Return to Answer

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve tom illustrate the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the fist place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Bryon d that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Edit

Pretty much the same reasoning applies to the second example.

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions, are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve to illustrate or define the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the first place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should IMO seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) or by a mod to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the first linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Beyond that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Edit

Pretty much the same reasoning applies to the second example.

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve tom illustrate the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the fist place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Bryon d that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Edit

Prettymuch the same reasoning ap-plies to the secont example.

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve tom illustrate the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the fist place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Bryon d that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Edit

Pretty much the same reasoning applies to the second example.

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve tom illustrate the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the fist place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Bryon d that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Obviously, I think that the linked question, and others like it, should not be closed. The poster of the linked question, and the posters of similar questions are not asking "what should I do?" Rather, the question is "Is this thing I want to do (or have done) legal? What are the legal issues with it?" The details, which may or may not be a description of a real-life issue, only serve tom illustrate the legal issue involved.

I think that some users are too ready to VTC when an issue like this comes up, which is a general legal issue presented in specific terms. I think we should more clearly understand that such questions are not requests for specific legal advice, in the sense that our policy makes off-topic.

To be clear: my argument is not "This question is off-topic, but we should make an exception and answer it anyway". My argument is that the linked question, and question like it, are not off topic in the fist place, and do not need to be either closed or edited.

However, anyone who thinks that such a question is off-topic should seriously consider editing to make it on-topic rather than voting to close. It takes actions by multiple users (five in most cases) to close a question, while any user with enough rep to edit may do so in a single action, which often will not take long. I have done so in many cases.

The policy seems to be spelled out in Policy for questions that clearly ask for specific legal advice. In the accepted answer, it is said that questions that exhibit the following are likely to be requests for specific legal advice:

• They use pronouns that indicate a personal relationship
  "My mother was involved in an accident around the corner from my house..."
• They contain highly emotive language
• They explicitly ask "What should I do?" or something similar in the question
• The only answer that you could safely give is "You should engage the services of a lawyer/attorney"

In the linked question an I-pronoun is used. But I see no "emotive language". I see no "what should I do?" or similar question. I see "What may I do legally?", which is just a way to ask "what is the law". There is no need to consult a lawyer to answer the question, and two users found it perfectly possible to give an answer other than to consult a lawyer.

The policy suggests that multiple items from the above list often indicate a question that violates policy. Here I see only one, and perhaps the least important. Bryon d that the policy says:

If you can edit the question to make it a question that asks for general legal information while preserving the original author's meaning, then you should edit rather than close.

But in the linked case, several people voted to close rather than editing.

Edit

Prettymuch the same reasoning ap-plies to the secont example.