Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 28-32 March 2011 (1891-1895)
Method of Madness:
Those seem like conflicting rules.
Also, banning sorcery is reasonable, as everyone knows magic disrupts electricity, and that is not fair to the other tenants.
Karilyn:
There seems to be some gross lack of knowledge about laws in America in this here thread. :psyduck:
While you occasionally get a judge who gets all activist and legislates from the bench, wanting to prove a point, they are a hilariously trivial minority of cases. Easily smaller than 1% of 1% of 1% of all cases.
TL;DR: You would have a very hard time finding any lawyer who would be willing to touch such a lawsuit with a ten foot pole, because of one simple concept. There were no damages. Except for that 1% of 1% of 1% of all cases, if there is not damages, there is no case. And "you made me feel bad because you said vaguely bigoted words in my direction" does not count as damages, because there is no cash value that can be placed on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages
People seem to get the impression that you can sue for absolutely anything in America. And while you can, that doesn't mean you have any chance of having any result of your lawsuit other than being laughed out of lawyer offices repeatedly before representing yourself and being laughed out of the courtroom by the judge. The reason people have this impression that you can sue for anything is because of high profile cases such as the McDonalds Hot Coffee lawsuit. Which, actually had very serious damages, third degree burns, large skin grafts. Severe enough that she ultimately died from complications relating to it. That case was mocked and made fun of in the news, but it was a very real and very serious injury, with very real damages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
When things aren't sensationalized and took out of context, you'll quickly realize that damages make the legal world go round in America (that, and a few other concepts, but this post doesn't need to be any longer than it already is).
akronnick:
Housing Discrimination against LGBT individuals/families is only banned in 17 states.
I doubt Indiana is one of them.
What the Real Estate agent said was probably not discrimination, (certainly not explicitly) but it's within the margin of litigation. And in the U. S., unless the lawsuit is a blatant abuse of the legal system, a defendant's legal costs are on them, win or lose, so it's best to CYA in situations like this.
ysth:
--- Quote from: Skewbrow on 30 Mar 2011, 00:31 ---
--- Quote from: ysth on 29 Mar 2011, 21:46 ---Pornographic xkcd tonight.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that passes for pornography anywhere. However, there is a distinct possibility that Randall Munroe has, accidentally, clicked a link leading to Oglaf. Then again, the oil spill didn't start running around.
--- End quote ---
All I can say, is that you clearly are not an oil lamp.
Tergon:
--- Quote from: Karilyn on 30 Mar 2011, 06:59 ---You would have a very hard time finding any lawyer who would be willing to touch such a lawsuit with a ten foot pole, because of one simple concept. There were no damages. Except for that 1% of 1% of 1% of all cases, if there is not damages, there is no case. And "you made me feel bad because you said vaguely bigoted words towards me" does not count as damages, because there is no cash value that can be placed on that.
--- End quote ---
Exactly this.
The only things I know about the Australian Legal System are what I remember from high school Legal Studies and a few books I read at University because I was interested. But even that just makes this seem strange to me. While US and Australian laws may differ in semantics, the generalities seem similar enough.
If, in this scenario, Dora sued the Realtor for discrimination, it'd be a Civil suit and not a Criminal one. Which means that as plaintiff, Dora would have the burden of proof placed upon her, and that takes two parts: One, she must prove that the law applies in this situation, and two, she must prove that the law was broken to the extent she suffered damages.
The law that would apply would be religious discrimination, in that the Real Estate Agent intruded on Dora's privacy and/or showed discrimination against Dora for her beliefs. That hinges on the use of the words "witch" and "wizard". But that implies that those words can reasonably be viewed as offensive - and what other words would you use for a person who destroyed a kitchen attempting to cast a spell? The limitations of the English language cannot be held up as evidence in a court of law. Since there was no mention of religion, then we only have context to go on, and in context there's no application of any laws of discrimination.
As to whether the law was broken even if it applies... well, beyond the fact that Dora said she was not a Witch and thus has incurred no damages, the law remains unbroken in the first place. The Landlord is not refusing to rent the apartment to someone who identifies as a Witch or a Wizard. S/he is simply highlighting a specific example of where destruction and damage to the apartment has caused a problem in the past, and is now frowned upon. Following your faith is legal; inflicting damages upon another party through destructive celebration of your faith is absolutely not. And informing someone that you don't want them to break the law and damage your property is not a crime.
All that's happened here is a simple statement of "If you are a Witch, don't cast spells that will destroy the apartment." No part of that statement is in violation of any law I've ever heard of.
The duty of care was not formed or breached, no law applies or has been broken, no malicious or accidental damage has been inflicted or occured. Aside from the Agent making a minor gaffe which some incredibly sensitive people might overreact to, nothing here has happened.
Basically Karilyn said it best: No lawyer would go anywhere near this case unless they intended to either lie, or simply walk into the courtroom and lose, knowing they'd get paid by Dora anyway. In which case, Dora's the only idiot here, and she's only hurting herself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version