• Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    18 hours ago

    There was period of time during Trump’s last administration where the world just got so crazy I had a collection of screenshots of “not the onion” headlines that just seemed too insane to be real.

    I remember one was like “Judge determines woman can’t prove she didn’t want to be set on fire.”

    This would fit in nicely.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Huh…I’m trying to think of what legal defense you could give to PROVE you didn’t want to be set on fire.

      I can’t think of one. What do you say that proves it? Which means I get how that headline happened, but also…how did THAT headline happen???

      • kionay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        my lay person understanding of the law is that in situations like these you don’t need to prove what should be so overwhelmingly self-evident

        there’s probably some Latin phrase for it a lawyer would just know but when a thing is so far away from a gray area of reasonableness you’re fine

        you shouldn’t need hard evidence, people as a rule don’t like to set themselves on fire

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Most of the time when weird questions like that involving consent come up, I assume it probably involved some kind of sex thing.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The only thing I can think of is that there was some sort of event where other people were being willingly set on fire. Like if were some sort of performance that went wrong, I could see there being a reasonable defense that the performer didn’t know she didn’t want to participate.