|
|
|
|
|
|
by thaumasiotes
1703 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.