Comment by Levitz
4 days ago
A whole lot of websites are inaccessible from my country when there's football on, due to a judicial order meant to curb piracy.
The whole deal with Chat Control is also not to be forgotten. I do think you guys see this place with rose tinted glasses sometimes.
Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced?
I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.
Depends on how you interpret the ECHR.
Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games?
It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%...
AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.
I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not.
But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.
3 replies →