That's why the title says "CIVIL" case. Not misleading unless you're a moron. Everyone knows ( I thought) that civil and criminal cases are two different things. And civil cases are very common, not obscure at all.
That's why I said it's technically correct. It is misleading because you fail to mention anything about which civil case you're talking about, or the nature of its charges. Leaving those details conspicuously missing implies that this is a case that everyone should know about, and that therefore needs no introduction. Which, in turn, can, and did, cause people to assume it is the case everyone knows about, or that it at least has an effect on it.
But this is not the case. Nor does it have any effect on it. Nor did anyone even know about this case. Nor is the fact it's been dropped relevant or newsworthy in any way. It's just noise.
And you know this perfectly well. That's why you left it so vague. Making you a lying, ratty little scumbag.
Also, I did not say civil cases are obscure. I said this one is based on an obscure law. Because it is.
Lying, ratty little scumbag? I'm not responsible for how someone reads a headline - I posted the video I found interesting with the headline that was on it. Fuck off and die.
Posting this isn't a lie. But claiming that it isn't misleading, and pretending you didn't know it would be read that way, is.
(post is archived)