Slashdot Mirror
Using Wikis to Catch Outdated and Bad Laws?
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in 1675, that orders the arrest of all American Indians entering Boston, and just now, 330 years later, is ready to be repealed. There are a LOT of really outdated and/or inappropriate laws out there; would an 'open' Wiki-style approach to law-making (with appropriate supervision, of course) be able to catch more of these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 The more and more outdated copyright laws also come to mind as an area that could stand some more scrutiny."
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but my friends and I used to have fun going through these. http://dumblaws.com/
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
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Just require an experation date on the laws.
The real problem is going to be politcal. Unless you very carefully limit the definition of "bad laws" you open yourself up to all kinds of partisan spamming. Left wingers will put up all anti-gay marriage laws, far right wingers will start listing welfare laws, white supremicists will put up all laws pertaining to non-descrimination, etc.
If you can deal with that issue, I think you will be fine. If not, the wiki will just become a jumbled yell fest.
nuff said.
I believe in the US it is possible to obtain a published set of all laws currently in effect and on the books. I think it's around 20 volumes, with the index itself being one 700-page monolithic tome.
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.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Isn't hizzoner being a bit hasty? Why not keep the law on the books, for history's sake? Not that anyone would, should or could enforce it. Just as a matter of historic preservation, like brick pavement or steam locomotives or the Electoral College. If the mayor feels that the law is too much of an embarrassment he should at least offer it to Williamsburg, Virginia, a town dedicated to the preservation of Colonial history.
Many locations are putting their laws online (the state of Minnesota coming to mind immediately). Most of the time, legislators will never take the time to go through these older laws and weed out those that just don't make sense any more, because there are other, more important things that they feel they could be working on (which is probably true most of the time).
Since they're already publically available, you could certainly use a wiki to start to draft your own versions of existing laws / create a list of those laws you feel should be repealed, and hone it down until you have a comprehensive list... which could then be printed out (yes, even if it's hundreds of pages) and forwarded to your local elected officials. Properly annotated, it'd be simple enough for them to go through the summary and compose a bill to abolish/amend the giant wreck of laws that are there that should be scrapped, without having to spend the individual time to do it.
It'd be fun, educational, and a great way to contribute to your community without even having to be a lawyer!
In fact, if anyone gets around to setting one of those up for Minnesota or the Twin Cities, shoot me an email, because I'd love to throw a couple hours at weeding out stupid/conflicting/outdated laws, too.
That green slime had it coming.
Someone needs to send slashdot some subject field enlargement pills.
While the idea might be nice in theory, it's unfortunately laughable in the real world.
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 of all the things you might need a lawyer to help you with and then realize there's a fully developed body of law on just about all of those issues.
Then factor in that there are federal, state, county, and municipal laws, laws like the tax code that are incredibly long and dense, international law (like treaties and maritime regulations), regulatory laws (the EPA, the FCC, etc.), and more, all operating in conjunction or conflict with each other, and you can see how a wiki-style CMS would not scale well to the law.
Then there are the specific unique elements of the law that would be hard to convert -- things like laws that are still on the books, but have been eviscerated by subsequent court decisions. For example, a state law making it illegal to have an abortion has been trumped by Roe v. Wade but may never have been repealed. Also, our common law (judge-made law) is rooted in the English common law -- meaning every case that has ever been decided in England (and then later in the United States) that has not been overruled or distinguished is still "good law" and needs to be considered if a similar dispute arises today.
To make a long story short, anything that is subject to any form of government regulation has its own "laws" and those laws run to an amazing length. Perhaps by "the law" the original poster meant federal and state statutes -- that is, legislature-made law. But the law is much more than that, and even keeping tabs on that would be neigh-impossible.
When I was in law school I discovered that (in 1990) duelling was still illegal in California, as well as challenging someone to a duel (then a felony). I published my findings, there was some press, and the laws were repealed. I regret having people's attention called to these laws (especially since there are so many, many other California laws that need repealing). There are other quirky California laws still on the books, but my lips are sealed
I'd say you'd have to start by creating the wiki first, then try and publicize it to the public, and when enough people read it and think it's a ridicule law you could then lobby our lawmakers to repeal them. This I think would be the best approach, especially if you create online petitions from that community.
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.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Because there are so many legal cases that are based on other cases. It's truly a wiki-esque industry (if you can call the Law that).
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
From the memepool.com Sex archive:
a ws2.htm /
>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
http://www.nerve.com/photography/egan/illegalacts
(Sorry, when first posted on memepool the second link was free, but now it's "premium.")
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The first 10 amendments.
Anything else i dont feel should be honored, and personally i act as such.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
However if you break traffic rules on most military bases, you can have your base driving privileges revoked, which are enforced by serious people with M-16s.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
Laws and sausages, laws and sausages.
Some things are best left unknown.
In Canada, I don't think we have any outdated copyright laws, just the odd ham-handed enforcement of laws by people who know nothing about technology. Those are two different things.
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, and try to enforce unenforceable things (the US war on drugs is another great example where throwing money at a minority problem does not solve it).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Wouldn't that be great? No more fucked-up additional laws? Do we need additional laws? I think everything can be distilled into it's basics, and infered through debate at it's instance. All laws should be writen in large letters on a single side of a sheet of paper, and anything above that is unwaranted. Don't fuck with other people, enjoy life, and don't impede on other people's fun. Too simplistic? Perhaps it can be worded more succintly?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
It seems to me that if the charter of a legislature (whether it is internal rules or in the appropriate Constitution) should compel the legislature to engage in a kind of zero-sum game with regards to the body of law.
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.
... and they want their laws back. 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. Has anybody *else* noticed that 1675 is more than 100 years before the United States of America even came into existence? Why is it a problem, if the law was made by a government that doesn't exist anymore?
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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.
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 enter the corporate limits of Urbana, Illinois.
Sho' they got to have it against the law. Shoot, ever'body git high, they wouldn't be nobody git up and feed the chickens. Hee-hee. -- Terry Southern
Write it into the Constitution that the entire law of a state (or of the federal government) can not exceed x number of bytes, and the most recently-enacted (total bytes - x) bytes (or the oldest such number of bytes) are deemed invalid (i.e. they go to the bit bucket).
Some of the founding fathers didn't want a bill of rights. Not because they were evil tyrrants, but because they felt that if you start listing your rights, then any rights that weren't on the list would be trampled over, because they wouldn't be explicitly stated. It's happened. How many people beleve they have a right to privacy? It's not in the costitution or the bill of rights, so it's been pretty much trampled...to the point that some people say we don't have any privacy and we should just get used to it.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Why is it a problem, if the law was made by a government that doesn't exist anymore?
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.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
There seems to be more common for legislators to keep adding laws than for them to repeal them. And they become a burden on society - you can't remember and keep all the zillions of laws.
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 least it'll take extra effort to keep a stupid law alive way after the stupid people who made it have long passed on.
Alternatively, laws should have a half-life. That is to say the various jail-terms and fines in each law are halved each time their respective half-life period passes.
If it seems like too much work to keep all the laws around, then perhaps there really are too many laws.
Where can I find references for these so-called dumb laws? For example, how do they figure that "Spitting is forbidden" in Chicago? Without references this could easily be something people mostly made up.
Digital Citizen
Stupid old laws are not the real problem but simply a symptom of the archaic American Common Law legal system. There is a good reason why modern legal systems insist that laws are given numbers and written down in books instead of accumulating them as hard to access "Jack Dipdork vs. the City of Jerktown" cases that even the professionals have trouble finding. Unforunately, fixing the cause and not the symptoms is totally unrealistic in a system where Congress is full of lawyers who don't even want tort reform: They realize too well that the real goal of the legal system is to make money for lawyers and prepare their political careers, with justice just a side effect.
I've always wondered why nobody's taken the effort to really go through the books and figure out what can REALLY get tossed these days, case in point being that Boston-Indian law. Even if it's just an ongoing project for a law school in the area, every semester the prof hands out a few chapters to everyone and at the end of the year give it to the lawmakers to weed crap out. Rough brainstorm, but something along those lines.
Personally, like many others, I feel there's way too many laws out there restricting us. Should I ever run for office of any type, my platform will be "make a law, take one off the books". If you REALLY want that law passed, take one out first.
Some AC said: Laws and sausages, laws and sausages. [The contents of]Some things are best left unknown. With my [revision], I'm willing to sign my name and agree with the statement. But perhaps it was just a slash-joke.
"This law was made hundreds of years ago, but its in force today. Now think about that. That does not make sense. Why would a law, made so long ago still apply? That does not make sense! But more importantly you have to ask yourself 'what does this have to do with this case?'. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense!"
Nature contains not just birth but death as well.
We need more death for progress.
A blog I run for the wealth
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/A rticle4.htm
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 guns, arms and the like)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Congress isn't bogged down because:
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. There are a zillion more important things I'd rather have Congress doing than repeal non-enforced ancient laws - although they usually aren't doing those things either.
3. I believe the federal level isn't nearly as bad about this, because the number of people examining the laws is much larger. We didn't have federal laws in 1675...
4. "wiki" doesn't mean "everyone can read" it means "everyone can change" "wiki" style laws would be terrible, especially because it only works with some kind of moderation and because it would mean most laws would get written by the corporate lawyers who were fulltime lawmakers. So a system where everyone can read the laws is great, but not a wiki.
5. We already have a system where everyone can read the laws; there are no secret laws. (Actually, the only exception is the rules about showing your ID to board a plane, which IS a secret law and is probably therefore invalid. I believe this is in the courts now but will probably take forever.)
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
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.
I'd rather enjoy the idea that, every few years, half of the words in a law are randomly removed.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The new ones are worse. The old copyright laws were better than the existing ones. Maybe the anti-H1b people can use the anti-Indian law to keep the asian Indians from being imported for cheap geek labor?
while it seems stupid, we really should repeal old and archaic laws. our present situation, simply ignoring them, makes a mockery of the law. thus, we can simply say "it's a bad law, just like _________, and we shouldn't follow it..." versus actually repealing the bad law. a society of laws must follow the law, and more importantly, we must enforce the laws. taken to an extreme, what we're doing is anarchy.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Cool ideas. Medieval Iceland had an interesting system, too: every three years, a guy had to recite their entire legal code. Anything he left out, wasn't a law anymore.
This is a wonderful idea.
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 ones. It would also make many of the truly contentious laws easier to get rid of, since they would have to be re-verified on a reasonable schedule.
gladiators....
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 suspicion of Sheriff Luger Axhandle, recently transferred from Heater County, Ca. Why that well respected law enforcement officer would have the law on his side in pulling said furreeneer over for closer inspection.