Remove ads

Distance Learning for fun and profit...

Reader mode
FaerieKnight79 said:
in our world, this is the case. However you keep forgetting that Worm isn't set in our world. It is, instead, set in a world where a group of amoral multiversal terrorists have spent 30 years undermining the USA's legal system in their insane attempt to stop an omnicidal eldritch abomination using it's own tools.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even without that we don't have children with superpowers, so we don't have the pressures they have for needing to recognise that non-adults can be treated like adults for certain things while still needing to be protected from other aspects.

Oh, and we already have an emancipation process that recognises that a legal child is responsible enough to take on the burdens of adulthood early. So it's probably an extension on that.
 
Last edited:
Darkphoenixlady said:
Even without that we don't have children with superpowers, so we don't have the pressures they have for needing to recognise that non-adults can be treated like adults for certain things while still needing to be protected from other aspects.

Oh, and we already have an emancipation process that recognises that a legal child is responsible enough to take on the burdens of adulthood early. So it's probably an extension on that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More like a subversion really. Give them just enough to bind themselves to the wards or otherwise place themselves under the control of the PRT.
 
Gindjurra said:
That would be illegal under the US legal system. Just enacting such a clause or issuing an order to do so would be worth a decade, minimum, in prison for any government official.

We don't have anything resembling the Official Secrets Act because we can't. It would be grossly in violation of our highest laws. Violating a properly signed NDA can be prosecuted, but violating an NDA signed under duress is not illegal.

If anyone not bound by an NDA gets ahold of classified data, they are free to publish it or not as they choose. This is one of the checks and balances built into our system of laws and government.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Look up 18 us code § 793
a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning ...(national defense stuff)...

the gist is irl if you knowingly and willfully tell anything secrets etc regarding national defense(gravtech is a military contractor ) that would be a crime. seeing how this is set in worm the above mentioned is probably looser and with greater penalties

from Cornell law 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
 
Xerres said:
Look up 18 us code § 793
a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning ...(national defense stuff)...

the gist is irl if you knowingly and willfully tell anything secrets etc regarding national defense(gravtech is a military contractor ) that would be a crime. seeing how this is set in worm the above mentioned is probably looser and with greater penalties

from Cornell law 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Paragraph A isn't really the better part to cite, considering that it's about actively extracting information from strategically significant sites. Well, the Hebert house probably is such a site, but they didn't go there with the purpose of obtaining such information. D and E, however, declare dissemination of national defense information "to any person not entitled to receive it" to be a crime, for both authorized and unauthorized possessors of such information.

(I expect anyone publishing such documents rather than engaging in more classic espionage would claim that doing so was protected speech under the First Amendment and the result would come out of a potentially extended court wrangle.)
 
Xerres said:
Look up 18 us code § 793
a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning ...(national defense stuff)...

the gist is irl if you knowingly and willfully tell anything secrets etc regarding national defense(gravtech is a military contractor ) that would be a crime. seeing how this is set in worm the above mentioned is probably looser and with greater penalties

from Cornell law 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The law you're referring to has been struck down in court twice, then re-enacted with changes. When it conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And the Constitution says that Congress lacks the authority to restrict the freedom of the press.

The current version/interpretation of it is that deliberately stealing secrets to pass to enemy nations is espionage which is illegal - but the people of the United States of America are not an enemy nation. The fact that enemy nations might read US newspapers is legally irrelevant.

Likewise, secure facilities may set clearly delineated perimeters beyond which access is restricted, and photography is prohibited. But anything visible from outside that perimeter is legal to look at and/or record, including the signs saying photography is prohibited.

tl;dr: that law doesn't say what you think it does

Aineko said:
Paragraph A isn't really the better part to cite, considering that it's about actively extracting information from strategically significant sites. Well, the Hebert house probably is such a site, but they didn't go there with the purpose of obtaining such information. D and E, however, declare dissemination of national defense information "to any person not entitled to receive it" to be a crime, for both authorized and unauthorized possessors of such information.

(I expect anyone publishing such documents rather than engaging in more classic espionage would claim that doing so was protected speech under the First Amendment and the result would come out of a potentially extended court wrangle.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

D and E directly contradict the first amendment to the United States Constitution, and are clearly a prior restraint on the freedom of our press if interpreted to restrict that freedom. Therefore the fact they still exist means they don't actually mean that.
 
Gindjurra said:
D and E directly contradict the first amendment to the United States Constitution, and are clearly a prior restraint on the freedom of our press if interpreted to restrict that freedom. Therefore the fact they still exist means they don't actually mean that
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except that Snowden was a clear case of this law winning. There are other known exceptions to the first amendment, such as libel and slander, fighting words, and causing a panic. This is because it's not the press that gets prosecuted, it's the person who leaked the information.
 
Darkphoenixlady said:
Except that Snowden was a clear case of this law winning. There are other known exceptions to the first amendment, such as libel and slander, fighting words, and causing a panic. This is because it's not the press that gets prosecuted, it's the person who leaked the information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Snowden is a better example of systemic corruption than of espionage. He revealed criminal activity in the only way he reasonably could after discovering that the oversight that was supposed to be policing his agency was actually corrupt and complicit in law-breaking. Hillary Clinton broke the same law Snowden did, but with far less noble motives, yet was never charged with any crimes - more corruption at work.

