Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Threshold · 07-16-2008, 05:31 AM

Without a legal citation, this is pure conjecture.

Yeah, nobody successfully sued "Big Tobacco" until someone won a gigantic class action judgement worth millions of dollars. Seriously, this kind of Kruschevian shoe banging might make you feel better, but it is a gross misstatement of how the law operates.

Yeah, a couple thousand bucks and you're fine. You realize any "halfway decent lawyer" is going to make *at least* $150 an hour, and some charge more for court time. That means 6-7 hours of work and you are already over $1,000 in fees. Are you understanding yet that litigation is not something to ever be taken lightly - no matter how strong your case?

Being responsible is what everyone else has been talking about. Taking precautions is being responsible. Blowing the issue off as "no big deal, the courts would just toss it" is being irresponsible.

That is a pretty absolute and bold claim. Are you willing to indemnify everyone reading this just in case it doesn't?

Lawyers most certainly can argue against the CDA. They already have and they will continue to do so. They may not win, but the possibility exists. You can be certain that if a situation arises where the victim of sexual misconduct is a child, a good attorney can shop for the right judge to let the case go forward at least another step. Whether or not they win it still costs you time, money, and an enormous amount of hassle. And this isn't the UK. Generally, you can only sue for legal fees if it is mandated by statute. Unless you have a citation from the CDA stating such, you are almost certainly going to be responsible for your own fees. It is additionally irresponsible for you to state otherwise.

I have no idea why you insist on giving horrible, inaccurate, and absolute legal advice such as this. You are clearly not qualified, and you do not seem to understand that nothing is as absolute as you claim it is once you walk into a court room. You are always wise to try and avoid that situation as much as possible, and it is very UNWISE to put blind faith in a piece of legislation that can be struck down, overturned, or even rewritten at the whims of the judiciary or legislature.

07-16-2008, 05:31 AM	#17
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	Re: The PG13 Dilemma Without a legal citation, this is pure conjecture. Yeah, nobody successfully sued "Big Tobacco" until someone won a gigantic class action judgement worth millions of dollars. Seriously, this kind of Kruschevian shoe banging might make you feel better, but it is a gross misstatement of how the law operates. Yeah, a couple thousand bucks and you're fine. You realize any "halfway decent lawyer" is going to make at least $150 an hour, and some charge more for court time. That means 6-7 hours of work and you are already over $1,000 in fees. Are you understanding yet that litigation is not something to ever be taken lightly - no matter how strong your case? Being responsible is what everyone else has been talking about. Taking precautions is being responsible. Blowing the issue off as "no big deal, the courts would just toss it" is being irresponsible. That is a pretty absolute and bold claim. Are you willing to indemnify everyone reading this just in case it doesn't? Lawyers most certainly can argue against the CDA. They already have and they will continue to do so. They may not win, but the possibility exists. You can be certain that if a situation arises where the victim of sexual misconduct is a child, a good attorney can shop for the right judge to let the case go forward at least another step. Whether or not they win it still costs you time, money, and an enormous amount of hassle. And this isn't the UK. Generally, you can only sue for legal fees if it is mandated by statute. Unless you have a citation from the CDA stating such, you are almost certainly going to be responsible for your own fees. It is additionally irresponsible for you to state otherwise. I have no idea why you insist on giving horrible, inaccurate, and absolute legal advice such as this. You are clearly not qualified, and you do not seem to understand that nothing is as absolute as you claim it is once you walk into a court room. You are always wise to try and avoid that situation as much as possible, and it is very UNWISE to put blind faith in a piece of legislation that can be struck down, overturned, or even rewritten at the whims of the judiciary or legislature.