WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 45938705

(no title)

AstralStorm | 3 months ago

How can you even sue without any legal identity? This website and an organisation does not happen to have any. Might as well be some shell company in the Carribeans with no legal standing in France. It's not even good enough for public prosecution, as the tip would then go through French services.

This law is completely backwards, and worse than a SLAPP. If you cannot respond to a report in any way, it should be null.

discuss

order

valicord|3 months ago

If you can sue shark fins, why not a website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...

flufluflufluffy|3 months ago

Amazing, here is a list of other similarly hilariously-titled “in rem jurisdiction” cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction#Examples

Some good ones: - United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster - United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness - South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats

xandrius|3 months ago

Holy crap, 30'000 sharks kills for a bloody soup. Insane and that wasn't even their only journey.

pwg|3 months ago

> How can you even sue without any legal identity?

The images of the various messages on the adguard page are not lawsuits.

They are threatening messages that threaten to create legal issues, but until and unless they carry through on the threats, are simply "threats" to the extent we've been given any visibility into the messages contents.

fragmede|3 months ago

US courts let you sue objects under "in rem" jurisdiction.

In rem = the thing is the defendant. You're not suing a person, and you're asking the court to decide who owns or controls a specific property.

The quintessential case is United States v. $124,700

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

mrtksn|3 months ago

Interesting, so the US already has the tools to go after AI, self driving cars and robots.

SlightlyLeftPad|3 months ago

Lawmakers are gonna have to figure that out soon (years hopefully) since it’s not unlikely that AGI will have the same issue.

otterley|3 months ago

In the U.S., “John Doe” is typically used when cannot (yet) identify the person to name as a defendant. Once the case is filed then the plaintiff can execute the necessary subpoenas to identify the defendant specifically.