful means.

which is why i, too, think Frodo should have given the One Ring back to Sauron. thief.

Avatar
ashleynef

Hahahahaha here comes the law student nerd ready to complicate your wonderful post, op.

(Really this is just pretext for me to study for my property final in a week, so thanks yeah)

Because according to the principles of common property law, the matter of who actually owns title to the One Ring becomes really complicated really fast.

Buckle up babes for the pedantic law lecture no one asked for.

(more under the cut)

EXCELLENT

The best part of this is: trust me I guarantee Tolkien knew this much about the Common Law (English mediaevalists end up knowing ridiculous amounts about both Common Law and mediaeval Catholicism whether we want to or not), and indeed if you look at the text, this was relevant to the story. 

It’s part of the reason that Sauron is as terrified of Aragorn’s potential claim on the Ring as he is of Gandalf’s or Saruman’s or Galadriel’s - if not more. Because in Middle Earth this shit matters. This is a world where a broken oath will literally bind your unhappy restless soul to the earth in spite of the dictates of the literal creator of the universe (who designated humans as Passing Beyond The World when they die). This is a world where a damn oath is responsible for Everything That’s Wrong With The First And Second Ages. 

Oaths, ownership, duties, rights, things owed and owing: this shit matters. 

And sure Aragorn is also direct line from Lúthien, but so is Elrond, and so are Elrohir and Elladan. So is Arwen. But what none of them have that Aragorn has? Is a rightful claim to ownership of the Ring

So much of what Aragorn spends his time in the second and third volumes doing is Establishing Claim - establishing that everything that Isildur owned, he now owns. Why? Because it means he has power that is absolutely needed. “Isildur’s Heir” isn’t a woo-woo floofy-high-concept thing: it’s a literal matter of rights, duties and authority. 

When he takes the Palantír from Gandalf and uses it, his companions are aghast, but he reminds them that he has both the right and the strength to use it - and the Right is actually important. Saruman was, face to face, stronger than Aragorn (never doubt that) and Sauron completely pwned him, but Saruman had no right to the Seeing Stone, no more right than Pippin. 

But the Palantíri belonged to Aragorn: he’s not only Melian’s ever-so-great-grandchild, he’s also Fingolfin’s ever-so-great-grandchild, and since the Fëonori died out with the poor Ringmaker, the only competition Aragorn could have for ownership of the Stones are Galadriel and Elrond. (And that’s only if you are going right back to the maker-rights, and ignoring the establishment of the Stones as the property of Elros’ line rather later). 

It matters. It changes how power works and doesn’t work. Aragorn’s status as the Heir is in fact grounded in these ideas, which play a hugely powerful part (in fact the fight over who rightfully owns the Silmaril Beren and Lúthien brought out of the dark is part of the bloodshed that makes it so that in the end the Silmarils themselves actively reject the last two living sons of Fëanor, negating their claim). Because Aragorn is the rightful inheritor of everything Isildur ever had, he can use the Palantír. Because he is the rightful inheritor of everything Isildur ever had, he can summon the Dead. And because he is the rightful inheritor of everything Isildur ever had, he stands equal to two of the Ainur, to the oldest member of the Trees-blessed Noldorin royal house, and to his own much more powerful (straight up) relatives as a potential claimant of the Ring. 

And that is why Sauron is willing to take the chance to catch Aragorn, and (he thinks) ensure his capture, rather than attacking him earlier on when there’s a chance that (even if Aragorn can’t possibly WIN) he could still escape and then bide his time before the next Ring-War and learn to use the damn thing. 

But. It’s also important when it comes to Frodo. 

Frodo uses the Ring twice, and lays open claim once. Both of the times he uses it are on Sméagol, both times overwheming him and in the second case cursing him (“if you ever touch me again you will be thrown into the fire”). We get both moments from Sam’s POV, where the physical reality of Frodo is replaced by an image of him as a much larger figure, alight from the inside, robed in light, and with a “wheel of fire” at his breastbone. 

Frodo does not have any genetics (so to speak) more special than any other hobbit. It’s not like Aragorn vs most humans, where there’s actually a legit difference because most humans were not, at that point, descended from a Maia. Frodo’s just this guy. 

The only thing that’s really special about Frodo in terms of the Ring is that, like Aragorn, he’s the other person who has a viable claim. It would, as it were, have to go to the judges to figure out whose claim is better. 

And this is why in the moment that he claims the Ring, in the Mountain, Sauron is fucking terrified. It’s why he drops everything else, even the issue of trying to keep his mindless drone-fighters going, even the maintenance of his actual control of weather, of light, of whatever fight he and Gandalf have going, to get his best servants back to the Mountain now now now now

Because Frodo having an actual rightful claim on the Ring means he can, in fact, use it. Not well, which is why Sauron can paralyse him for that moment it takes for Sméagol to strike (and carry out both Frodo’s demanded oath - “save the Precious from Him” - and his Curse - “if you touch me you will be thrown in the fire” - at once), but he could. This tiny little person is a threat to Sauron, in the heart of his own home, because he has the right to have and use this Ring. 

The tricky thing about Tolkien is that whatever his flaws (and he has many), the one thing he’s never unclear of is that the concept of right and might are actually separate. Just because you are strong enough to do or take a thing doesn’t mean you have any right to do it; and just because you aren’t strong enough to enforce your right, doesn’t mean it goes away. 

…/UTTER NERD

I had a nerdgasm just reading this.

Avatar
knitmeapony

This is good and you should all feel good for writing it.

(As a former lawyer there is NOTHING better for studying than arguing fake cases in your favorite fictions. Things you thought you were tired of reading about suddenly become interesting when you are trying to prove some fucker wrong on the internet about like, whether or not testimony counts as hearsay if you can prove that the speaker was under the effects of a magical truth-enforcing curse.)

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net