Cory Doctorow on Nostr: Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge ...
Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.
But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts.
16/
Published at
2023-11-17 18:36:40Event JSON
{
"id": "d548cb3e86c473f7ea2c8dd8037efd170177606f565e5f510f609b531248ed01",
"pubkey": "21856daf84c2e4e505290eb25e3083b0545b8c03ea97b89831117cff09fadf0d",
"created_at": 1700246200,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d7c90c60d826166d93d080285cb2dcc7b0f32192421d6a5606ca5351608068da",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"content-warning",
"Long thread/16"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mamot.fr/users/pluralistic/statuses/111427335000337910",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.\n\nBut it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. \n\n16/",
"sig": "c9b2f4ba23752469eda35e75bd1d4bb040116460645e73577b799b8525ec77a5c88985adf5f309fa048d946c94bcc8eeb56f3d7f14d42979a64d5448464867fc"
}
