The Subject

Article II, § B of the Constitution of the Karma Court, known as the Fair Reposting Clause, states, in part, the following:

Content may be reposted without fear of prosecution in the following situations:

1. If the original poster has less than 30,000 total link karma.
2. If it has been 7 or more days since the last time the post has frontpaged.
3. If the repost has anywhere in its title or description that it is an x-post.

The meaning of these words were subject to debate in the recent case of The people of Reddit vs. /u/volumezero.

The Debate

The case in question involved a repost satisfying the first condition described in the Fair Repost Clause, and only that condition. Attorney for the defense Deadbabylicious moved for the case to be dismissed on that basis:

Under the articles in the Constitution, one can repost without fear of prosecution if the OP has less than 30,000 link karma, which is evidenced here.

This was challenged by the prosecuting attorney, Always_Reasonable, who asserted that all three conditions must be met for a repost to be allowable.

Sections 2 and 3 invalidate this claim by the defense, as the post was a mere two hours old, that there was no mention of an x-post in the submission title.

In rebuttal, Mr. Deadbabylicious analyzed the wording of the law to demonstrate the correctness of his interpretation

The word situations means separate events occurring, and we cannot ignore that. These three qualifications can each acquit a defendant, and one is sufficient.

Mr. Always_Reasonable had no response to this, nor did anyone else offer an argument to counter that of Mr. Deadbabylicious.

The Ruling

Dismissing the argument of Mr. Licious, Judge Yankee_Doodle_Dickwad ruled that the Fair Reposting Clause is deliberately ambiguous; its interpretation not fixed, but dependent on the judge's discretion in each individual case:

The fair repost clause is worded in a way that leaves it at the discretion of the judge, dependent on the circumstances of the event.

He proceeded to rule the case in question "a repost crime of the tiniest possible kind", imposing a token sentence, which the defense chose not to appeal.

My Position

In the course of an exchange wherein I questioned this verdict, Judge Dickwad urged me to put forward the basis for debate in this blog, which I have attempted to do impartially in the aforegoing paragraphs. Hereinafter follows my personal opinion on the matter:

I am utterly appalled at the decision rendered by the judge, which in my humble opinion tramples over the semantic points so judiciously embedded in the Constitution by the framers and thoroughly analyzed by /u/Deadbabylicious. It ought be needless to say that careful attention to such fine points of language is the very essence of the practice of law, and to wilfully dispense with it in favor of a naked power grab for the judiciary is hardly the part of an upstanding judge.

My Arguments

My arguments against the judge's interpretation of the law number three.

1. The wording of the law leaves no room for ambiguity

   Mr. Deadbabylicious has already pointed out that the plural of "situations" implies that multiple situations follow; hence the three conditions given must be taken to describe separate situations, rather than a single one. In all the course of debate thus far, this point has never been contravened, neither by the prosecuting attorney for the case in question, nor by the Judge in the course of his verdict, nor even when I challenged him to justify it.

   Until some explanation can be offered to reconcile the plural situations with a "multiple-conditions" interpretation, this alone is sufficient to resolve the ambiguity that Judge Dickwad claims to see in the law.

2. The wording of the law leaves no room for an interpretation that depends upon a judge's discretion

   In the first place, were it the intention of the framers, I see no good reason for them not to make it explicit that the interpretation of this clause is left to the judge's discretion.

   Furthermore, the clause concerns, not how the case is decided, but whether it is to be prosecuted at all. Since the question of whether to hear a case is always ipso facto at the discretion of the judge, devoting an entire clause of the constitution to affirming this in one specific case is redundant at best, misleading at worst.

   Finally, and most tellingly, the Fair Reposting clause state that content meeting the conditions described "may be reposted without fear of prosecution" [emphasis mine]. If the legal statuses of many actions subject to this clause remain murky until ruled upon by a judge, they can hardly be performed "without fear of prosecution"! (Judge Dickwad's pronouncement,

   The users of reddit are in no way expected to comply with the KC interpretarions in their actions. However, that is what they find when their ass is dragged into our judicial grip.

   appears to have overlooked this point).

3. There is a clear conflict of interest inherent in the ruling issued by Judge Dickwad

   Need I elaborate? The Judge's startling interpretation of the law seizes power for the judiciary, in clear defiance of the intentions of the legislature. Even were the case against his interpretation not so compelling, this would at the very least bring his impartiality into question.

   ---

   I rest my case.