|
|
Post by turteltaube on Jun 1, 2016 0:32:24 GMT
The right to sue is on the way out as EULAs, TOSs for online purchases, leases, employment contracts, &c have clauses agreeing not to sue and go to arbitration instead.
What will happen to free speech when the special snowflakes currently graduating college believing "you hurt my feelings" = hate speech? Some will eventually become lawyers and judges.
As far as criminal law, I've seen articles by feminists claiming that the presumption of innocence is a tool of rape denial. Again, these people will eventually be in the legal profession.
And, perhaps not a legal change but an extension of current trend, cash will disappear.
The upshot is the individual will have no legally enforceable rights & courts will exist only for disputes between corporations.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366 
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 1, 2016 1:37:04 GMT
I think most of what you state is fearmongering; I doubt that such radical feminists and 'special snowflakes' are going to dominate anything. They're utterly, utterly wrong, but I don't think they'll be dominant. The bit about EULA is the most likely, and even then, I doubt it. The legal systems in place cover much, much more than what you state, and I don't see them changing.
The cashless bit is going to be tricky. All I can see as of yet is that power outages are going to lead to a LOT of angry people.
|
|
|
|
Post by turteltaube on Jun 3, 2016 7:15:37 GMT
As for the "special snowflakes" taking over, perhaps not legally but certainly as far as societal attitudes. The idea of a right not to be offended is alrady becoming embedded. NYC has posted regulations requireng employers to address employees accoring to their preferred "gender" pronouns. My own hope is that the revolution is starting to eat its children. Yesterday's PC is now oppressive. As for the right to sue going out the window see this fron the NYT: www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,949
Likes: 46,103
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 3, 2016 8:47:34 GMT
Do you think that we in the future might one day she proven guilty until proven innocent instead of not guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
|
|
Post by turteltaube on Jun 3, 2016 16:31:09 GMT
Do you think that we in the future might one day she proven guilty until proven innocent instead of not guilty until proven innocent.
For law enforcement they have started using algorithms to make things look scientific. There's a program in CA to monitor/predict gang activity via social media. If it spots you wearing gang colors (say a jersey of your favorite team) and throwing gang signs (like the Vulcan salute if you're a nerd) you'll be added to the database. But it gets better! Your friends will be added as well.
I'm sure there's no way to stop the use of algorithms, we can only hope they can be improved to reflect reality. Right now they're at the level of the Google face recognition that ID'ed African-Americans as gorillas. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,949
Likes: 46,103
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 3, 2016 16:36:25 GMT
Do you think that we in the future might one day she proven guilty until proven innocent instead of not guilty until proven innocent.
So even if you have done nothing wrong but are on trail the judge or jurors might think otherwise because they might assume that if you are standing there in front of them than you must have done something as otherwise you would not stand before them. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 5, 2016 18:15:15 GMT
I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" will be overturned legally but the idea that it is wrong to question victims is gaining traction. My brother is a defense attorney and he says they whatever instructions they get from the judge jurors already believe that you wouldn't be on trial if you hadn't done something wrong. The mindset that doubting the victim and that it is cruel to force him/her to testify is taking root and it will be much harder for attorneys to put up a vigorous defense. Eventually we might be better off ditching the adversarial system in favor of an inquisitorial system.
So even if you have done nothing wrong but are on trail the judge or jurors might think otherwise because they might assume that if you are standing there in front of them than you must have done something as otherwise you would not stand before them. That seems to be what turteltaube is saying, although his evidence is anecdotal. |
|
