[WMCoolmon]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

But the majority of laws and agreements today are written in language that very few people can work out and understand totally what they're supposed to do.

Should/Can people still be held accountable to laws that they aren't able to comprehend? Excluding some kind of mental disability, I don't think so.

[WMCoolmon]

Why I put the mental disability thing there:

(01:13:12) WM Coolmon: but what i'm thinking is, there has to be a certain line where you draw the comprehensibility of language
(01:13:35) WM Coolmon: at a certain point, it may not be possible to actually get across the concept behind the law

[karajorma]

Fact is that most of the laws derive from common sense or more basic laws so yes, they should.

I might not be able to understand the laws on say money laundering but I know it's wrong because it's basically dealing with criminal obtained money and you have to know that it is wrong to do that.  

If you can provide a law that isn't common sense that has resulted in a conviction you might be able to put some weight behind your argument.

[Fineus]

I reckon that first and foremost, this is a grey area. A driver parking in a no-parking zone that threatens wheel clamping and displays road warnings denoting this should not be innocent of the charge if he car did indeed get clamped. As he is driving and parking his car, it should be his responsibility when parking the car to ensure that it is legally parked.

However, there are grey areas. Little uncertainties that people generally rely on word of mouth to get around. Again referring to traffic laws - I still don't know if bicycles are breaking the law by using the road instead of the cycle lane provided if there is one... that sort of thing. I'm sure there are other examples where although there is a law - it's not common sense entirely.

[karajorma]

But in those cases the result is usually a slap on the wrist at most. If riding on the road instead of a cycle lane is illegal all that will happen is the police stop you and tell you to cycle in the cycle lane. Same way as they flash you if you forget to put your headlights on at night or wear your seatbelt.

We're not talking about getting banged up in jail here.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, if I had a specific example in mind, it would be "fair use". (What started this was talking about the bnetd case brought up in the SCP forum)

Unfortunately I can't think up a case, right off the top of my head, where it was mentioned that one side was unclear about the law - probably because that's not the kind of thing you want to be saying in court.

But this comes from me poking through laws such as the DMCA and Patriot Act and not being able to interpret the entire thing at all. Both are very important; they deal with things like being sent to prison for life without a public trial.

If I were to sit down and just analyze the documents, I doubt I could figure out every small nuance in them.

Now, I could take a career in law, and possibly then I would be able to catch all the little nuances. But, what, are we all supposed to become attorneys just so we know what we can and can't do, and what will happen if we do this or that?

I hear "use common sense and you'll be fine". But then you get into things like filesharing. If I download music by someone, that I'm not going to buy regardless (or especially if I don't listen to it), what am I doing wrong? I'm not depriving anyone of anything. In fact, I may go to my friend and say, "Hey, check out XXXX's latest album, it's pretty nice," and then they end up liking it enough to buy the album. Even if that doesn't happen, though, nobody's lost anything. No, the value of the album hasn't really gone down - it's still going to sit at the same price of $15-$25.

How does common sense fit into all of that? Annoy people with money and power by not giving them what they think they should get and you'll get in trouble, I guess. But to me it seems like common sense to expect for something like that to happen given the technological situation.

It's late and I'm tired, so I hope that made sense.

[Fineus]

I suppose not. Truthfully I can't think of an example to prove my point. I feel confident there is one - but I'm not going to say it with absolute certainty as I don't have one to prove myself with

[karajorma]

Oh come on WMC. We all know filesharing is illegal. We simply don't care!

Your comment on filesharing is not whether ignorance of the law is a justification but that the law itself is unjust. I'll agree 100% that the law is unjust but the fact is that we all know that.

Ignorance of the law can't be used as a defence because otherwise people would argue that they didn't know it was wrong to kill people, to steal etc.

[phatosealpha]

As far as I know, if a law is  incomprehensible or self contradictory, it can be thrown out as unenforcable.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse is not an arguement that people have to follow nonsensical laws - it's merely a statement that you ignore the law at your peril.

If in doubt, ask a cop.  If they don't know, ask a judge.  If they don't know....well, chances are they won't convict you for it.

[Solatar]

I always wondered...does the speed limit change when you hit the speed limit sign or when it becomes visible, telling you the speed?

[MicroPsycho]

Originally posted by Solatar
I always wondered...does the speed limit change when you hit the speed limit sign or when it becomes visible, telling you the speed?

I don't think hitting the sign is a good idea:D

I think it's when you pass the sign, though unless you can read it from a few miles away I doubt you'd get in any trouble for speeding up at that time, even if a cop was right there.