←back to thread

Beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

(dw-news.dreamwidth.org)
295 points AndrewDucker | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 20:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[28 Aug 25 04:07 UTC] No.45048272[source]▶
Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.
replies(4): >>45049243 #>>45049638 #>>45051988 #>>45053131 #
eviks ◴[28 Aug 25 08:01 UTC] No.45049638[source]▶
> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system

The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something.

It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.

replies(1): >>45049939 #
dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 08:53 UTC] No.45049939[source]▶
the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.
replies(4): >>45050094 #>>45052009 #>>45053170 #>>45055944 #
1. eviks ◴[28 Aug 25 09:16 UTC] No.45050094[source]▶
This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party!

> It should also be based on good faith

Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much.

Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...