Using Wikis to Catch Outdated and Bad Laws? 137
Mick Ohrberg asks: "While listening to NPR this morning, I heard about the ridiculous law, passed in 1675, that orders the arrest of all American Indians entering Boston, and just now, 330 years later, is ready to be repealed. There are a LOT of really outdated and/or inappropriate laws out there; would an 'open' Wiki-style approach to law-making (with appropriate supervision, of course) be able to catch more of these 'bad' laws? Should the law-makers be able to keep track of all these laws, or are the number of laws simply too large for that relatively small group of people to keep track of? The more and more outdated copyright laws also come to mind as an area that could stand some more scrutiny."
Here's a big list of them (Score:5, Informative)
Here are just a few more... (Score:1)
>Friday Nov 12, 2004
>A couple sets out to break every one of America's weird blue laws,
>and photograph the process to boot.
>to Sex by riotnrrd
Since the links don't show in the quote:
http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/strange/sexl a ws2.htm [dribbleglass.com]
http://www.nerve.com/photography/egan/illegalacts/ [nerve.com]
(Sorry, when first posted on memepool the second link was free, but now it's "premium.")
Re:Here's a big list of them (Score:1)
Re:Here's a big list of them (Score:2, Insightful)
What about when they decide to start enforcing the silly laws?
Case in point: Here in Ontario you are issued a license plate sticker for snowmobiles. But they aren't very attractive, so for years pretty much everyone was putting custom designed numbers on their snowmobiles instead. While it was technically not legal to do so, it was never enforced. Then all of a sudden a few years back they decided to crack down on it. About a year thereafter th
Re:Here's a big list of them (Score:2)
That's exactly why the existance of unenforced laws isn't a joke. When it is completely up to the discretion of law enforcement agencies or city councils, etc, to enforce a statue, it becomes possible to play this sort of fundraising trick or worse
References? (Score:2)
Re:Here's a big list of them (Score:2)
They also list the French language laws in Quebec, which state that signs must be in French, or, if bilingual, the French must be larger. French, however, is the official language of Quebec, and thus this law makes as much sense as
The laws ARE open (Score:4, Interesting)
That said - this document would be HUGE and frankly no one will want to read it.
I would love to run to become a congress critter with a sole platform of "I will not vote for any law that I can not read and understand". Unfortunately - I would have to vote against pretty much EVERY law being writen today. Of course the libertarian in me says this will be a good thing
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:1)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:1)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
MerlynEmrys67 for anything
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
In fact to get passed, most cities must host an open meeting where citizens can get up and make statements about the proposed law - these meeting minutes are open record and in fact you can get minutes that include proposals that were voted on - who voted each way, etc. etc. etc.
Re:The laws ARE open (Score:2)
City codes (like building codes) are not passed by the city council directly into law - some agency creates a list of requirements to build buildings (the code) and the city passes a law saying you have to abide by the regulations. The regulations can be changed, adjusted whatever, without a new "Law" being passed.
Rather subtle distinctions - sorry you
New laws more important than old ones (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, keep in mind that laws that are not enforced might as well not exist. If they do get suddenly enforced, I believe a court may very well turn over any decision because of this selective enforcement.
Re:New laws more important than old ones (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws to make everyone a criminal (Score:3)
To make matters worse, they say ignorance of the law is no excuse. Tell me how I'm supposed to know all of the existing laws, when there are hundreds of local laws and likely thousands of state laws.
Perhaps there should be a system whereby every 100 years a law must be reviewed for it's relevence.
experation date (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:experation date (Score:4, Insightful)
While it would be a good way to keep things in check, it would bog down Congress more than they already are, and allow for riders to get in more easily and with less scrutiny. Just imagine:
Democrat: "Oh, looks like the 'murder is illegal' law is expiring. Better make a new one."
Republican: "What an opportunity! We can add a bill to remove freedom of speech while we're at it! And add addendums such that no court (except the Supreme Court, which is backlogged anyway) can overturn the law! And if the Dems vote against it, we'll claim they're murderers! Win/Win!"
This is not to mention the problems police officers would have with laws which could, at any point in time, be in a state of flux. Imagine the unlawful arrest suits when your local government lets jaywalking laws slip, for example.
Re:experation date (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:experation date (Score:3, Insightful)
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
Ah, but first you'd have to get the US Congress to pass legislation that made it compulsory for Congressmen to read the all laws that they are voting on, and that's never going to happen. Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, Congressmen won't vote to give themselves a more demanding workload.
