Re:Court dismisses Genius lawsuit over lyrics-scraping by Go...
by eloff on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @11:51AM
(#24133256)
In a common-law system the written (legislated) law is not actually the law, it's the court's interpretation of how it should be applied, taking into account similarities to other laws and the precedents set in applying them, that determines what it actually means. That makes it quite subjective and vulnerable to initial precedents in applying it.
Re:Court dismisses Genius lawsuit over lyrics-scraping by Go...
by dnautics on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @11:41AM
(#24133153)
why is this downvoted? Without getting into a debate about what true objectivity is and whether or not it exists, In the US, the majority of laws are objective; and it's the application of those laws that is subjective.
This could be an issue of articles: Laws are objective; the law is subjective.
Re:Court dismisses Genius lawsuit over lyrics-scraping by Go...
by Supermancho on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @02:09PM
(#24134945)
Laws consist of literal syntax, but that does not make a Law "objective". Wittgenstein made issue of the fallability of the English language. English is not a special case (just the applicable one).
To whit, a Law does not always describing discrete actions and consequences.
To say a Law is Objective is not saying anything, because the Law is necessarily interpreted in any frame of reference. A single Law is necessarily subjective and following this, The Law in aggregate is subjective.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but laws themselves are objective. At least, they are crafted to be an objective description of what is "right" and "wrong". Said another way, laws exist to objectify the morals of the law's author.
I think what you are trying to say is that laws are not self-justifying. Laws draw an objective view of the world, but we can subjectively agree that we don't like that view and then change it.