Some people think that justice should be blind, and that’s long been an ideal in the US.

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

Support your allies, yes.

Think everything they do is right? Hell no.

And every once in a while you need to check if your list of allies should change.

It leads to keeping the bad people on your "side" just because they share some of the values

> It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

No, the hilarious part is that the "educated liberal bubble" will do exactly that thing, and then wonder why everyone else is seeing them as crazies; because they'd rather side with bad actors on their side purely because other side is attacking them, no matter the reason.

And of course, not only them. It's natural human herd behavior. And it leads to absolutely terrible end results

The crime is the crime. No matter the leaning of the criminal

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing!

"It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand."

Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

I said "allow it". It was mainly about my feelings. I can feel what I want. It also just so happens that Cox was in the right and Sony Music was in the wrong.

If you look at the whole scenario, this will mean that Cox won't pass $1 billion dollars of punitive fines off to their customers, because, after all, the customers generate the money.

In reality, this would have made their innocent customers pay for the crimes of their guilty customers and made both Sony, and in the long run, Cox richer, because once paying an extra $5/month becomes normalized, then there's no way they're going to go back down in price just because the fine is paid off, any more than the government will ever stop charging tolls on a toll bridge that was paid for by tolls no matter how many times the cost of the toll bridge is paid off.

Because I'm a native English speaker and "worse" is definitely not orthogonal to "in the wrong".

> ...you are required to have your trades be instantly reported and be public the nanosecond you make them.

That doesn't do anything at all to remedy the situation. Better would be to require trades by insiders (and the particulars of those trades) to be locked in and publicly announced at least seven calendar days in advance. You need not announce the reason for the trade, but you must announce the amount of whatever it is you're selling and/or buying and the date at which the transaction will happen.

Yes, I'm aware of the whole "scheduled stock sale" thing that folks at a certain level have to do when trading in the stock & etc of the company they work for. IMO, that should be mandatory for all employees and their families.

Your view on the law seems a bit alien to me. My opinions on what the rules of the law should roughly look like, are largely independent of who specifically is involved in a legal dispute. Sure I guess if Hitler was being sued and the only way to stop him was this lawsuit by Sony, I would probably concede that on balance it's better to have a slightly worse legal standard around copyright. Otherwise, I think having a law that best reflects my moral views and creates the best incentives for society in general, far outweighs how i feel about the plaintiffs.

As for how I arrive on my views, it's obviously not an entirely rational process, but the rules you get from viewing property rights and self-ownership as fundamental seem to lead to the most preferable outcomes to me. If I were forced to adopt a more deontological philosophy, it's also the one that has the fewest obviously absurd conclusions, though not entirely. From this it's, in my opinion, pretty obvious to be skeptical of copyright law more generally (Ayn Rand would disagree) and therefore I welcome any precedent that weakens it.

I just told you: I side with whomever I think is right under the law.

And your first sentence is not remotely true--or rather, it is quite conceptually confused. Whose "confusion" are you talking about? Not mine, generally. There are of course disagreements about which side is right under the law, but often those disagreements are a result of bad faith--take just about every case Trump has ever appealed up to the SCOTUS. And many of the decisions made by the current crop of right wing ideologues on the Court are made in bad faith, especially Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, in that order of corruption. Many of the "disagreements" are based on bogus "textualism" and "originalism" frameworks that are applied completely ad hoc and hypocritically and were invented by conservatives solely in order to provide them with a basis for making rulings based on their ideology (the historical record is quite clear on this).

Anyway, the point was that I decide based on my view of the law, not who the parties are. Since you seem to completely miss the point, have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle, I won't comment further.