Most Congressmen will openly admit
Congress is DESIGNED to be bogged down (Score:2)
1) We have unprecedented party-line voting due to corporate interests.
2) We have essentially nonexistant third parties at the federal level. (IRV/RCV can help this)
Usually, though, Congress, IS bogged down - that's the point.
Of course, there are a ton of other misunderstandings in this article.
1. Copyright law isn't an outdated leftover, it's actively being made worse all the time. It is an obvious sign of the control of our government by corporate non-persons.
2.
Re:experation date (Score:2)
Re:experation date (Score:2)
Re:experation date (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is bad how? (Score:2)
Minnesota has such a law... (Score:2)
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/ A rticle4.htm [state.mn.us]
Sec. 17. LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
In fact, we all were reminded here in Minnesota of this constitutional article not too long ago, when the courts struck down our concealed-carry law, not because the law itself was illegal, but because it came attached to a DNR-related bill. (that was unrelated to gun
Re:experation date (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:expiration date (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:experation date (Score:2)
It could work, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem is going to be poli
Re:It could work, but... (Score:2)
I'm interested in the dumber laws of Toronto, Ontario, that I can sue people over, bring the laws in court, and have them removed from the books, for instance I can sue a friend and he can sue me for the same amount against two different 'dumb' laws. As soon as theyre challenged in court, I suspect they will be removed.
A nice GPL 'many eyeballs' way
Re:It could work, but... (Score:2)
At that point you could do text searches generate glossaries of the legal terms, and finaly if you chose to make value judgments about the laws.
CowboyNeal Rolex & Penis Enlargement Act of 20 (Score:1, Funny)
err that should be 2006 (Score:1, Funny)
Legislated to Oblivion (Score:4, Insightful)
The legislative model of democracy is absolutely ridiculous. Law has nothing to do with right and wrong any more; legislators spend all their time trying to pass as many laws as possible while spending no time actually reading or understanding these laws. Legislators think it's their job to "do something", and the media portrays a deadlocked Congress as an obstacle to progress. In fact, the opposite is true.
As a democracy progresses, it becomes absolutely impossible for any individual to know, understand, or abide by the actual law. Indeed, many of the hundreds of thousands of laws and statutes conflict with each other, so you're a law-breaker no matter what you do.
This is great for tyrants, since there's always a law you can accuse someone of breaking. That's especially true in the US, now that there's a whole class of federal "conspiracy" crimes that don't require any proof of wrongdoing for a conviction.
Legislatures have made law irrelevant, paradoxical, oppressive, and absurd; and Western democracy is going to fail because of it.
Re:Legislated to Oblivion (Score:1, Insightful)
The legislative model of democracy is absolutely ridiculous.
It's not an intrinsic property of democracy, merely a pitfall many implementations have succumbed to.
I don't think that a wiki in particular would be all that useful, but I do think that geek technologies in general could help democracy greatly, simply because we built tools to cope with massive amounts of communication between disparate groups, while dealing with trolls, spammers, short attention spans, etc.
legislators spend all their ti
Re:Legislated to Oblivion (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Legislated to Oblivion (Score:1)
Re:Legislated to Oblivion (Score:5, Insightful)
Kindly get yourself down to your local law library; your state capitol, local law school, or local community college should have a reasonably up-to-date sample.
You should be able to find the 20+ volumes of the USC, the 20-odd volumes of your local state couterpart to the same, maybe a copy of your town charter, and the 50-odd volumes of legal precedent and casework.
Why all this bulk? Because the nitty gritty of law can be very, very complex, after years and years of arguing as to what the law means in the innumerable situations that come up.
Law has nothing to do with right and wrong any more
Law never was about right or wrong. Law is about what acts are illegal, and when your rights trump my rights.
This is great for tyrants, since there's always a law you can accuse someone of breaking. That's especially true in the US, now that there's a whole class of federal "conspiracy" crimes that don't require any proof of wrongdoing for a conviction.
Conspiracy crimes--which date back to Prohibition, mind you--require an illegal act or an illegal purpose. And if you're a US citizen, there's a rather finite ammount of time that they can hold you before they have to bring you before a jury and convince the jury that their conspiracy case is solid.
You're probably thinking of "terrorism" crimes, which are problematic when it comes to non-military enemy combatants and a bit unsettling when it comes to the investigative powers of our government.
As a democracy progresses, it becomes absolutely impossible for any individual to know, understand, or abide by the actual law. Indeed, many of the hundreds of thousands of laws and statutes conflict with each other, so you're a law-breaker no matter what you do.
