"De minimis non curat lex" does NOT translate to "Break the law if you
think no one will bother to prosecute." It refers instead to the fact
that certain technical infractions are so insignificant that it would
be counter-productive for anyone to pay attention to them. More
fundamentally, rule-based systems of behavior break down on the
periphery (and elsewhere), making it necessary to exercise independent
judgment about the moral and ethical consequences of one's actions.
What would strike me as insanity would be for anyone, attorney or not,
to advocate unquestioning obedience to legal (or any other) norms.
Christopher Pesce
<chrisp[_at_]continuum.com>
> From: cni-copyright
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: to the point/Latin mutterings
> Date: Monday, November 14, 1994 7:30PM
>
>
> I think Teresa Dulberg asked a sensible question here and received an
> inadequate response. Given the fact that her signature indicated she
> is outside the legal profession, the response was also miserable.
>
> Putting aside the issue of translations from the Latin, if we have 255
> million people making individual decisions about which laws to obey,
> then we are all going down the tubes. It strikes me as a bit of insanity
> for any attorney (an officer of the legal system) to advocate breaking
> of a particular law on the grounds that no one will bother to sue or
> prosecute. The remedy for faulty law is to change it. What we don't
> need is a collection of rules and regulations that no one obeys because
> they don't make any sense. Unfortunately, parts of current copyright law
> are in that category. Vincit pace absurditas in lex.
>
> Dan Agin
> <specpress[_at_]genie.geis.com>
Received on Tue Nov 15 1994 - 18:29:10 GMT