Reads like there’s a legal loophole with how the law is written, not that there’s a desire to make this the case. I’m expecting lawmakers will write new legislation to close this loophole, but the article didn’t quote any reactions from legislators, so…
As fukked up as it is, this how I read it as well. Basically, the court is saying the legislature has written the law in such a way that while it explicitly makes it illegal to create it, consuming it isn't clearly laid out in the law and so they are asking the legislature to go back to and update the law. Seems more of a technical issue on part of the courts than a cosign. This is how this type of system is supposed to work.Reads like there’s a legal loophole with how the law is written, not that there’s a desire to make this the case. I’m expecting lawmakers will write new legislation to close this loophole, but the article didn’t quote any reactions from legislators, so…