Actually, the hundreds of thousands of laws across this country have strict priority, with the newest and the highest ones overruling the lower ones. The best example of this is sodomy laws--they're still on the books in the dozen-odd states that passed them, but they're irrelevent unless SCOTUS or the Constitutional Amendment process lets states outlaw sodomy again.
And if you're worried about not always following every law, just remember this: the law is only words on paper. When it comes down to the wire, it's three learned citizens (two lawyers and a judge) arguing a case which gets decided by twelve-sixteen common folk, who can almost ignore legal precedent at will.
Re:Legislated to Oblivion (Score:2)
Well, in some parts it does--you need to be a citizen to vote, hold public office, or the like. But many of the non-systematic rights in the Constitution refer to "persons", not citizens, and have equal effect to visiting foreign nationals or to our own citizenry.
About the only thing that I can do that the Indian programmers working three floors beneath me can't is get called up for Jury Duty (reminds me--got to return the Court H
What about history? (Score:2)
Re:What about history? (Score:1)
A great opportunity for civic involvement (Score:2)
Since they're already publically available, you could certainly use a wiki to start to draft your own versions of existing laws / create a li
There's just too much law (Score:1)
The law is practically infinite.
West Publishing's Annotated California Code (a set of books containing a subset of California's legislative law, plus excepts and pointers to relevant cases that interpret, clarify, expand, and/or limit those statutes) has an index that is five encyclopedia-length volumes long. And the type's really small, too. The number of issues that the law covers is literally infinite. Just think
Re:There's just too much law (Score:1, Funny)
Is there a law covering proper use of the word "literally"?
Re:There's just too much law (Score:1)
The number of issues the law has covered thus far is not infinite, just very numerous. I meant to convey that there is no limit to the number or type of disputes that arise between human beings; in that sense the potential scope of the law is infinite.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
OK kids, here's one of my favorites. (Score:2)
Re:OK kids, here's one of my favorites. (Score:2)
Haven't I seen this text before though? Where's me old EULA collection... Ah, here it is.
37291. Microsoft Windows XP is the product made from impure or rancid Windows NT reduced, for the purpose of cleansing and renovating, to a liquid state by melting and draining off the non-kernel components and afterwards churning or otherwise manipulating it in connection with BSD code or any product of BSD.
37292. It is
Re:OK kids, here's one of my favorites. (Score:2)
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:1)
Don't worry, it's completely legal to own one if you're not a felon.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
Unless your point as there are bigger to fish
to fry, in which cash you can have phrased it more cogently. In any event "The journey of a thousand miles..."
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
it could work.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, you don't want to have some big corporation that depends on a given law to come in and erase your wiki either, so keeping a history of modifications is in order too.
This might be an efficient way to get rid of stupid IP laws that the crowd on here loathes so ferociously.
This sounds like a great use of Wiki's (Score:2)
Re:This sounds like a great use of Wiki's (Score:2)
Only 10 laws count anyway. (Score:2)
Anything else i dont feel should be honored, and personally i act as such.
Interesting side note on that bill of rights thing (Score:2)
Re:Only 10 laws count anyway. (Score:2)
Its also legal to shoot you the second you step on my property to violate any of my rights..
Choose your next move carefuly.
Not saying GWB is right or wrong, as i refuse to get into that debate, but the 2 term limit is a farce. A good president should have the option to be re-elected as needed. If hes not worthy of the re-elect, he wont get the votes.
Re:Only 10 laws count anyway. (Score:2)
Outdated copyright laws? (Score:2)
In Canadian law, it's OK for two private people to share (not for profit) things they own which are copyright (IE: music, games), because -- honestly -- how the hell could that ever be enforced, and what kind of negative impact would it have on word of mouth?
The US laws are pretty decent, they just overspecify in a few areas,
Self-maintaining legislative charters (Score:3, Informative)
If it took a two-thirds or five-eighths majority to add a law without removing a law, those old laws would get cleaned out pretty quickly.
If the also had to reduce the body of law by five or ten percent before the end of every legislative session we'd accomplish the same thing.
Colonial America called... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Colonial America called... (Score:4, Informative)
Or do you think that the day after the Constitution was ratified it was suddenly legal for everyone to kill each other because the state legislatures were too busy celebrating to pass new sets of statutes?
That government still exists. (Score:3, Funny)
As far as I can tell, the city of Boston, and its government, still exists. Can't be too sure, though, as I am in Denver. But I did a google search and found some pictures. They pretty much convinced me.
