No, I specifically said it was natural language code. Code includes many things that aren't computer code. I did not say law is deterministic or mechanistic, and the "make a pb sandwich" example shows how much natural language code isn't deterministic or mechanistic.
No, they are incentivized to want to dunk on someone, and they don't care about accuracy.
Yes, I know.
Yes, I intended a comparison to computer code, not that they are identical or interchangeable. computer code doesn't run on people, and it's usually not natural language. Those are really important differences that I mentioned in my post, which I didn't expect to get this level of scrutiny.
It's bluesky, so the most likely explanation is that people want to dunk on someone, and they don't care that I neither said or meant that "code is law"
Why do you think that? And why are you being so rude? Really honestly, it is what I meant originally.
I have written about ambiguity in the language of law previously, as a benefit to law. I'm well-versed in all this! I just forgot that most people on here wouldn't know what I meant.
Or, there have been years of prior arguments of people saying things that sound similar to what I said, and people are latching onto that instead of actually trying to understand what I meant.
I said it was natural language code, which it is. It quite literally is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(s... That's why legal code is called code. It predates computers!
I'm not condescending, I'm literally asking if we have the same understanding of what I said. I don't think we do.
I absolutely did not say that in any way, shape or form! Where did I say that?
To the people who need to learn the definition of "code", here you go: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(s...
What exactly do you think I said? What I said is trivially(!) true. I did not say that law is software code, I said it was natural language code.
do you understand what I said? I didn't say law is software code. I said it was natural language code, which it is.
Yes, and it's a good thing I didn't say law is software code.
Wait, you want me to keep going? I thought you just said I shouldn't continue.
It's a good thing I didn't say that, then.
If you read my post as saying "code is law" you definitely misunderstood what I said. Please re-read the post, and understand that by code, I don't exclusively mean programming code.
Ok, now is the time for you to reveal why you forced me to go through this exercise in detail.
then we agree!
A code many are familiar with is our spoken language which is assembled from or built upon phonetic sounds (patterns of vibration in the atmosphere or air).
Sure, it's not hard to find at all. here is wikipedia, in the first place I looked.
what do you mean? I only got through part a)
Or completed prosecution, I suppose.
(Do you want me to continue? I mean, I enjoy this, but I don't see why you are making me go to these lengths.)
We satisfy b), which is really just about ensuring there's federal jurisdiction.
To answer c) we need to know, is there a on-going prosecution in the state system?
You "urg[ed] people... to riot" so looking at 18 U.S. Code § 2102(b), your actions meet the definition of “to incite a riot” explicitly. It wasn't general advocacy. So we satisfy a)1) and can continue to b).
Sure. You wrote a blog post. That uses the internet, likely deemed a facility of interstate commerce, since the list isn't exhaustive and the internet is similar to the other enumerated facilitates, just newer so probably not included in an old code. So we satisfy a).
All of these different varieties, whatever the language, whether declarative or imperative, whether well-specified or ambiguous, are all still code. This is true by definition of the word "code".
I said statutory law is natural language code. That's saying a very different thing than law as a profession is the same as programming code.
There's declarative code (describing something) and imperative code (instructions for carrying something out), and code can be well specified or ambiguous
I gave you the specific actual process. You said that wasn't specific enough, I've answered your additional questions in a separate thread.
Then you understand that codified law is natural language code?
Ok, and you only want to me make a conclusion on the basis of the statute alone? Not taking into account the First Amendment? Why?
On the statute alone, if the blog post is an overt act, and the internet use counts as interstate commerce, then yes.
But we never reason based on the statute alone.