[dc2]

I do understand this.

I am just wondering what happens when there is a vested interest in attacking or suppressing the company involved.

For example, if a company becomes unpopular on social media and by "public opinion" (such as Facebook right now), a court can feel pressured into a slanted decision. Given that so much is now based on opinion, what defense does the company have?

It seems that if someone had the intention to nail a company on GDPR as a PR attack, regardless of the amount of effort the company put in, they almost certainly could.

(I don't work for Facebook)

[ryanobjc]

Perhaps you could describe how you would pressure a judge successfully?

I often see comments like this, abstract what ifs without any details on what.

So, try to illustrate what might happen. Also, describe what protections the judges might have against this. It’s a useful mental exercise and you might realize that it’s a fair bit harder than posting on 4chan or Twitter.

[dc2]

See reply to Tomte on that.

[Tomte]

That's why we have independent judges.

"Pressuring a judge" would be an impressive feat. They are generally obnoxiously aware of their untouchable status.

And if society's stance really changes, we want the courts to take that into account. Again. feature, not bug.

[dc2]

Well I'm talking about exactly that - social pressure.

Just because popular opinion (aka the vocal social media / news / social media echo chamber) approves of something, it doesn't mean it is correct.

Governments and courts have definite pressure to legalize marijuana, for example. That pressure is based on popular public opinion. Therefore approving it gives that legal body or state acceptance / goodwill. This is an incentive that goes quite far.

It can also be popular to smash a company.

[slovette]

I don’t think this deserves to be down voted. It’s a valid perspective I think shared among those that are, perhaps, removed from legal specificities and their make-up.

I also think this point resonates fairly well in smaller courts (read as maybe more rural areas) where the legal system is closely tied with the social system of the area and there are indeed LOTS of incentives to introduce, we’ll calm them, ‘alternative judgements’.

All that said, I think law has to be appropriately ambiguous in order to remain relevant and applicable through change and societal adaptation in norms. Hence, case by case context.

This is why it looks to contain so much flex in the language. Right and wrong is implicitly an ambiguous and ever changing notion, described and defined only by the same body of individuals that mutually agree to uphold it. It’s fluid.

However, I also see the perspective that the fluidity of societal definitions and the increasing ease through technology to greatly influence a vast chunk of that populations opinion, can make these things misalign with ethical appropriateness. See the Nissan.com website case or any other number of court cases that clearly concluded under the coercive pressure of the more powerful/wealthy party.