Re CFJ 3680—

I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain 
language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain 
language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one 
objection counts as an objection. 

The rest of the reasoning is a bit hard for me to follow, though. 

I take you to be saying that, even if doing X is regulated, the act of 
*posting* the message “I do X” is often (maybe usually or always?) unregulated. 
 In this example, I think you’re suggesting that it is unregulated to perform 
the sequence of steps that results in “posting an objection” (i.e., sending to 
a public forum the text, “I object”).

But I think that’s not right. No Faking, for example, regulates the *posting* 
of the objection, because it is illegal to post a message that says “I object” 
if you know it is INEFFECTIVE (e.g., if you already withdrew an objection). 

Not sure where that leaves us. Maybe I am just confused.

Reply via email to