Template:Without limitation and ejusdem generis: Difference between revisions

Template:Without limitation and ejusdem generis (view source)

Revision as of 15:40, 10 January 2022

71 bytes added , 10 January 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :“including '''([[without limitation]] or ''application of the [[ejusdem generis]] rule'')''' ''[ ... and here follows a long and tedious catalogue of the various existential forms that copyrightable data can take, including some forms it cannot take, and others you wish it could not take such as cat memes, GIFs and any and all other information, howsoever described]'', inasmuch and insofar as it relates to the Discloser.”
-(The ''[[ejusdem generis]]'' rule, for those who were asleep in “statutory interpretation” tutorial, is a [[Heuristic|rule of thumb]] for interpreting legal lists. It says, “wherever, in a list, general words follow specific ones, the general words should be read to include only objects similar in nature to those specific words”. So, for example, in the list “uprising, riot, looting, organised disobedience ''or other civil commotion''”, “other civil commotion” would include Q Anons storming the capital, but not well-meaning European flash-mobs performing ''The Sound of Music'' in European bahnhoffs, as long as not specifically violent in aspect, even though, in the abstract, hundreds of randoms gratingly joining in to the tune of ''Doe a Deer'' while you desperately try to deduce the right platform for the 14:35 to Interlaken Öst would unquestionably qualify as “a civil commotion,” ''justifying'' spontaneous violence if not constituting it, in oprdinary parlance.)
+(The ''[[ejusdem generis]]'' rule, for those who were asleep in their “[[statutory interpretation]]” tutorial, is a [[Heuristic|rule of thumb]] for interpreting legal lists. It says, “wherever, in a list, where general words follow specific ones, the general words should be read to include only objects similar in nature to the specific words”. So, for example, in the list “uprising, riot, looting, organised disobedience ''or other civil commotion''”, “other civil commotion” would include Q-Anons storming the Capitol Hill, but not well-meaning European flash-mobs bringing Delft bahnhoff to a standstill with an ad-hoc performance from ''The Sound of Music'', as long as not specifically violent in aspect, even though, in the abstract, hundreds of randoms gratingly joining in to the tune of ''Doe a Deer'' while you desperately try to deduce the right platform for the 14:35 to Interlaken Öst would certainly qualify as “a civil commotion,” and would ''justify'' spontaneous violence even if it did not, in oprdinary parlance, constitute it.)
 This, colleagues, is [[legal eagle]]ry taken to extraordinary, self-contradictory lengths. For what is a laundry list of specifics ''for'', if not somehow to contextualise and meaningfully delimit the sorts of things that might appear on a list that would otherwise be a impossibly wide in application?
 If all you want is to capture “all information”, just ''say'' “all information”, and be done with it: don’t trouble your counterparty with both a laundry list which [[Q.E.D.]], is ''patently'' redundant ''and'' an [[ejusdem generis]] [[carve-out]], which underscores that fact.