Re:Colonial America called... (Score:1)
Although, obviously, the government of the state of Massachusetts split from the city of Boston at some point, because they started out as a single entity. But cities are just 'virtual' governments...they exist solely because the state government chooses to have them exist. So the colony of Boston's government turned into the State of Massachusetts, and laws that applies to Boston were transfered to Boston's n
Re:Colonial America called... (Score:2)
Royal land grant to a trading company in 1624 for Cape Anne created it. Some of the settlers moved to Salem, and it became a full colony run from Salem under grant in 1628. Another grant in 1629 rolled everything from the old Dorchester Bay Company and existing Massachusetts Bay Company, and the settlers sent over with the new grant set up in Salem. In 1630, another group of settlers rolled in, bearing yet another grant and charter, and set up shop in Boston.
After the city was up at
Re:Colonial America called... (Score:4, Informative)
More or less. Salem, Massachusetts predates Boston by I believe 4 years (1624 versus 1630), and was the first settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. What is today Plymouth, Massachusetts, founded in 1620, was a separate colony until Massachusetts Bay and Plimouth Plantations merged in 1692. However, what happened is that the Massachusetts Bay colony government was transferred to Boston from Salem (I believe as part of the foundation of Boston).
The date of the law in question is important. 1675 is the beginning of "King Phillip's War" (there's a lot of debate about what it should be called, but that was what colonial Americans called it). Metacom ("King Phillip") was the sachem of the Wampanoags, who historically had been allied with the Mass Bay Colony and Plimouth colony (the Wamponoags signed a treaty with Plimouth in 1621). A complex sequence of events strained relations between the Wamponoags and the English colonies, and caused the English to force the Wamponoags to give up their arms in the early 1670s. When a Christian Indian was assassinated by Wampanoags (possibly for espionage), and the killers were executed, the Wampanoags rearmed and began to attack English settlements (in 1675). This led to a terribly destructive war between most of the Native American settlements in New England and the English colonies, though the Mohawks notoriously remained neutral, and there were many Christian Indians who were either neutral or pro-English. There were very heavy losses on both sides (massive losses, really, for the population sizes), the colony of Mass Bay lost its charter, the United Colonies were dissolved, and many Native American's fled the region.
So the law is a vestige of a nasty ethnic war. Even the various neutral Indians were banned from Boston. A lot of Indians were dependent upon English goods because of the drastic changes to their economies and agriculture resulting from deliberate actions by the English - buying land, etc. - and the terrible epidemics of the late 16th and early 17th century after first contact (mostly from contact with the small fishing expeditions who spent time along the New England coast - keep in mind that the first settlers of Plimouth were greeted in English by Squanto).
I can't think of ANY legitimate reason why this law should still be on the books, period.
Jury Nullification (Score:5, Informative)
One thing that would help a lot would be for more people to be aware of Jury Nullification. While the laws would still exist, unjust laws would be ignored.
There are some good links on this subject at:
As the saying goes There are four boxes to be used in defending our freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use them in that order.
I'll bite (Score:2, Funny)
Atlanta makes it against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp.
Frankfort, Kentucky, makes it against the law to shoot off a policeman's tie.
In Columbia, Pennsylvania, it is against the law for a pilot to tickle a female flying student under her chin with a feather duster in order to get her attention.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
It is against the law for a monster to e
Re:I'll bite (Score:2, Funny)
You know, people make fun of that law, but it works...I've never seen a giraffe tied to a telephone pole or street lamp in Atlanta.
And can you imagine the chaos if someone actually did do that? We'd have all sorts of traffic problems as people slowed down to gawk, and, trust me, Atlanta has enough traffic problems for two cities already. (Luckily, we've started exporting them to surrounding suburbs.)
The one obvious ob
Re:I'll bite (Score:2)
Re:I'll bite (Score:2)
like one i saw saying "In
Many of these 'ridiculous laws' are simply a somewhat reasonable, but generalized law, with a ridiculous example of a way to break it.
I don't know the actual law but,
say the law is "Atlanta makes it against the law to tie an animal to a telephone pole or street lamp."
Re:I'll bite (Score:2)
As a denizen of Tulsa who has, in fact, read the statute which is probably in question here, I believe an exception has been made. Pressure vessels under a certain diameter are now completely unregulated.
How about a byte quota for legislators (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about a byte quota for legislators (Score:2)
Many are Urban Legends. (Score:4, Informative)
Examples includes "it is illegal to bathe in a tree in Kansas", etc.
State statues are available online and often municipal statutes. Of all the goofy ones that have been presented as "fact", I have yet to see one that is real. Not to say there aren't any, but many of the ones presented as existing are simply jokes that got out of control.
