Hacker News Reader

Comment by code_duck | Hacker News Reader

One thing that makes this exercise fairly useless is that any real world law or rule would have exemptions for such circumstances, and a definition of “in the park” and what a vehicle is… not just one sentence with no clarification. Beyond that, also a history of previous legal interpretation to which one could refer.

View on HN

I actually disagree. I assume every law is subject to "at the discretion of the DA/judge" (or whoever is in charge). Do you think everyone needs to account for every emergency circumstance possible in every law? In real life, there's the law and then there are mitigating circumstances.

(A few years ago I could have said "we don't get ticketed by an AI that only follows the rules it was given." Well, we do now in many places and that's a problem.)

Legal decisions are made based on historical interpretation, assumed intent of lawmakers and legal precedent. If needed legal interpretation can go back the English Common Law or the Magna Carta. A law or rule like this could be challenged in court as so vague as to be meaningless, and unenforceable.

Only in Common Law countries is this true. In Civil Law countries, you actually do need to account for all exceptions.

This exercise is not about a court of law but any random online forum, for example the kind we are on right now. If you look up the HN participation guidelines you will find they are exactly as vague as the rule in the exercise and open to endless interpretation.

I understand the point of the exercise is to shed light on the vagaries of internet moderation. It’s not a very precise analogy. HN is essentially private property, and nobody needs to wonder things like “is flying a satellite over HN the same as posting on HN?” or “what is a a comment?”

No one said the park wasn’t private property either, conditionally open to the public just like HN ;)

For some reason people think that once it's private property, there is no need to rules or consistency. It's an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Different rules apply to private vs. public property. I personally believe that is appropriate.

How is it relevant in this case?

Indeed... As noted, the regulation is quite vague.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com