Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: TV Judge Issues Restraining Order; Threatens Arrest Warrant
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:53:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <20240408215319.000070ae@example.com>
References: <ViydnVIk4LHI8Yn7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<20240408193545.00004b52@example.com>
	<atropos-4ED5A2.17015908042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 01:53:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8dc3e0ce04a1002bec981d701157c322";
	logging-data="4033657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/LuELmL1jxHyb+nq4c0x1kttae05/NEs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EMq+SePUoCvvbF/gGhGDASMG1Jk=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240408-6, 4/8/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7122

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:01:59 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com>,
>  Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000
> > BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> > > This case is amazing at all levels.
> > > 
> > > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0LMEL6_b15o
> > > 
> > > First, we have a guy suing his neighbor because she
> > > password-protected her wi-fi signal, which he had been leeching
> > > off for free, claiming he's entitled to it because the wi-fi
> > > waves are in the air which belongs to everyone.
> > >   
> > When I was doing DSL support, I once took a call from a guy who
> > needed help configuring his new router. That was a very routine
> > call but when we got to the part of setting a password, he said he
> > didn't want to encrypt his signal. I warned him that he was opening
> > himself up to neighbours stealing his WiFi and that stealing WiFi
> > was a felony in some jurisdictions. He said he already knew that
> > because he was a police officer and that it was a class D felony (I
> > think that's the specific class he cited) in his state, which I
> > believe was California. I finished helping him configure his router
> > without encrypting the signal. I think he was the ONLY customer I
> > ever had that wanted his signal unencrypted in nearly 4 years!
> > 
> > As for this notion that your neighbour's WiFi should be free:
> > poppycock! The neighbour whose WiFi you're using is paying his
> > Internet provider for his service and there's a pretty good chance
> > that he can go over his quota of bandwidth because you're using a
> > good chunk of it, he'll be paying more. And if he happens to doing
> > something illegal, like downloading child porn, the police are
> > going to show up at YOUR door, not his!
> >   
> > > Then we have a judge who, in rightly ruling against the guy, also
> > > decides to issue a restraining order against him from contacting
> > > his neighbor and/or harassing her and warns him that if he
> > > violates the order, he (the judge) will issue a warrant and have
> > > the police pick him up and bring him back to court for further
> > > proceedings. 
> > Even that might be reasonable if he's actually harassing the
> > neighbour who is piggybacking off his WiFi.
> >   
> > > Except this is a TV judge. He's not a real judge and this is not a
> > > real courtroom. It's a TV set. The only power this judge has is to
> > > decide the monetary split the two parties agreed to in order to
> > > appear on the show. He can't issue retraining orders and he sure
> > > as hell can't issue warrants and have the police arrest anyone.
> > >   
> > And that's where the wheels fall off this whole thing. Is ANYTHING
> > in this anecdote real? Did someone actually steal WiFi? Did the
> > crime go to a real court? Obviously, the judge isn't real.
> >   
> > > Apparently he never actually was a judge in his prior life,
> > > either. His only previous claim to fame was as an actor playing a
> > > police captain in a YouTube show called SOUL SNACK.  
> > 
> > My mother used to watch Judge Judy regularly and I remember watching
> > with her a couple of times. If I recall correctly, she was a real
> > judge and the disclaimer in every episode insisted that these were
> > real cases with real defendants and plaintiffs.  
> 
> Yes, they're real cases. The producers go to the real small claims 
> courts and find people who are willing to drop their case in real
> court and come on the show and have the TV judge decide their case.
> The TV show is essentially equivalent to binding arbitration. The
> show provides a pot of money and they sign a contract agreeing to
> take whatever portion of that money the judge decides to apportion
> out as his/her 'verdict' as settlement for their claims.
> 
> So if the pot is $5000 and the judge decides the plaintiff proved her 
> case and her damages were $2000, then she gets the $2000 and the 
> plaintiff and defendant split the remaining $3000. So the plaintiff
> will walk away $3500 and the defendant will get $1500 even though he
> lost the case.
> 
> But the thing is, the TV judges aren't bound by the actual law even 
> though they pretend they're following it. Judge Judy is the absolute 
> worst in that regard. She basically decides who she likes more
> (usually based on which party kisses her ass the most), and then
> rules in their favor, regardless of the actual legal principles
> involved.
> 
> I remember one episode where the defendant, who admittedly was a bit
> of a pompous ass, had actually researched the law and brought
> citations to both statute and case law that backed up his position
> and Judy said she didn't care and didn't even want to see them. She
> called him arrogant and condescending and then ruled in favor of the
> plaintiff.
> 
> Back in the day of the original PEOPLE'S COURT with Judge Wapner, he 
> actually took the job seriously and tried to behave as if he was an 
> actual judge, in an actual court, and ruled accordingly. Now it's
> just a circus of low-intellect idiots, parading in front of 'judges'
> who are nothing but narcissists looking to have their egos stroked on
> TV.

So things were awful with Judge Judy and have only taken a sharp
downhill turn since then? I'm glad I don't watch this nonsense then!

> > It sounds like case you're
> > mentioning is one that has very little connection to reality. I
> > suppose it was made for people who just want to see "judges" scold
> > people for their actions without giving the proverbial rat's ass
> > for whether the case is real or the TV judgement reflected what
> > happened in a real courtroom. I'd stay away from any show like that
> > but maybe that's just me ;-)  



-- 
Rhino