--
Evan
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
A selection from dumblaws.com:
Dishes must drip dry.
True. For restaurants. I'm not sure why this law exists, but I'm sure there is a good reason.
Canned corn is not to be used as bait for fishing.
True. Then again, all kinds of angling laws exist.
Drivers must yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk.
True. But a bicycle being ridden is a vehicle and has a driver. Bi
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
Canned corn is not to be used as bait for fishing.
Both of which have no actual statute attached to them and are merely rated as to how dumb they are. These are good examples of the ones that are ULs.
Drivers must yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk.
It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of any highway.
These are the two which are real, and they make sense. There has been a real problem with fecal matter on the sides of h
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
While it may not be an actual statute, Board of Health regulations usually stipulate that dishes must dry on their own, they can't be wiped dry using a towel. They can either drip dry or use some type of an process to speed up the process (heat and/or air). Towels quickly become a breeding ground for bacteria and the like which ge
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
Or, perhaps they are not in statute because they are due to Oregon Administrative Rules, which have the force of law?
I'll admit that the "canned corn" rule no longer appears to be present, at least not in the form it used to. But, as an angler, I know I have been aware of it, and there was such a rule in the past (though it really didn't say "canned corn").
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
Many of the silly law lists are populated with urban legends. Several date to 50s joke books and have been reproduced as fact.
That was part one. The second part was:
You list a site that does not cite any laws. I'd be wary of that, but it doesn't invalidate the really silly ones that I'm talking about like bathtubs in trees and elephants talking on the phone.
Do you note that the two are not connected? That I was not "defending" or "attacking" anything? Do you see
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. Why would I do that?
You list a site that does not cite any laws.
It does, in some cases, though not any of the ones I selected. I did only selected ones that I was sure were real. (Though the fish bait rule is gone).
I wasn't refuting the fact that many are urban legends, I was defending my selections, since you saw fit to say that two of my selections did not appear in statute.
Do you note that the two are not connected? That I was not "defend
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
On that site, yes, they are not cited. That is what I said. So we agree on that point.
I'll grant though, that many supposed "laws" are completely urban legend.
Which was my original point.
So we agree. You're being awful antagonistic for somebody who agrees with what I said.
--
Evan
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
I am currently a rather Libertarian student on a rather Marxist college campus. Antagonism is how I survive on a daily basis.
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
I can totally understand your situation. I just got done listening to somebody explain that it is ethical to lie about environmental issues because otherwise people won't understand how urgent they are.
--
Evan
Re:Many are Urban Legends. (Score:2)
Eugene, OR. I imagine Eugene and Davis are similar... I've heard them both described as "little Berkeley".
I can totally understand your situation. I just got done listening to somebody explain that it is ethical to lie about environmental issues because otherwise people won't understand how urgent they are.
I've heard the same kinds of things here, too. Usually from members of OSPIRG.
I've also been told how evil I am for wanting to earn m
Laws should have a lifespan/half-life by default (Score:2, Redundant)
So except maybe for constitutional laws and a small set of critical laws (e.g. involving life, death, family), all laws should have a lifespan.
The longer the lifespan required, the more approval needed from more legislators or even a referendum.
Sure it means more work for legislators just to keep laws around, but at leas
Laws should have a half-life (Score:2)
Re:Laws should have a lifespan/half-life by defaul (Score:2)
All laws must be renewed, depending on their nature. Common bad crimes (murder, theft, etc) can have a more permanent status. But most of the laws are more ephemeral so they would need review. It would be a good way to get rid of a lot of the bad laws that keep cropping up due to legislators being on the coporate take.
It also has the side benefit of keeping legislators so busy reviewing old laws, so they can keep them on the books, that they never have the opportunity to make new
Fix the cause, not the symptoms (Score:3, Insightful)
Waaay too many laws on the books (Score:2)
Personally, like many others, I feel there's way too many laws out there restrict
More death needed (Score:2)
We need more death for progress.
this is a great question (Score:2)
Chastity belts for all virgins visiting the (Score:2)
Seriously, the proposal is a joke.
Old laws are kept around for selective enforcement. Who knows when some middle easternee entering boston might look suspicious and yet not be stoppable bacause of the dumbass liberals at NPR grinning over the 'no indians' law repeal.
i mean it's like the 55 MPH spped limit on I-75/85 through Atlanta or the 70mph on I-20 in Eastern Alabama. No one obeys the law but if some punk ass indian keeping up with the 95mph traffic in a tanker truck rouses the suspicio