StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. I'd be interested in the Skank-viewpoint.A Jewish lawyer is consulted by a potential client. The potential client runs a website and online talk-show, which is being hacked and attacked. This is happening because the hackers do not like the content of the website and talk show. It sounds like a clear case of "trespass to chattels", and possibly other torts. It sounds like grounds to obtain an injunction preventing the hackers from continuing this behaviour. The Jewish lawyer has the expertise in Internet law to do this.At the close of the conversation with the potential client, the lawyer asks, "Out of curiosity, what is the content of this website that offends the hackers?" "Well, you might call it 'white power' with some anti-Jewish content too. I am aware you are Jewish."Now, officially, this person has the right to run his website. The content may or may not be protected content, because "hate speech" is not protected, but generally a person can say what they want within fairly liberal limits. This may or may not breach those limits, but in any event that is not the issue the lawyer is being asked to litigate.In the end of this hypothetical scenario, the lawyer opts not to act for this person.Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blane Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 That's the only ethical thing one could do. It's a bit like being a teacher who is asked to teach something they strongly disagree with. Practically impossible to do it genuinely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 If I were that lawyer, I'd notice (but probably not mention) that there are easy ways for the website operator to prevent getting hacked; securing a website isn't that tough. As such, legal recourse is less than effective here. And seeing as this isn't a civil rights issue*, I'd turn down the client.Aloha,Brad* I've heard of Jewish lawyers working for ACLU on cases involving the KKK being prevented from marching -- cases in which the ACLU is on the side of the KKK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomFoolery Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Stop thinking too much about it. Do you really want to help out some fucking racist pig?In any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Johnson Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 How can someone be so outwardly racist, then ask for the help of someone that they feel they are better than? It just dont make any sense. Just shows how stupid people are, and how dangerous it is when they all get together to form one big group of stupids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.B.E Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph. Selassie, Haile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Serious answer with way too much informing the view?Lawyer should have acted and well. Largely ignorant not to besides personal distaste which is irrelevant. Basic plotline here of And Justice For All effectively - would have made the best lawyer. Do not censor anything. There are too many invisible things in the world including the entire Intelligence community. Hate is not as compelling as Love but easier for profoundly stupid people to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.B.E Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Serious answer with way too much informing the view?Lawyer should have acted and well. Largely ignorant not to besides personal distaste which is irrelevant. Basic plotline here of And Justice For All effectively - would have made the best lawyer. Do not censor anything. There are too many invisible things in the world including the entire Intelligence community. Hate is not as compelling as Love but easier for profoundly stupid people to understand.If more people learned from the mistakes made before them we wouldnt have people like you to point out the shortcomings of others.edit: Luke this isn't directly aimed at you I just used your words to generalize my thoughts. Edited February 13, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Lawyers defend murderers right? On a sliding scale of ethics, defending the hatemonger should be a walk in the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blurry Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) That's the only ethical thing one (lawyer) could do.Wouldn't the word "ethical" and "lawyer" in the same sentence count as an oxymoron? No offense Stone Mtn (my dad's a lawyer).Personally - I wouldn't be able to defend him. I feel I would be belittling myself as a human. Edited February 13, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 tough call. If a lawyer's role is to defend a client based on law as it is written, and this person's only offence is a subjectively ethical one, not objectively legal, then certainly this lawyer *could* represent the man without suffering a contradiction upon themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. I'd be interested in the Skank-viewpoint.A Jewish lawyer is consulted by a potential client. The potential client runs a website and online talk-show, which is being hacked and attacked. This is happening because the hackers do not like the content of the website and talk show. knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new oneIt sounds like a clear case of "trespass to chattels", and possibly other torts. It sounds like grounds to obtain an injunction preventing the hackers from continuing this behaviour. The Jewish lawyer has the expertise in Internet law to do this.At the close of the conversation with the potential client, the lawyer asks, "Out of curiosity, what is the content of this website that offends the hackers?" "Well, you might call it 'white power' with some anti-Jewish content too. I am aware you are Jewish."Now, officially, this person has the right to run his website. The content may or may not be protected content, because "hate speech" is not protected, but generally a person can say what they want within fairly liberal limits. This may or may not breach those limits, but in any event that is not the issue the lawyer is being asked to litigate.In the end of this hypothetical scenario, the lawyer opts not to act for this person.Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I agree with popoweenie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In this hypothetical situation, the potential client is not asking for a "defence" to anything. He is asking for someone to launch a lawsuit on his behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new oneI think you need to re-read the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. I'd be interested in the Skank-viewpoint.A Jewish lawyer is consulted by a potential client. The potential client runs a website and online talk-show' date=' which is being hacked and attacked. This is happening because the hackers do not like the content of the website and talk show. what happened here that guy was wrong ,i,d sooner copy and paste my anser is in the middle ah frig must go get a couple of coolers ha hot day here knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new oneIt sounds like a clear case of "trespass to chattels", and possibly other torts. It sounds like grounds to obtain an injunction preventing the hackers from continuing this behaviour. The Jewish lawyer has the expertise in Internet law to do this.At the close of the conversation with the potential client, the lawyer asks, "Out of curiosity, what is the content of this website that offends the hackers?" "Well, you might call it 'white power' with some anti-Jewish content too. I am aware you are Jewish."Now, officially, this person has the right to run his website. The content may or may not be protected content, because "hate speech" is not protected, but generally a person can say what they want within fairly liberal limits. This may or may not breach those limits, but in any event that is not the issue the lawyer is being asked to litigate.In the end of this hypothetical scenario, the lawyer opts not to act for this person.Any thoughts? [/quote']i am not hitting post quote or whateverhelp help olha or olah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Here is an interesting "hypothetical" scenario. I'd be interested in the Skank-viewpoint.A Jewish lawyer is consulted by a potential client. The potential client runs a website and online talk-show' date=' which is being hacked and attacked. This is happening because the hackers do not like the content of the website and talk show. what happened here that guy was wrong ,i,d sooner copy and paste my anser is in the middle ah frig must go get a couple of coolers ha hot day here knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new oneIt sounds like a clear case of "trespass to chattels", and possibly other torts. It sounds like grounds to obtain an injunction preventing the hackers from continuing this behaviour. The Jewish lawyer has the expertise in Internet law to do this.At the close of the conversation with the potential client, the lawyer asks, "Out of curiosity, what is the content of this website that offends the hackers?" "Well, you might call it 'white power' with some anti-Jewish content too. I am aware you are Jewish."Now, officially, this person has the right to run his website. The content may or may not be protected content, because "hate speech" is not protected, but generally a person can say what they want within fairly liberal limits. This may or may not breach those limits, but in any event that is not the issue the lawyer is being asked to litigate.In the end of this hypothetical scenario, the lawyer opts not to act for this person.Any thoughts? [/quote']i am not hitting post quote or whateverhelp help olha or olah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 what happened here that guy was wrong ,i,d sooner copy and paste my anser is in the middle ah frig must go get a couple of coolers ha hot day here knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new one...i am not hitting post quote or whateverhelp help olha or olahHuh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 knowing now what i learned run as fast as possible from the lawyer. get a new oneI think you need to re-read the original post.i did 3 times i know what happens at court and before you get there half the time it is all cut and dried ,imagine a judge telling me to take a few dollars and buy a loto ticket frig that shit too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak By Night Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Huh?Classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 i did 3 times i know what happens at court and before you get there half the time it is all cut and dried ,imagine a judge telling me to take a few dollars and buy a loto ticket frig that shit tooUh, okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In this hypothetical situation, the potential client is not asking for a "defence" to anything. He is asking for someone to launch a lawsuit on his behalf.Let me back up and ask you on what other grounds lawyers routinely decline work then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmelbatoast Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I love this place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 We decline work for any number of reasons. Those include:- lack of expertise- lack of time- personal biases that could impact on a lawyer's ability to diligently run an action- personal dislike of the client (which relates to the one just above)- lack of belief in the viability of the action on a legal or economic levelThe list goes on. Any lawyer can decline any work (unless ordered otherwise by a Court). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 We decline work for any number of reasons. Those include:- lack of expertise- lack of time- personal biases that could impact on a lawyer's ability to diligently run an action- personal dislike of the client (which relates to the one just above)- lack of belief in the viability of the action on a legal or economic levelThe list goes on. Any lawyer can decline any work (unless ordered otherwise by a Court).Then it sounds like the lawyer is completely within his rights, legally and ethically, to decline the work.I wouldn't think ill of this lawyer for taking the work either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now