Habeas factus

anigbrowl — Thu, 24 May 2012 13:03:56 -0800

This post ought not to have been deleted. The reason given: "This post was deleted for the following reason: Seems like an interesting and pretty fucked-up case, but most of the links here seem like they're kind of filler material and if the meat of the post is essentially "read this legal PDF" it might need to be presented a lot more in those terms, or with some good long-form journalism or analysis. Otherwise we've just got folks arguing about rape charges yet again. -- cortex" What is wrong with 'read this legal pdf'? 90% of discussions about law at MetaFilter go round in circles because people either don't know how or can't be bothered to read the filings in the case. The legal filing has a table of contents and that includes a 'statement of facts.' This is not hard to understand even if you don't have any legal training. Deleting a contentious post because the author actually went to the trouble of providing primary sources is absurd, especially considering how many pointless arguments ensue in single-link-post threads because the single link contains an incomplete or biased treatment of the subject matter. If it was up to me, we'd delete threads on legal cases that didn't include links to primary sources. I fail to see why punditry is more desirable than the actual facts presented to the court, and think that this is a terrible standard of moderation to use, regardless of how cranky rape threads can be. A guy spent six years in jail here for a crime he didn't commit, and that's not worth discussing because it might require people to do a little more reading than a typical blog post or tumblr page? I am pretty offended by the rationale given for the deletion of this extremely worthwhile FPP, and call for its reinstatement unaltered.

MetaTalk posts tagged with filing

Habeas factus