|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 22-12-2010 3:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 12:13 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>>> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to
>>> afford
>>> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
>>
>> That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.
>>
>> I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
>> regardless of income. (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
>> you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)
>>
> Entitled, yes. Best, effective, or even timely, not so much. A lot of
> them won't work probono, and the ones that do often have *massive* case
> loads, or work for organizations that are pretty much constantly
> vilified for being too liberal, activist, or not on the side of the
> assholes and ethically defective (i.e., the ones with money, power, and
> therefor, on the "right side", in the minds of those with similar money
> and power).
I remember in one of the documentaries of that most objective source
Michael Moore that there was a county in the US where none of the
probono case ever went to trial, they were all settled by plea bargaining.
> It doesn't do you a lot of good if you have to wait 3 years for a trial,
> because Snoop Dog's appointment to argue whether or not his latest Ho
> get the TV or not is ***so much more*** important than a civil rights
> case, or the injury done to someone living in subsisted housing.
I know a Yen Ho, Head of the Cardiac Morphology Unit at Imperial College
London and Royal Brompton Hospital in London, I can only assume you are
not referring to her.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |