>>555
>The law is written by human beings and is based on specific ideological, political and socio-economic motives at the time of being written. They are then enforced by other people who interpret the laws in a manner they see fit within their authority to do so, which is why court-of-law exists, as people argue over not only whether a law applies but how it applies. The law is not absolute or clear-cut, it is laid out by people who are fallible, hence appeals and so on.
"Interpretting" a law and arguing over the objective fact of "what" the law is are two entirely different things.
>This is a lovely digression but it's fallacious, stretching out the idea of "interpretation" far beyond its meaning, or reasonable rationale.
No, it's not. You unironically have a SCOTUS ruling that existed for 40 years based on a reinterpretation of 14th amendment that declared that women have an "inalienable right" to have an abortion, when the law had nothing to do with that, nor did the people who wrote it have even a single thought of the law being used in such a manner.
>Furthermore it mixes up the idea of Human Rights as a whole and their enforcement by law, with Free Speech specifically
For a lot of people, they don't see that there is a difference. And that is a huge problem.
>And you are also proving my argument because in actual history laws are repealed or their meanings reinterpreted by later generations because they violate other laws or the old meaning is no longer the mainstream way of thinking, particularly pertaining to basic human rights
Except what you're arguing people "do" goes right to the exact example you were just ridiculing me for. And a lot of it is not the "mainstream" changing their mind, it's a select few people attempting to exploit and twist the law so that the person can push whatever agenda they want.
Now, if you want to argue that the way a law is written can result in said law creating unintended consequences or implications, that I can agree with and is one of the big debates when it comes to putting someting into law in the first place. One infamous example of this in recent history is the creation of the 401(k):
https://archive.ph/iEGAd
<The 401(k), politically, was a fluke. The original legislation was only a page and a half long. It was enacted in 1978, and became effective January of 1980. That year, people weren’t running around selling 401(k) plans. It was never designed to be what it is today.
Another "unfortunate" implication I can provide as an example, that I've come to a conclusion on, is that the First Amendment actually
DEFENDS PORN. And how I came to that conclusion was based upon the fact that, during the Revolutionary War, you had straight-up pornography circulating among the general populace. Most infamous of which was Fanny Hill, and some people being neck deep in environments that produced such content like Franklin:
https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=xA8kZAjB3cY
And because of this being the circumstance at the time, it's extremely difficult to argue that the Founders, when drafting the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, were unaware of this being the case. Therefore they also understood that by having a law that effectively prevents a government from restricting speech, they also understood that said law would also rope in and protect so-called "osbscene" content no matter how much they may reject it. But as you'll notice, the important part of this conclusion I have reached is that
it is based upon the evidence of the time, the mindset and circumstances of the people who wrote it, and what the actual text says. IOW, this conclusion is based upon facts instead of my own personal feelings on the matter.
However that is not usually the case whenever people attempt to argue about how laws are "interpretted". What
THEY are talking about instead is the belief that a "law" is a "living thing", that it can change with the time to suit whatever "needs" of the time. And once you start going down that road, you lose all objectivity and begin descending into a Post-Modernists Hell where nothing is "true" and everything is "permitted". As the only "law" that exists is the personal beliefs of whoever is in power.
>For example Slave Ownership and Indentured Servitude has been reinterpreted into prison labor and contract work rather than open slavery
Message too long. Click
here
to view full text.