> For better or worse the USA implements the right wing view. There isn't any such thing as "spirit of the law", there's only law, and judges are relatively restrained when it comes to the creative invention of new law by (mis)reading existing law.
This is simply materially wrong. Like it's not even close. It's literally contra the basic language of law.
> This thread is a mess because it hits on one of the fundamental ideological divisions between left and right.
While there is a value split traditionally nobody has some weird legal positivist view of the law where we can only take things super literally.
> Google's behavior was guided by lawyers who were implementing the standard understanding of litigation holds.
I promise you no Google lawyer instructed their CEO to tell someone to move to off the record chat while under a hold. The lawyer response here would have probably been to group this under a priviledged meeting.
>> While there is a value split traditionally nobody has some weird legal positivist view of the law where we can only take things super literally.
No? I thought that was one of the primary legal divisions within the Supreme Court? The textualists vs the "living constitution" people?
>> I promise you no Google lawyer instructed their CEO to tell someone to move to off the record chat while under a hold
I promise you they did, because that feature was added specifically due to complaints by lawyers about chats being retained! And as you say, try talking to a lawyer over email and you'll get one answer: "let's take this to a phone call". Lawyers love moving conversations to non-recorded media.
This is simply materially wrong. Like it's not even close. It's literally contra the basic language of law.
> This thread is a mess because it hits on one of the fundamental ideological divisions between left and right.
While there is a value split traditionally nobody has some weird legal positivist view of the law where we can only take things super literally.
> Google's behavior was guided by lawyers who were implementing the standard understanding of litigation holds.
I promise you no Google lawyer instructed their CEO to tell someone to move to off the record chat while under a hold. The lawyer response here would have probably been to group this under a priviledged meeting.