@the_gadgeteur@failgunner It actually makes sense. If you knowingly and intentionally distracted a driver (say with a water balloon or yelling in their ear) you'd be liable. So why not with texting? What makes texting different?
@clarkgoble Those examples are different than texting someone. No one is forcing you to look at your phone while you drive, where you have no choice to ignore a water balloon or screaming. // @failgunner@the_gadgeteur
@evs@the_gadgeteur@failgunner I think the idea is a text conversation where you know they are driving, not sending a single text to someone to be read later. There's going to be a big presumption of proof in this, even in the Verge account.
@the_gadgeteur@evs@clarkgoble It makes more sense if you read the actual court opinion. "only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted."
@the_gadgeteur@failgunner@evs If you are knowingly contributing then your responsibility isn't to the other person but to the person they harm and that you contributed to harming. That's the issue of responsibility.
@the_gadgeteur@evs@failgunner If a bank robber hands an other bank robber more ammunition after shooting someone there's an expectation he's contributing. That's the point about texting. Your contributing to an illegal action.
@the_gadgeteur@evs@failgunner Simply saying they could ignore your text misses the point that you know they aren't and won't. That latter standard of proof means in most cases this won't be enforced except in exceptional circumstances.
@clarkgoble no, it isn’t. In the bank situation two people are together doing sown thing illegal. Texting someone in a car, they are solely responsible for their actions driving and any distractions. @evs@failgunner
@the_gadgeteur@failgunner@evs Once again, the issue is if the other person *knows* they aren't obeying the law and is contributing to them *disobeying* it. You want to say if they could choose otherwise that it's not contributing.
@clarkgoble to say it is someone else’s fault for sending a text to someone in a car that the person in car didn’t use common sense and choose to wait to pick up the phone is ridiculous @evs@failgunner
@clarkgoble *you* are missing the greater point - it is ultimately the person in the cars responsibility and choice to continue. No one but themselves is at fault for choosing to engage @evs@failgunner
@the_gadgeteur@failgunner@evs But in the bank example it's the shooter's decision to take the ammunition, not the person handing it to him. I don't see the difference. In each case the criminal has to make a choice.
@the_gadgeteur@failgunner@evs Not at all, because I have no expectation of when a voicemail is answered. In the case before the court the tester *knew* the person was driving and continued. It's that knowledge and expectation that matters.
@clarkgoble I guess our definition of self accountability is different. It is ultimately the person driving who has the only choice to ignore or continue. It is not the person on the other ends fault for the drivers disregard @evs@failgunner
@clarkgoble there are different scenarios that carry different solutions. There isn’t a perfect ruling for all scenarios. To imply there is with the vastly different bank/texting scenarios is not grasping the differences between the two @evs@failgunner
@the_gadgeteur@evs@failgunner So no general principle? In other words what is behind your reasoning? That's what I don't understand. It seems like you're deciding based upon how you feel about the results. That's fine, but of course courts can't do that
@rabryst@failgunner@the_gadgeteur@evs Presumably they get a court order for the text contents and they can only prove it if they can show in the texts the tester knew. I don't think it's a new law - just the application of standard legal accountability.
@the_gadgeteur@clarkgoble Courts cannot operate like that. Ruling by gut instinct and feeling may seem a good idea, but it's impossible to actually scale and it will quickly reach a point where no one has any idea what is/isn't legal.