On 5/20/14, Celejar <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 20 May 2014 21:47:57 +1000 > Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 5/20/14, Celejar <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:40:56 +1000 >> > Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 5/17/14, Slavko <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ... >> >> > Don't forget, that justice is not when all criminals are imprisoned >> >> > and/or punished, but when no one blameless is persecuted. >> >> >> >> Very eloquent and beautiful words. >> >> Thank you Slavko. >> > >> > But this is precisely the problem with some of the dogmatic idealists >> > here - by this logic, we should abolish criminal justice entirely, as >> > it's virtually impossible to guarantee that "no one blameless" will >> > ever be "persecuted": >> > http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm >> >> I don't remember reading the words Slavko posted before, but the way I >> read it is as: >> "we must make our best efforts to not persecute blameless people" and >> "if blameless people are being persecuted, we must make more efforts >> [eg with our criminal justice system - to fix this problem]". >> >> So not abolish criminal justice, but make more efforts in this system >> to reduce/minimize persecution/punishment of people who should not be >> punished. >> >> Of course perfection cannot be achieved in reality, I agree. > > Of course. But while it's certainly not a zero-sum game, there's > generally going to be a trade-off: increasing protections for > defendants will save some innocents, at the expense of letting some > guilty go free.
Whether that's true or not does not take away from my position that we ought make efforts in our criminal justice system to 'do the right thing'. > The same goes for IP regulation: many of us at least > believe that the law should balance the rights of the IP holders with > the rights of the consumer, and insisting on absolute freedom for the > consumer at the expense of the rights of the rights-holders is wrong. I'm not sure if that is a straw man, but it's not something I ever said. In fact, as you well know, GPL relies on copyright law and attempts to balance the rights of the community with the "rights of the rights-holders under statute law" in a way which, evidently, many many people agree with (since they choose the GPL for their code) - and, the statute law is used to achieve this balance. I believe RMS is quite pro-copyright law in this regard, although on the surface people mostly don't realise that. Regards Zenaan _______________________________________________ D-community-offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
