[Foundation-l] Mission & Vision statement updated

[Anthony]

On 4/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > (incidentally, the law
> > is rarely objective, that's why we have judges and lawyers)
>
> By my understanding, that's why we have *juries*. Judges are meant to
> be objective, and leave subjective decisions to the jury.
>
I actually originally had written "and juries" but I specifically
removed it because juries are there to determine issues of fact, not
issues of law.  Questions of law are supposed to be decided by judges,
not juries.

Take fair use, for instance.  This is an utterly subjective topic, and
in most of the case law juries don't ever get involved.

> I pretty much agree with the key points of the rest of your email.
>
> (Incidentally, I've just been researching UK law on the issue, and the
> key phrase there is "public benefit". What the benefits are seems to
> be pretty much irrelevant, as long as there are some (and they
> outweigh any harm), but they are very strict on the definition of
> public. I'm not sure if aristocrats would qualify, mainly because I'm
> not sure what the exact definition of an aristocrat is.)
>
Had you chosen the example of providing caviar to the hungry I would
have been a lot more wishy-washy in my response :).

Anthony