Hacker News Reader

Comment by goto11 | Hacker News Reader

Developers often thinks laws work just like computers: If you can find a loophole where you technically follow the letter of the law, while undermining its intent, then you have hacked the law and can't be punished!

Judges do not think like that though.

Remember when Microsoft was forced by a judge to offer a version of Windows without the Internet Explorer browser? Microsoft just removed all the dll's IE used. But since some of the dll's were also used in other parts of the OS, this version of Windows could not run. But they had complied with the ruling!

Microsoft thought it was very unfair when they were ruled in contempt of court.

View on HN

Does this mean that if you were screaming from the rooftops "I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG" every day leading up to the gag order and then you stop screaming from the rooftops that you'll be in contempt of court?

Can the court compel you to continue with behaviour to cover something up?

Would that be akin to conspiracy to commit fraud or wire fraud if electronic? Wouldn't that make the court and thus the judge complicit in conspiracy to commit wire fraud?

I have a feeling a judge is not about to risk being disbarred for such behaviour.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this is purely conjecture on my part.

It doesn't matter if "screaming from the rooftops" seems to you _logically_ the same as a warrant canary. The courts tend to care about the _practical_ effect too. If the practical effect is to violate the gag order (because people were actually paying attention to you screaming from the rooftops, maybe), then... maybe? We aren't sure.

And dude, judges don't get disbarred even when they do CRAZY stuff. A judge getting disbarred (or even dis-judged) is _exceedingly_ rare.

A judge is _definitely_ not going to get disbarred for making a ruling _you_ think is irrational, but isn't actually inconsistent with any established case law, because it's not estabished yet.

Not even going to get _reprimanded_, let alone disbarred.

The U.S. just doesn't work how you think it works.

Has anyone been held in contempt of court for failing to update a warrant canary. I don't believe so. So it seems to be working?

Another poster pointed out that courts generally do not uphold orders to compel speech when that speech is untruthful. So a court order to untruthfully update a warrant canary will not likely survive a legal challenge.

Has anyone used a warrant canary to succesfully convey the information it's intended to _without_ being held in contempt? Is there a list somewhere?

If the warrant canary is in the company's financial statements, is the judge going to now try to force the company to introduce inaccurate information into their public financial disclosures? The SEC might take a dim view of that.

The company can take the 'can neither confirm nor deny' posture, and simply remove the warrant canary from public financial statements. Or leave the most recent accurate and dated one unchanged.

The judge can punish the company severely for breaking the law.

I’m guessing this depends on the judge? I was in traffic court and one of the lawyers argued that the statute did not explicitly say what his client did was illegal.

I don’t recall what it was, but he read the statute and explained the technicality and the judge agreed with him.

Part of the job of lawyers is to know the judges they interact with and what sorts of claims they'll take seriously and which ones they'll overrule. That has very little to do with the kind of immutable logic outsiders tend to try to read into the law.

Often, the law does treat action and inaction very differently. Eg: it’s illegal to poison your ailing grandparent, but legal to let them die by removing the feeding tube (because you are just “not feeding them anymore”).

Intent and spirit of the law matter more than the difference between action and inaction.

The law doesn’t care if you say “let’s put him out of his misery” before pulling out the feeding tube, even though it demonstrates a clear intent to kill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com