History Main / ArtisticLicenseLaw

15th Dec '17 12:19:11 PM marcoasalazarm
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* FailedExecutionNoSentence: There used to be a time when people surviving an execution (or a set amount of execution attempts, such as being hanged three times) were given a full pardon, being seen as God's will. More recently (talking at least a hundred-plus years or so), this was started to be seen as a no-no (this is why any execution sentencing will have the judge saying that the method will be applied "until (the prisoner is) dead"). Of course, FictionIsntFair and not only does this code lives on, but sometimes will be presented in a sillier fashion.



%%* HollywoodLaw

to:

%%* HollywoodLaw* HollywoodLaw: The multiple methods through which Hollywood has perverted law in order to squeeze a little bit more drama out of a law and order story is just impossible to count. Suffice to say, it's easier to point out when is law being showcased ''correctly''.
7th Dec '17 7:31:55 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* RulesLawyering: Varies wildly. Depending on the laws being cited, there is bound to be ''some'' stretching of definitions in a way that helps your case and/or hinders theirs, but there is a definite line of acceptability. It's up to a judge to decide when you've gone from "a bit of a stretch, but okay" to "blatant ChewbaccaDefense", and sanctions may be possible if you have a particularly flimsy or outright frivolous case that you attempted to prop up with some particularly ridiculous semantic leaps. Words count, but they don't mean shit if the case itself has no meat, and if you are successful in basing a substantial portion of your case around the interpretation of certain laws, it was either due to an incredibly specific set of circumstances or a badly-worded statute or decision.

to:

* RulesLawyering: RulesLawyer: Varies wildly. Depending on the laws being cited, there is bound to be ''some'' stretching of definitions in a way that helps your case and/or hinders theirs, but there is a definite line of acceptability. It's up to a judge to decide when you've gone from "a bit of a stretch, but okay" to "blatant ChewbaccaDefense", and sanctions may be possible if you have a particularly flimsy or outright frivolous case that you attempted to prop up with some particularly ridiculous semantic leaps. Words count, but they don't mean shit if the case itself has no meat, and if you are successful in basing a substantial portion of your case around the interpretation of certain laws, it was either due to an incredibly specific set of circumstances or a badly-worded statute or decision.
7th Dec '17 7:30:54 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* RulesLawyering: Varies wildly. Depending on the laws being cited, there is bound to be ''some'' stretching of definitions in a way that helps your case and/or hinders theirs, but there is a definite line of acceptability. It's up to a judge to decide when you've gone from "a bit of a stretch, but okay" to "blatant ChewbaccaDefense", and sanctions may be possible if you have a particularly flimsy or outright frivolous case that you attempted to prop up with some particularly ridiculous semantic leaps. Words count, but they don't mean shit if the case itself has no meat, and if you are successful in basing a substantial portion of your case around the interpretation of certain laws, it was either due to an incredibly specific set of circumstances or a badly-worded statute or decision.
5th Dec '17 8:31:26 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* DiplomaticImmunity: Real-life abuses of it definitely occur, but any nation that values its relationship with the host country ''will'' deal with it. International incidents do not exactly foster goodwill, especially serious criminal offenses.

to:

* DiplomaticImmunity: DiplomaticImpunity: Real-life abuses of it definitely occur, but any nation that values its relationship with the host country ''will'' deal with it. International incidents do not exactly foster goodwill, especially serious criminal offenses. Should the sending country not deal with it, the host can always make the offender ''persona non grata'' (or, in layman's terms, "you've more than worn out your welcome, get the fuck out and don't come back"), which is not great for international relations, but neither is inaction on the sender's part. Matters can be complicated in cases where the offender has committed an offense that is treated far more harshly in the sending country.
26th Nov '17 9:45:23 PM StarSword
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. At most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win and cause him political problems down the road, but he can't actually overturn the election once electoral college and House have already voted.

to:

* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, college while running as an independent, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. At most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win and cause him political problems down the road, but he can't actually overturn the election once the electoral college and House have already voted.
26th Nov '17 9:41:56 PM StarSword
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. At most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win and cause him political problems down the road, but he can't actually overturn the election once the House has already voted.

to:

* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. At most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win and cause him political problems down the road, but he can't actually overturn the election once the electoral college and House has have already voted.
26th Nov '17 9:41:13 PM StarSword
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* ''Film/TheHitmansBodyguard'':
** Massive liberties are taken to make Kincaid's testimony the only thing that can get Belorussian ex-dictator Dukhovich convicted at the Hague. A victim whose family was killed in front of him and was put in a work camp for three years has his ''entire'' testimony dismissed out of hand, with the implications that all of the other witnesses so far have had the same. Such testimony would not simply be declared "hearsay" (which, by the way, is when a witness is asked ''what they were told happened by somebody else'', not ''what happened to them personally'') and struck even if the defense claimed they were merely political opponents doing smear jobs. Somehow Kincaid was the only person to have [[spoiler: pictures]] as proof of Dukhovich's crimes despite this being set in the modern day and that is the only kind of evidence that seems to work.
** Also, it is entirely possible to have witnesses testify from remote locations. Kincaid could easily have testified on a video chat from his cell [[spoiler: and given the website information from there]]. This is ''common practice'' when the witness might be endangered by coming to the trial.
** Even disregarding the above, you'd think the court would be a little more lax with the ExactTimeToFailure considering that ''someone tried to murder Kincaid en route to the Hague''.



* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. Legally, at most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win, but he can't overturn the election once the House has already voted.

to:

* ''Series/MadamSecretary'': During the election arc in the first half of season three, President Dalton, after losing his party's primary and unable to win a majority in the electoral college, instead forces a three-way draw so that the election will be punted to the House of Representatives, where he ekes out a win. This part is perfectly legitimate under the quite unique UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem (it's happened three times in real life), but after that his main rival, Governor Sam Evans, sues in Ohio, hoping to get their waiver of their sore-loser law that got Dalton on the ballot overturned under a lobbying law, thereby invalidating Dalton's win in Ohio and giving Evans the win. This idea ignores a fundamental fact about the electoral college: all the state popular vote does is ''suggest'' to the state's electors how the residents ''want'' them to vote, and all electoral college ballots are final once submitted. Legally, at At most Evans might delegitimize Dalton's win, win and cause him political problems down the road, but he can't actually overturn the election once the House has already voted.
26th Nov '17 5:55:22 PM StarSword
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* In the ''Series/StarTrekDiscovery'' episode "[[Recap/StarTrekDiscoveryS1E03ContextIsForKings Context Is for Kings]]", protagonist Michael Burnham suspects Captain Lorca is developing biological weapons aboard ''Discovery'' and cites the Geneva Conventions' ban on them to him. There's a couple problems with this:
** In real life, the Geneva Conventions actually ''don't'' outlaw bioweapons; those are covered by a different set of treaties (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits their use but not their creation, while the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention outlaws them altogether). However, in addition to citing the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention as above, Burnham also cites a fictional 22nd century version of the Conventions under which these are apparently covered.
** In the preceding episode, "[[Recap/StarTrekDiscoveryS1E02BattleAtTheBinaryStars Battle at the Binary Stars]]", Burnham and Captain Georgiou developed a plan that directly violated a ''different'' portion of the Geneva Conventions, namely [[spoiler:[[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80 Article 6 of 1980 Protocol II]], mining an enemy corpse so that it would detonate when recovered]], which made her statement to Lorca seem rather hypocritical to viewers versed in international law.
22nd Nov '17 12:12:41 PM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ReadTheFinePrint: Contract law is as wildly varied and thorny as self-defense law, but as a rule of thumb you must at ''least'' to be able to read it (and although fiction depicts contracts as irrevocably binding, in reality courts sometimes decide that certain parts of a contract are unenforceable for one reason or another.)

to:

* ReadTheFinePrint: Contract law is as wildly varied and thorny as self-defense law, but as a rule of thumb you must at ''least'' to be able to read it (and although fiction depicts contracts as irrevocably binding, in reality courts sometimes decide that certain parts of a contract are unenforceable for one reason or another.another, with vagueness and/or being overly broad being the most common reasons.)
18th Nov '17 3:32:10 PM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* FrivolousLawsuit: Lawyers are required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal merit of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions. In RealLife, most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court.

to:

* FrivolousLawsuit: Lawyers are required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal merit of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions. In RealLife, most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court. Furthermore, as mentioned above, threatening someone with a worthless lawsuit just to intimidate them is likely to result in a letter from their attorney that can be translated as "go fuck yourself" and/or "bring it".
This list shows the last 10 events of 425. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseLaw