What I'm trying to say is that perhaps the sometimes it's not just the law's fault - but the lawyers also like having said law and abusing it.
Also, this is going to get even worse if Obama has his way with the new "enhanced" CFAA law that can jail people even for breaking a company's ToS.
According to that one, it is not acceptable for a lawyer to file the petition his client wants him to file, if that petition doesn't meet the court's standards. If judges can censure lawyers for acceding to their clients' demands, so can the rest of us.
How much time does it take to withdraw as counsel?
Edit0: In fact, the principles were more specific to international law vs national law and orders. However, the idea behind is still sane even if you don't violate international law.
Edit1: It's about recognizing personal responsibility.
Edit2: Those who disagree, why?
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit...
Many state bar associations have rules like that one. Lawyers can make good-faith arguments that their client's behavior isn't illegal. They can't break the law for their clients or help their clients break the law.
No one should be stuck, unable to get a lawyer and put up a fair legal fight, just because some part of the population condemns them as amoral, but can't pass a law expressing that condemnation that stands up to civil liberties challenge. Lawyers should serve hated people, too, and ideally do for them just as they would do for themselves if they understood the law and the system.
Lawyers who can do that for truly loathsome clients are superheroes. They often set aside deep feelings and strongly held personal convictions in the service of the greater value of a fairer legal system. It's a real-life Gom Jabbar test, and repeat sittings have driven many good lawyers to self-destruction, one way or another.
So: If you don't want lawyers helping assholes, try and pass a law against being an asshole. It would be vague. Prejudiced assholes would wield it against legitimate non-assholes. Good lawyers defending actual assholes would kill it in court.
More succinctly: https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s
They probably feel that the Nuremberg trials are a hyperbolic example here, and worry that line of argument brushes a little too close to Godwin's Law.
Upshot, we probably all agree with you that everyone has personal responsibility for their actions. There are still situations where we want attorneys to listen to their clients though.
I wouldn't say extreme, but fundamental. I referenced the Nuremberg Principles because they are so fundamental and I genuinely don't know a better example.
Several people in the community misuse down-votes. They down-vote on-topic, constructive and serious discussions which disagree with their opinion instead of simply articulating their criticism.
I suppose because "Godwin's law" is in the dictionary now you are free to add meaning as you like, but I wouldn't be happy about this stackoverlow like meta trivial pursuit at the expense of logic if I were Godwin.
So if he's not happy, he's only got himself to blame.
The most extreme example of a thing you can find is not usually the ideal example to use for most contexts. Rather than clarifying things, if it dwarfs the context, it then appears automatically ridiculous even if the basic argument is sound.
This is not an example for official upholding of personal responsibility.
> there are millions of better examples for this context.
This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave.
Now that is funny, though I suspect unintentionally, and in horrifically bad taste either way.
I did not intend to be funny nor do I see why it was bad taste.
My question for a better example was genuine.
It was meant as a pejorative label for him stating
there are millions of better examples for this context
I provided a valid example.
I asked for "a better example where personal responsibility was officially upheld". Your example was explaining a child agency, which _does not_ include officially upholding personal responsibility.
Furthermore, I did not draw any comparison between the Nuremberg Trials and the case in question, but used them only to substantiate my argument for personal responsibility. Reread what I wrote if you are doubting.
Don't assume everybody does cheap puns and invalidly makes up connections between what was said. If I mean it, I say so.
Add an adult to the story then. Hell, add a teacher, knock yourself out. For making the point of not merely doing as instructed though and having personal responsibility, this need for official confirmation in the metaphor seems awfully weird.
Don't assume everybody does cheap puns and invalidly makes up connections
I didn't, I said I thought you were probably being unintentionally funny.
Add an adult to the story then. Hell, add a teacher, knock yourself out.
For making the point of not merely doing as instructed though
and having personal responsibility, this need for official
confirmation in the metaphor seems awfully weird.
It is not a metaphor.
However, I think we were just misunderstanding each other. My question was serious and genuine.
I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."
This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue.
If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.
Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!
When a security researcher gets threatened, there's a tendency to lambast the lawyers. I think that's unfortunate.
It is, very often, the client that demands an aggressive response. A lawyer should counsel against, since nastygrams to researchers tend to summon negative attention. Not being a jerk is also a plus.
That said, if a client insists--and they often do--the lawyers have little choice. Professional ethics generally require following the client's direction, and there isn't sufficient time to withdraw as counsel.
So, for the most part: Don't blame the lawyers, blame the DMCA. It's the law that's broken.