Frogs321 said:
We (that is you and I) know that. Some of the people of the United States of America are confused about that. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One of the statutory definitions of treason is someone who owes allegiance to the USA (aka a citizen) waging war upon the USA. If a US official views the people of the USA to be an enemy nation, it's a very small step from that to waging war upon that enemy.
 
Last edited:
Gindjurra said:
We don't have anything resembling the Official Secrets Act because we can't. It would be grossly in violation of our highest laws. Violating a properly signed NDA can be prosecuted, but violating an NDA signed under duress is not illegal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not being signed under duress, so not sure why this would apply. They're allowed to walk away without signing, they just don't get read in if they do that.
 
Gindjurra said:
The law you're referring to has been struck down in court twice, then re-enacted with changes. When it conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And the Constitution says that Congress lacks the authority to restrict the freedom of the press.

The current version/interpretation of it is that deliberately stealing secrets to pass to enemy nations is espionage which is illegal - but the people of the United States of America are not an enemy nation. The fact that enemy nations might read US newspapers is legally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
could you cite those cases because my cursory search couldn't find them and it is still the law as written from my nal understanding. And Cornell usually put things like that in the notes tab.
Assange and Snowden have been charged with it and Manning was convicted. Snowden gave the info to newspapers it's why he's hiding in Russia. Manning is only out of jail because FrmPresident Obama commuted their sentence
 
Gindjurra said:
Snowden is a better example of systemic corruption than of espionage. He revealed criminal activity in the only way he reasonably could after discovering that the oversight that was supposed to be policing his agency was actually corrupt and complicit in law-breaking. Hillary Clinton broke the same law Snowden did, but with far less noble motives, yet was never charged with any crimes - more corruption at work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
From my 15 minutes of google 'research' the difference between Clinton and Snowden is the statute is based on intent in that Snowden knowingly and willfully did it while Clinton's was accidental due to a email hack
 
Gindjurra said:
D and E directly contradict the first amendment to the United States Constitution, and are clearly a prior restraint on the freedom of our press if interpreted to restrict that freedom. Therefore the fact they still exist means they don't actually mean that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The supreme court is not generally of the opinion that constitutional rights are completely unrestrained. Congress and the states certainly have made and the courts have upheld laws abridging absolute freedom of speech.

Hence why I'd expect anyone (at least anyone not an actual spy) tried under those paragraphs would attempt a first amendment defense, but I wouldn't assume that such a defense would be successful.
 
Can we not discuss our earth's laws when dealing with a fictional setting, where they may or may not apply depending on the author's whim?
Okay, Thanks.
 
Xerres said:
From my 15 minutes of google 'research' the difference between Clinton and Snowden is the statute is based on intent in that Snowden knowingly and willfully did it while Clinton's was accidental due to a email hack
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Add the phrase 'whistleblower law' to your search. Snowden's intent was to report a crime to law enforcement. Clinton's intent was personal convenience.
 
Gindjurra said:
The law you're referring to has been struck down in court twice, then re-enacted with changes. When it conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And the Constitution says that Congress lacks the authority to restrict the freedom of the press.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What, in any way, makes you think the US Constitution in Earth Bet in 2011 is the same as it is in our world? Canon Worm shows many places where accepted practice there is clearly unconstitutional here, two examples being kill orders and birdcage sentences. And even here, the constitution has been so watered down as far as enforcement goes over the years that quite a few things which are meant by it aren't actually enacted in the spirit of the thing...

However, this isn't really the place for a debate over constitutional law, so there's little point getting too deeply into it :) Let's just take it as read that under the rules of the government in this story, what's happening by and large is legal and works.

As much as anything in a Worm-adjacent story can be said to work, anyway... ;)
 
Gindjurra said:
Add the phrase 'whistleblower law' to your search. Snowden's intent was to report a crime to law enforcement. Clinton's intent was personal convenience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Clinton was not willful(legal definition) and had no intention of releasing any 'secrets' where as Snowden intended to release 'secrets' to newspapers including the Guardian and Washington Post. whistleblower laws are a defense in the same way fair use is a defense of copyright meaning it's argued before the court and since Snowden fled to Russia....(personally I don't think Snowden should be convicted)
And anyway Worm has had 30-40 years drift into authoritarianism eg Birdcage and NEPEA-5 Bill which from what little about it I can find in canon would be wildly unconstitutional

last post since we are wildly getting off topic
 
mp3.1415player said:
What, in any way, makes you think the US Constitution in Earth Bet in 2011 is the same as it is in our world?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I suspect it is different. But there are some things that even Contessa wouldn't be able to find a path for, because attempting them would result in armed rebellion. A second American civil war would certainly be worth mentioning, but one apparently never happened.
 
Gindjurra said:
I suspect it is different. But there are some things that even Contessa wouldn't be able to find a path for, because attempting them would result in armed rebellion. A second American civil war would certainly be worth mentioning, but one apparently never happened.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Uhhh... Worm-verse US is in the middle of, for all indents and purposes, an armed rebellion. Quite a few of them, in fact.
The issue is that the groups involved are using the kind of firepower that the US army has basically no chance against, and so all they can do is politely ask the law-abiding superhumans if they could please come work for this one federal branch that is failingtrying to keep the country from falling apart entirely.
 
karloss99 said:
Uhhh... Worm-verse US is in the middle of, for all indents and purposes, an armed rebellion. Quite a few of them, in fact.
The issue is that the groups involved are using the kind of firepower that the US army has basically no chance against, and so all they can do is politely ask the law-abiding superhumans if they could please come work for this one federal branch that is failingtrying to keep the country from falling apart entirely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

99% of all Capes die if you shoot them through the head, that doesn't even require the military, trained police sharpshooters could do it.
 
Gindjurra said:
I suspect it is different. But there are some things that even Contessa wouldn't be able to find a path for, because attempting them would result in armed rebellion. A second American civil war would certainly be worth mentioning, but one apparently never happened.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, one could take the reasonable view that Earth Bet is in fact not something that diverged from our world only in the 1980s, but much earlier than that. After all, there is no 200+ year old city called Brockton Bay in our world, is there? So logically if they have one, and Earth Aleph does too, neither one can be our world or anything like it.

Which leads yet again to the same thing I've said many times before; The odd thing about the Worm world isn't that it diverges from ours, it's that it diverges far too little from ours considering that it's obviously not all that closely related...

Of course you can just shrug and say that is the gift of story telling, you get to change things around :)
 
For those questioning the legality of teens signing an NDA, in this setting it seems to be so, as Amy is stated to have signed several. Since such has come up in other Worm fanfics, this is either a popular fanon or indeed canon. I for one do not care which.

For those who question the constitutionality of the laws in question, let me point out that the Supreme Court alone has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, and they are not required to weigh in on all challenges to a law, and further require a challenge before they can judge if a law is constitutional. Ergo, if no challenge has occurred, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to weigh in, an unconstitutional law can remain on the books indefinitely.

As to there being an armed insurrection in Worm... tricky. We don't see enough to judge beyond the local level. However, a cabal of idiots have insured the might of the U.S. military cannot be brought to bare... except in this story, where DARPA the the POTUS have cut that cabal's agency out of the loop in order to protect the most important person on the planet...
 
Last edited:
mp3.1415player said:
Well, one could take the reasonable view that Earth Bet is in fact not something that diverged from our world only in the 1980s, but much earlier than that. After all, there is no 200+ year old city called Brockton Bay in our world, is there? So logically if they have one, and Earth Aleph does too, neither one can be our world or anything like it.

Which leads yet again to the same thing I've said many times before; The odd thing about the Worm world isn't that it diverges from ours, it's that it diverges far too little from ours considering that it's obviously not all that closely related...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except not really. There's two methods of creating a setting when it comes to superhero stories: there's the Marvel approach, which has Spider-man in New York City and the X-Mansion just outside of North Salem, and there's the DC approach, with Batman in Gotham and Superman in Metropolis. Both of these are valid and it doesn't mean that the DC America is any less like our world than Marvel America.
 
tfesmo said:
The military would wipe the floor with the vast majority of parahuman gangs. The issue is collateral damage since most villains are in populated areas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Martin Bajar said:
99% of all Capes die if you shoot them through the head, that doesn't even require the military, trained police sharpshooters could do it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But it is not the 99% majority that anyone 'up top' actually cares about.
Sure, the army kills 99% of all villainous parahumans. The remainder do what? Turn the masses of powerless humans opposing them into smears on the ground, level the white house and divide North America among themselves?
Quite possible.

So, the 99% are left alone, despite everything they do. Because the government knows that they will not win any open war they start with parahumans.
Worm US has already functionally surrendered to the parahuman gangs.
 
Pethrai Darkos said:
Except not really. There's two methods of creating a setting when it comes to superhero stories: there's the Marvel approach, which has Spider-man in New York City and the X-Mansion just outside of North Salem, and there's the DC approach, with Batman in Gotham and Superman in Metropolis. Both of these are valid and it doesn't mean that the DC America is any less like our world than Marvel America.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...have you ever, you know, read anything Marvel or DC? Because those Americas are absolutely nothing like ours.

Nobody in DC understands the concept of self defense or gun ownership, or else the Joker would've been dead several times over, because he'd be guaranteed to run into some nutjob with a gun, running around hurting people in a big city like he does. There are more guns owned in the US than there are people to own them!

Marvel, on the other hand, has government-sanctioned genocidal robot death patrols running about the place on a regular basis... and they only ever go after one minority group. Anybody who's ever paid attention to history knows that bigotry doesn't work like that, one group doesn't gather all the hate and leave none for anybody else. Somebody would have set the Sentinels on Black people, or Asian people, or Jewish people, at some point.

And that's just two easy examples...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top