[hluska]

If Twitter could assess penalties this wouldn’t be a legal system. Courts and judges assess penalties. Companies can sue for damages but they don’t assess penalties.

With all due respect, this is the second ignorant thing you’ve said on this article. You don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. Please stop…

[thaumasiotes]

Sorry, I responded to "this is a good idea" with "in case of X, it might be, but in reality, it isn't", and you think "but X is not true" undermines that argument?

[hluska]

Look, if you’re going to engage with me, cut the shit. You wrote:

“If Twitter could assess a huge penalty on the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit, maybe.”

If Twitter could assess a huge penalty, it would violate absolutely every single tenet of both the western justice system and all principles of natural justice. Companies don’t get to assess penalties when they think they’ve been wrong. Companies can sue for damages and Twitter has the right to do that here. However, companies don’t assess damages - JUDGES DO!

This is so simple that I can’t believe I just had to explain it on Hacker News. Tune in next time, when we do “Hello world” in Python.

[thaumasiotes]

There's nothing unusual about private parties being able to assess penalties against other private parties. Your bank does it all the time. It does not make a mockery of the justice system.

The justice system frequently does make a mockery of the justice system by assessing penalties, such as when someone is arrested, proves to have been someone other than the target, and then gets charged for the time they spent in jail.

If a failed frivolous lawsuit against Twitter automatically gave Twitter a claim on the plaintiff's assets, that would in fact not violate every tenet of the western justice system, nor would it violate all principles of natural justice. It is a system that has obtained elsewhere and that people frequently advocate for.

[dragonwriter]

> There's nothing unusual about private parties being able to assess penalties against other private parties

Absent a contract, there is, and even with a contract there are limits.

> Your bank does it all the time.

Within a contractual relation and governed by the contract, sure. But that's not what you are talking about.

> It does not make a mockery of the justice system.

Outside of the bounds of contract, it would, as it would amount to private parties making and adjudicating public law.

> If a failed frivolous lawsuit against Twitter automatically gave Twitter a claim on the plaintiff's assets, that would in fact not violate every tenet of the western justice system,

Yes, it would. Now, if merely a failed lawsuit did, it might not, as the failure itself is the conclusion of an adjudication, leaving no private determination to be made.

> It is a system that has obtained elsewhere and that people frequently advocate for.

No, its not, nor is it Twitter assessing a penalty. Loser pays is civil lawsuits is a thing, but it involves the court, not the offended party, assessing the penalty.

Loser pays for frivolous lawsuits only (but not all failed lawsuits) is also a thing, and is common in US jurisdictions, but requires a separate court determination that the claim was frivolous as well as the court assessing damages.

[thaumasiotes]

A penalty for filing a bad suit can be (and notionally already is!) part of the price of filing suit, just as overdraft penalties are part of the price of a bank account. A contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not necessary.

> Loser pays for frivolous lawsuits only (but not all failed lawsuits) is also a thing, and is common in US jurisdictions, but requires a separate court determination

Requiring a separate court determination is a coincidence of the American system, not a logical necessity.

[dragonwriter]

> Requiring a separate court determination is a coincidence of the American system, not a logical necessity.

No, its a logical necessity. “Frivolous” is a separate facr feom “losing”.