[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Sadly I do not see all courts doing this as well. You would have to be blind to not see the biased towards big business over the common man when it comes to American courts. [/quote]
Apparently I'm blind. Courts tend to be more biased towards the "common man." The
laws may be biased against the common man at times, so a court impartially applying the law may
appear that way, but if you complain about it, you really don't understand how our system works, or the fact that the court would be in the wrong to change that. If you don't like it, appeal to congress.
In-fact in this certain case it may simply be because its the porn industry instead of a more powerful one. There has been no doubt cases of completely innocent people being sued by the RIAA or MPAA and winning without actually proving guilt
Typically, you do not need to "prove" anything in tort. Only preponderance of the evidence.
and of course even the innocent cannot adequately defend themselves as they do not have the financial means to so settling despite being innocent is cheaper. It's obvious that they also do not care if they sue innocent people.
Yes that's true of course. That's why court's often allow these sort of cases to be done on contingency basis.
The laws and courts are simply not only biased but lenient on corporations as well.
This statement has no meaning. The laws and the courts are two very different things. I agree, sometimes the laws are biased towards corporations, sometimes they are not. Courts usually are biased against them.
Take BP as a example. BP has more reported safety violations on record than every other oil company combined. The maximum amount they can be fined for such is $100,000 which is often cheaper to pay than to actually fix the problem so they pay the fine and never fix the risk. The BP oil disaster devastated the ecosystem, the economies that relied on the area, and killed 11 people. All because of the known neglect of safety that BP is known for. Just looking at the deaths alone that is at-least 11 counts of manslaughter or perhaps more fitting negligent homicide. BP executives made the choices to ignore known problems yet not one is jailed. Yet under any conditions if this was a common individuals action that lead to the death of 11 people they likely would never leave prison alive.Its our duty to make sure the law remains fair, just, and uncorrupted. It's our duty to elect the right people for the jobs to make those laws therefor it is our fault that things have become this way. You have the power to stop this.With that I get off my soap-box.
This is pretty much pure bullcrap and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the law. Neglecting maintainable is typically the
textbook case of civil negligence, you need
criminal negligence to rise to the level of manslaughter. This sort of thing almost never makes it there.
Thanks for reading.
-B
Facebook
Twitter