Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're talking about abstract 
rights, in which case yes I agree. I'm talking about the reality of the 
situation in which there's often a lack of justice due to the way the system 
works.

It would be nice if the legal system were set up in such a way that everyone 
is equally protected. But it's not. Hell, our previous president has 
confessed in writing to committing war crimes and knowingly violating the 
constitution, and nobody is even going to look into it, let alone punish him 
for it.

>   I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> regardless of income. 

Only for crimes. Which is to say, only when you're accused by the government 
itself of breaking some law for which the punishment might be jail time.

If you get sued by some company for copyright infringement (to pull an 
example out of the air), you have to pay for your own lawyer.

 > (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.)

It depends on the details of the case and what you're accused of and etc. 
Basically, there has to be something in the law books that say you get 
lawyer fees, and it's not a global kind of default that you do.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message