site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's be honest; that's total bullshit from hyper-risk-averse lawyers. Like, could there some day be a case somewhere that plausibly opens up some degree of legal liability? Possibly. This thing was on television. The guy had his name written on the back of his jersey, for the express purpose of identifying him. Their closest example of actual legal liability was one where they said he was charged, but he was not actually charged. Clearly, they're reporting an arrest and have confidence that an arrest was actually made. I cannot fathom how someone would construct any legal liability for them saying his name.

The article you link even goes on to say that news outlets actually do print names all the time, even though there is some scant vapor of possibly liability in an edge case somewhere. Sagan knows they wouldn't wrap themselves in the most hyper-risk-averse legal position if they thought it would promote their preferred politics. Would you make a prediction? After the police announce it officially, do you predict that they'll post a second article naming him or go back and alter this article? Or do you think they'll just wait and sit on it?

People who know more about UK law than you or I disagree with you

Edit >Clearly, they're reporting an arrest and have confidence that an arrest was actually made.

That's irrelevant. The law in the UK apparently draws the line at the point that charges are filed, not at the point of arrest.

There are literally no details in that article about the case in question or how wide-ranging the opinion in question is. Key language that could give an indication: "a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy". This was on TV. His name was written on the back of his jersey so as to identify him publicly. He had received a standing ovation publicly, a public acknowledgement that everyone knows him. Many other articles named him at the time of the incident. You're going to need a hell of a lot more specifics than a broadly-worded summary article to say that this guy somehow has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter.

EDIT: You know enough about law, generally, to know better than to reason this poorly from such non-specific articles with glaringly obvious, gigantic gaps in their language.

Yes, this sort of thing is a little bit silly, but it is not really that unusual or unprecedented when UK journalism and UK law collide. I recall a decade ago, there was controversy about the use of injunctions and super-injunctions by the UK courts as essentially a tool to gag the press regarding the private lives of celebrities. To some extent these restrictions were a bad joke - everyone knew who they were about, because these injunctions did not restrict the ability of private citizens to talk on social media - and they did not apply at all to international media. And yet, the threat of being dragged into court and get rinsed for vast sums of money was very serious.

You seem to be arguing that the fact that his name was written on the back of his jersey is relevant. It might be, but you have no evidence of that, right? Because the first sentence of the article states a bright-line rule: " the Supreme Court ruled that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy prior to charge"

More importantly, the point is not that, under UK law, the publication of his name would DEFINITELY expose the BBC to liability. I am not familiar enough with the relevant case law. Rather, the point is that FEAR OF LIABLITY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE TO REVEAL HIS NAME. I have cited two sources from UK lawyers advising media outlets that revealing the name of a suspect before charges have been brought is a bad idea. Yet, you are convinced that the "real" reason is something else.

Let's test your "bright-line rule" with a hypo. Cameras are rolling, everyone is watching. Every station is broadcasting the most anticipated event of the century, live. Some guy[EDIT: Scratch that. Not "some guy". A guy who is known publicly. Like, say, a guy who was introduced at the event. Like, "We welcome Mr. So-and-So, our honored guest! Please identify yourself for the cameras and say a few words, Mr. So-and-So."] shows up, right in front of all the cameras, and commits a crime. While he's being arrested on live TV, he looks directly at the cameras and yells, "MY NAME IS SO-AND-SO, AND I'M BEING ARRESTED FOR [CRIME]."

Does this person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his arrest until formal charges are filed? Let's further suppose that this person is either otherwise disliked or associated with folks who are otherwise disliked by the media. Do you think they all refrain from posting his name in the article about the hullabaloo on their website, their twitter accounts, etc.? You think all their lawyers will tell them that they have to refrain from doing so because of legal risk?

Because the first sentence of the article states a bright-line rule: " the Supreme Court ruled that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy prior to charge"

That is, at least one. Like, the particular one who was in the particular case, perhaps. That guy might have had a reasonable expectation of privacy with completely different circumstances. It does not say that "any" person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their arrest regardless of the circumstances. I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase, which should be a pretty good tip off to a crack lawyer such as yourself that it's not a bright-line rule. It's a reasonableness rule.

FEAR OF LIABLITY

As I said: "total bullshit from hyper-risk-averse lawyers". Here's the thing about how people use lawyers, though. When they want to do something, they say, "Your job is to figure out how we can do this with minimum risk." When they don't want to do something, they say, "Your job is to come up with any possible risk of doing this, no matter how small or unlikely, so that we can say that we didn't do it due to legal risk."

I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase

Again, I am not familiar with the nuances of UK law in this area, and as I said, there might not be a bright-line rule. But the term "reasonable" tells us nothing about that question. The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.

The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.

That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule. Clearly, one needs to figure out by looking at the actual opinions to determine whether there actually is a bright-line rule for some set of things underneath the reasonableness rule. We can't figure it out from a terrible summary article. You now seem to admit that "there might not be".... which was my position from the beginning. Perhaps you could help us consider the possibilities by commenting on this hypothetical, so we can see how much expectation of privacy you think is reasonable.

That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule

No one said otherwise. Nevertheless, courts often draw bright-line rules when defining reasonableness. For example, ordering the passenger out of a vehicle during a traffic stop is per se reasonable.

Sure. What is the evidence that they actually did so here? That vague article doesn't nearly do the job, and you know it. You're staking your ground on the mere possibility that they could have set down a bright-line rule. We agree that there is such a possibility, so continuing to chant that adds nothing to conversation and merely makes you look obstinate rather than engaging as per the rules of this forum.

You could add to your case by commenting on this hypothetical, ya know, if you want to try contributing to the discussion and everyone's further edification.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats