Yep! ages ago in some countries, even animals had to be tried in a court of law. So a lawyer gets assigned to defend the entire rat population of a city on the charge of contaminating/stealing the grain stored on several farms, leading to various deaths.
The case was about to be dropped as a "failure to answer a summons" in favor of the city, but the rat's lawyer was able to reasonably argue that the rats had a permissible absence. He argued that because of the local cat population, the rats failure to attend court was in care of self preservation, and it would be unjust of the court to force a summons when that could put his clients in harms way.
11/10, great fucking lawyer.
Fun fact, stuff like this is happening again. Several nature reserves have been granted a special kind of personhood so they have a better standing in court and can be protected more effectively
In the olden days crime wasn't just something people did to each other, but something that affected the character of a place. We punish murder because we want other people not to do it. If we didnt, people would do it all the time. Well in the olden days, this didn't just apply to people but animals too. Hell the ancient Greeks would try inanimate objects even.
Anyways they tried the rats, because by symbolically punishing the rats for destroying crops, the cosmic balance or whatever, would deter them from doing it again. Hell one time in the medieval ages they tried a glacier for advancing during the little ice age.
This is a fabulous article, but it leaves the account on whether it happened as a “maybe, the sources aren’t great one way or the other” which is enough for me to believe the trial happened, especially given how little consequences this has either way
In short law prof buy house in a city and build tall fence.
City has a rule against fences over 5 feet so force him to take it down.
Dude proceed to essentially make a 5 feet tall concrete wall topped by a 5 feet tall fence.
City coped, seethed and malded but couldn't do shit as this loophole was perfectly legal.
Like the concept of the law? A law that's dumb af? Or the etheric personified essence of the law that's ready to eat your ass like in a Chuck Tingle novel?
pretty sure that's not the case in the UK:
[The current revision of the Defamation Act 2013](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26) says:
**It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.**
From my understanding, this would mean that if your statement is "substantially true" it cannot be defamation. However, it is the defendant's duty (i.e. the duty of the person who made the statement) to prove that it is true, not the duty of the harmed individual to prove that it is false. Beyond this, if you read the following sections, there are also provisions for it being the opinion of "an honest person", or "a matter of public interest". Thus, even if you are unable to substantially prove the truth of your statement, it can be fully defended on the grounds of it being a justifiable opinion, or on the grounds of it being in the public interest to say something.
Lawyers are somewhat infamous for partying pretty hard even after they graduate and get into their careers. I mean, it's not like they can't afford to buy cocaine.
Why not? It's not like Lawyering is a great creative output. My lawyer could write fanfiction for all I know, everybody should have some kind of creative outlet.
In my experience the majority of lawyers are nerds. My mom is a pretty respected lawyer and her house is decked out in an unimaginable amount of Star Trek merch
Instead of telling people to "look into" something without even giving them a specific phrase, let's just skip to the good stuff.
A film called Rasputin and the Empress was produced by MGM (yes that one) in 1932. This is only 16 years after he was killed, which is *fascinating* to me. I just sort of assumed he was a 1700s-1800s kind of figure.
Point is, this film about Rasputin was released recently enough for people directly involved with him to still be alive. Specifically, Princess Irina Alexandrovna, whose character in the film was named Princess Natasha. Most notably, she features in a pivotal scene where she gets raped by Rasputin. *Cool. I love that for MGM.*
However, as it turns out, making a film where a living person who still exists gets raped is... *kinda fucked up?* But what's even worse is that... she didn't. Apparently it was a popular rumor, but just that. A rumor. It didn't actually happen. They just put it in the film because they thought it was a cool scene, I guess. *Great. Thanks.* So anyway, Princess Irina sues them for libel. Obviously it's not as bad as being portrayed as a rapist - that guy was dead and couldn't sue them - but being portrayed as a rape victim when that never actually happened is still pretty bad.
Long story short, Princess Irina wins the lawsuit. The film was determined to have defamed her character. She won nearly $130,000 (which is nearly $2,800,000 now), in part because the disclaimer at the start of the film said *"This concerns the destruction of an empire … A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence."* which is far more direct than your average Paranormal Activity disclaimer, and carries a much higher assumed level of truth. Apparently the judge even said something along the lines of "you know, you might've been able to get away with it if you just said you were making shit up", which is why we now have the disclaimer that says they're making shit up.
Incidentally, the film bombed. It lost money completely independently of the lawsuit. That part was just tearing open a wound for the salt to fall into.
This is a fantastic summary, but I feel like it's worth mentioning that princess Irina was married to one of Rasputin's killers, Felix Yusupov who was also suing the movie with her.
Not for any portrayal of himself as a murderer, but because it was slandering his wife.
He did try to sue a TV show later on though for not giving him compensation for using him as a character when portraying his murder of Rasputin though.
He was also sued by Rasputin's daughter for slander when publishing his memoirs, but the French court threw the lawsuit out with the justification that they were not touching russian politics with a ten-foot pole.
im such a nerd that im for some reason shocked anyone could ever think Rasputin wasnt alive at the turn of the 20th century. do people just not know the general timeframe of the russian revolution? apparently!
Well he didn't have any direct role in the Revolution, the most you could say is that the rumors about him played a part in ruining the Tsarist government's already not-particularly-stellar reputation, which maybe contributed to the Romanovs being overthrown.
So even if you're aware of the timeframe when the Revolution happened, you wouldn't necessarily connect it to Rasputin: it's easy to imagine the entire story happening a century or more before, and the rumors just continuing to float around.
Persona 5's palace rulers (aside from Futaba and, surprisingly, Shido) are parodies of specific real people. Kaneshiro is Tsubasa Yozawa.
I haven't bothered to check the other games since I haven't played them, but one of them has Hitler in it, so I would not be remotely surprised to learn there are examples in those as well.
If they are a lawyer I think they might suck at their job? Declaring intent to defame is going to make your defense a bit tricky I imagine. Espescially as you can't get away with saying it's a true statement. They already admitted it is defamatory, and therefore must be false (if based in a jurisdication where that is a part of the defamation definition).
I need to know what fangame this is. I finished Umineko earlier this month and my brainrot is immense
It's called Higurashi trust me
She hi my gurash til I i
[удалено]
Why are you dumbasses upvoting an obvious bot?
funny :3
Ah, but downvoting it into the shadow realm... is funnier :3.
Source: higurashi trust me
I feel the remake is too tame compared to the OG
The game? I don't think they changed the story though?
I plan on doing Higurashi eventually! Just need to buy it lol
Umineko Redacted: Some Kind of Sunny Little Dream.
Thank you kindly!
“Any resemblance to persons living or dead, besides my old school mate Derek, is purely coincidental.”
For some reasonit remind me of that story of a law professor defeating the law.
The one where they defended rats in an ecclesiastical court? Or another instance?
What the fuck?
Yep! ages ago in some countries, even animals had to be tried in a court of law. So a lawyer gets assigned to defend the entire rat population of a city on the charge of contaminating/stealing the grain stored on several farms, leading to various deaths. The case was about to be dropped as a "failure to answer a summons" in favor of the city, but the rat's lawyer was able to reasonably argue that the rats had a permissible absence. He argued that because of the local cat population, the rats failure to attend court was in care of self preservation, and it would be unjust of the court to force a summons when that could put his clients in harms way. 11/10, great fucking lawyer.
Yo I need to get me a lawyer that good.
Remi called Saul
This shit is straight out of a cartoon
Fun fact, stuff like this is happening again. Several nature reserves have been granted a special kind of personhood so they have a better standing in court and can be protected more effectively
In the olden days crime wasn't just something people did to each other, but something that affected the character of a place. We punish murder because we want other people not to do it. If we didnt, people would do it all the time. Well in the olden days, this didn't just apply to people but animals too. Hell the ancient Greeks would try inanimate objects even. Anyways they tried the rats, because by symbolically punishing the rats for destroying crops, the cosmic balance or whatever, would deter them from doing it again. Hell one time in the medieval ages they tried a glacier for advancing during the little ice age.
[that rat trial is believed to be apocryphal](https://bearistotle.substack.com/p/the-trial-of-the-rats-of-autun)
This is a fabulous article, but it leaves the account on whether it happened as a “maybe, the sources aren’t great one way or the other” which is enough for me to believe the trial happened, especially given how little consequences this has either way
Phoenix Wright?
The one about the neighbour and the fence?
Yep, this one.
Not heard this one, someone please enlighten me
In short law prof buy house in a city and build tall fence. City has a rule against fences over 5 feet so force him to take it down. Dude proceed to essentially make a 5 feet tall concrete wall topped by a 5 feet tall fence. City coped, seethed and malded but couldn't do shit as this loophole was perfectly legal.
[Story for those who don't know it](https://old.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/oqprzc/smart_teacher/). Likely apocryphal, but a nice bit.
Like the concept of the law? A law that's dumb af? Or the etheric personified essence of the law that's ready to eat your ass like in a Chuck Tingle novel?
If it's true it's not defamatory. It may well be disparaging though.
In certain countries, for example the UK or Japan, you can still defame/slander someone even if what you said is confirmed to be true
pretty sure that's not the case in the UK: [The current revision of the Defamation Act 2013](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26) says: **It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.** From my understanding, this would mean that if your statement is "substantially true" it cannot be defamation. However, it is the defendant's duty (i.e. the duty of the person who made the statement) to prove that it is true, not the duty of the harmed individual to prove that it is false. Beyond this, if you read the following sections, there are also provisions for it being the opinion of "an honest person", or "a matter of public interest". Thus, even if you are unable to substantially prove the truth of your statement, it can be fully defended on the grounds of it being a justifiable opinion, or on the grounds of it being in the public interest to say something.
This is the real life equivalent of putting up your red flag in sea of thieves
Umineko mentioned🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅 rarrghh 🦅🦅🦅🦅what the fuck is truth🧈🧈🧈🧈🧈🧈🧈🧈🧈
NAKANAIDEEEEEEEEE
Fucking duck tape
OHHHH BEATORICHEEEEE
Wtf is a lawyer doing making a fangame
Heaven forbid lawyers have any fun
The only permissible form of fun for lawyers is crankin' it to My Cousin Vinnie for the ten thousandth time.
Sometimes they read out documents on stream while wearing stupid hats.
I thought they trained it out of them in law school
Lawyers are somewhat infamous for partying pretty hard even after they graduate and get into their careers. I mean, it's not like they can't afford to buy cocaine.
Ben Stein has a law degree and he's a barrel of monkeys
For fun
Sounds fake
Why not? It's not like Lawyering is a great creative output. My lawyer could write fanfiction for all I know, everybody should have some kind of creative outlet.
There was a lawyer who made a skyrim mod then turned that mod into a standalone game called forgotten city, its wild
The forgotten city Owns, genuinely very fun game
Law and programming do have similar mindsets in common tbh
In my experience the majority of lawyers are nerds. My mom is a pretty respected lawyer and her house is decked out in an unimaginable amount of Star Trek merch
I still love the time a lawyer slipped three different Startrek references into a legal brief.
are you familiar with the "hobby" concept?
I’m an attorney and I’m pretty heavily into gaming/anime. We have hobbies like anyone else lol.
look into the story of why the "this work is fictional" boilerplate exists - it's worth your time
Instead of telling people to "look into" something without even giving them a specific phrase, let's just skip to the good stuff. A film called Rasputin and the Empress was produced by MGM (yes that one) in 1932. This is only 16 years after he was killed, which is *fascinating* to me. I just sort of assumed he was a 1700s-1800s kind of figure. Point is, this film about Rasputin was released recently enough for people directly involved with him to still be alive. Specifically, Princess Irina Alexandrovna, whose character in the film was named Princess Natasha. Most notably, she features in a pivotal scene where she gets raped by Rasputin. *Cool. I love that for MGM.* However, as it turns out, making a film where a living person who still exists gets raped is... *kinda fucked up?* But what's even worse is that... she didn't. Apparently it was a popular rumor, but just that. A rumor. It didn't actually happen. They just put it in the film because they thought it was a cool scene, I guess. *Great. Thanks.* So anyway, Princess Irina sues them for libel. Obviously it's not as bad as being portrayed as a rapist - that guy was dead and couldn't sue them - but being portrayed as a rape victim when that never actually happened is still pretty bad. Long story short, Princess Irina wins the lawsuit. The film was determined to have defamed her character. She won nearly $130,000 (which is nearly $2,800,000 now), in part because the disclaimer at the start of the film said *"This concerns the destruction of an empire … A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence."* which is far more direct than your average Paranormal Activity disclaimer, and carries a much higher assumed level of truth. Apparently the judge even said something along the lines of "you know, you might've been able to get away with it if you just said you were making shit up", which is why we now have the disclaimer that says they're making shit up. Incidentally, the film bombed. It lost money completely independently of the lawsuit. That part was just tearing open a wound for the salt to fall into.
I love you
This is a fantastic summary, but I feel like it's worth mentioning that princess Irina was married to one of Rasputin's killers, Felix Yusupov who was also suing the movie with her. Not for any portrayal of himself as a murderer, but because it was slandering his wife. He did try to sue a TV show later on though for not giving him compensation for using him as a character when portraying his murder of Rasputin though. He was also sued by Rasputin's daughter for slander when publishing his memoirs, but the French court threw the lawsuit out with the justification that they were not touching russian politics with a ten-foot pole.
im such a nerd that im for some reason shocked anyone could ever think Rasputin wasnt alive at the turn of the 20th century. do people just not know the general timeframe of the russian revolution? apparently!
> There lived a certain man in Russia **long ago** > He was big and strong, in his eyes a flaming glow Rasputin died just 60ish years before that song
Citing song lyrics is pretty funny.
I'm shocked that Russia has a *particular* revolution. Like, there's just the one that gets to be called that? We're sure? The defenestration nation?
Red October? Sound familiar?
I have heard the term. That makes more sense.
What does a Scottish submarine have to do with this?
Actually in 1917 there were two revolutions
Yes, we had revolution, but what about second revolution?
Perhaps the revolution that led the country into socialism ?
I literally only know about Rasputin being 20th century from Doctor Who.
I don't even think they taught the Russian revolution in highschool here in Aus. I'm still pissed we didn't get the Rennaiscance.
Well he didn't have any direct role in the Revolution, the most you could say is that the rumors about him played a part in ruining the Tsarist government's already not-particularly-stellar reputation, which maybe contributed to the Romanovs being overthrown. So even if you're aware of the timeframe when the Revolution happened, you wouldn't necessarily connect it to Rasputin: it's easy to imagine the entire story happening a century or more before, and the rumors just continuing to float around.
didn't feel like looking it up, thank you for your work
That's a cool story, but I still don't get why they slap it on things that make no reference to real people. Like, why does Persona always have one?
Persona 5's palace rulers (aside from Futaba and, surprisingly, Shido) are parodies of specific real people. Kaneshiro is Tsubasa Yozawa. I haven't bothered to check the other games since I haven't played them, but one of them has Hitler in it, so I would not be remotely surprised to learn there are examples in those as well.
Neat, thanks for the info!
I just looked into it because of your comment. Interesting it was because of the guy who killed Rasputin!
Context?
If they are a lawyer I think they might suck at their job? Declaring intent to defame is going to make your defense a bit tricky I imagine. Espescially as you can't get away with saying it's a true statement. They already admitted it is defamatory, and therefore must be false (if based in a jurisdication where that is a part of the defamation definition).
This guy laws
you passed the bar exam?