Comment by yflu

9 years ago

You are generalizing well beyond the scope of the action.

A lawyer went to prison, for statements she made, in court, in defense of her client.

The action doesn't need embellishment from me.

  • Do details no longer matter?

    "A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.

    A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.

    I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.

    • > for illegal statements she made

      Oh it was ILLEGAL. Why didn't you say so? That makes it totally palatable that a lawyer might be imprisoned for doing his job, and doesn't AT ALL impeach the entire concept of a "trial."

      > would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.

      You have it backwards, friend. The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside. Laws like libel simply don't apply there (disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany), and for very good reason.

      4 replies →