There's always more to say. I tried to be brief, as sad as that might be amidst my meandering. I've hence edited this and that for funsies.
Most laws are bad if not per their content, as a function of the system that implements them.
I haven't read it either. I don't exactly see the point. A) I'm lazy. B) Being of the unanointed i.e. non-lawyers. I am unable to read legalese. C) even so as per the nature of legalese, whatever it purports to say is open to interpretation, and can be distorted, misunderstood, if not out right ignored. D) I imagined it had special protections for police officers so they have new additional rights which they can use against common people without reprisal. Common people have fewer rights. E) … and what do I get for my bother? I can call myself an "informed citizen". Now I know I oppose this law, and it is bad for certain
( ... )
Comments 2
To be honest, I have not read the thing, I'm not sure what all it bars (which is what most law does by definition).
B well.
Reply
I tried to be brief, as sad as that might be amidst my meandering. I've hence edited this and that for funsies.
Most laws are bad if not per their content, as a function of the system that implements them.
I haven't read it either.
I don't exactly see the point.
A) I'm lazy.
B) Being of the unanointed i.e. non-lawyers. I am unable to read legalese.
C) even so as per the nature of legalese, whatever it purports to say is open to interpretation, and can be distorted, misunderstood, if not out right ignored.
D) I imagined it had special protections for police officers so they have new additional rights which they can use against common people without reprisal. Common people have fewer rights.
E) … and what do I get for my bother? I can call myself an "informed citizen". Now I know I oppose this law, and it is bad for certain ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment