Facebook Tries To Stall Privacy Shield Ruling Until GDPR Goes Into Effect

Status
Not open for further replies.

hotaru251

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
346
7
4,865
35
Just make a law where crimes committed b4 a law protected it are still illegal?

Or idk...if they keep refusing just see em as guilty and if they wanna refute it then they need to show up within a week.
 

derekullo

Distinguished


That sounds very totalitarian lol.

You can't knowingly commit a crime in the past if it wasn't a crime to begin with.

Using that logic it would be possible to convict anyone of a crime based on what they did in the past regardless of if what they did was ever a crime to begin with.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)

Both very important pages for determining what is a crime.




 

Non-Euclidean

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2009
463
0
18,810
15


No it isn't.

It "sounds" like you aren't interpreting the situation the way others are. In the exact opposite way in fact.

Facebook wants to avoid punishment for breaking a law, because the law will be superceded and not in effect in the future.

So its exactly the opposite of what your response is. You think you are clever postulating a pre-crime scenario. But it is totally inapplicable.

Its not (necessarily) totalitarian to enforce a violation of a law that occurred even if the law was subsequently changed. It was still a violation when it happened. It may be petty and mean, but a crime was committed.

 

Giroro

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
429
4
4,815
13


In America, Ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively make things that happened in the past illegal) are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
I don't know how it works in Ireland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS