FYI, these proceedings are open to the public. I've gone to two of them before to support the EFF. You just wear a suit and sit in the audience quietly. When the arguments (which are fascinating, by the way) are over everyone gets up at the same time and leaves. Hopefully, the judges notice how much public support is there for the EFF.
If you are in the bay area, I highly encourage you to go (this one is very near the Oakland 12th St BART). You are watching history in the making.
How do the judges know that you are supporting the EFF and not the other way around? Does it have to be a suit or could you wear a t-shirt to indicate which side you are on?
Wearing a suit is a sign of respect to the court, and there's a rational justification for the convention.
Courts, you see, and federal courts in particular, don't really have any power. They have a few marshals, but by and large they're not directly in charge of the people with the guns. Courts have power only because everyone agrees to abide by their authority. Wearing a suit, standing when a judge enters the room, addressing the judge as "your Honor," is all part of a ritual where we acknowledge the solemnity of the proceeding and collectively reinforce the binding authority of the court and its judgments. The details of the ritual are, of course, arbitrary. What matters is that everyone partakes in the ritual.
The practical significance is this: if the judge rules against the government in this case, the executive branch will have a choice to follow the order or not. It is indeed a choice--the executive branch has all the guns, after all. The price of ignoring the order is a loss of moral authority and public support. The purpose of the ritual surrounding the proceedings is to make this expensive. You want people to be offended and feel violated that anyone would ignore authority that they collectively sanctioned by engaging in this ritual.
What about the other costs of the ritual? That is, the implicit disenfranchisement of those that cannot afford, whether literally, or as a result of differing social norms, to abide by these arbitrary practices. Given what the court system stands for, namely equality and fairness, how can one reconcile the preservationist and exclusionary nature of these standards with those ideals?
Frankly speaking, I don't think that a whole generation (or several) of people wearing t-shirts in court is going to do much to change the judiciary's ability to reign in the executive. If current practice is any indication, the executive will flout judicial decisions just as it already does with legislative ones: behind closed doors and with "creative" interpretations of said decisions.
I've been to trials and also worked as a runner for a law firm. And I've never worn anything but business casual in a court. The judges I've seen only get upset with the audience talking, handing things to attorneys during session, or other disruptions.
Keep in mind that in court rooms, people are sometimes literally facing life or death. Or they're facing bankruptcy or instant wealth. It's a tense situation and the judge is the main one responsible to keep order.
I definitely think that those are good things: keeping order in a physical space when tensions are high and people's lives and livelihoods are at stake is no small task. But, I do believe that respect for tradition for the sake preserving this specter of a sort of "national respect" for the judiciary is misguided, possibly bordering on fetishization. I'd rather see that energy and same devotion used to make courts a truly public element of government that an average person can understand. Tangibly, I'd like to see people not dread going to jury duty and/or have a good understanding of what to expect before they go. I think that discarding some of the "courtroom mystique" would go a long way towards that.
People don't dread going to jury duty because of any sort of dress code. I wore jeans and a t-shirt to jury duty last time I was called.
They dread going to jury duty because they'd rather spend their time doing something that contributes to their own personal well being (doing a job, raising a family, having fun).
I can't shake the thought that all of these came about because of the executive's direct lack of respect for the judiciary, not because of any perception by any executive office that the general population lacks respect for the court. The latter seems to be the takeaway point with these pieces of evidence for past transgressions. I really doubt that more instances of FDR-like behavior will or won't come about because of slight shifts in courtroom decorum.
To make a value judgement here: I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing if courts became more accessible to the general population. Whether it be through relaxed attire, language, or physical layouts -- discarding some of the cultural detritus of rituals of years past wouldn't bring the court system to it's knees because of a lack of respect. Rather, it would show the general population that judicial on-goings aren't some esoteric world that they need to think sacred. (Because really, why should they? The courts are for and by the people.) Accessibility would in turn bring understanding, and understanding would turn the current atmosphere of detachment (re: general public from the courts) into a more meaningful respect.
You start off saying that the general population's respect for the court doesn't matter, but then you end up arguing that changing the rules of courtroom decorum will actually increase the respect for the court from the populace and that would be a good thing.
My opinion is that the general population's respect for the court (in the form of whether or not t-shirts are appropriate courtroom attire) has no bearing on whether or not the executive adheres to judicial decisions. On the contrary, I think the attitude that everyone needs to wear suits in court because "respect the court, or the executive won't" is detrimental to those already marginalized: the poor and less educated. They are probably less likely to recognize the social signalling that the formal attire represents.
My secondary point, apologies for the lack of clarity, is that relaxing courtroom procedures and the mystique surrounding them would allow for greater transparency. Greater transparency and a more approachable set of procedures would allow for greater understanding throughout the general population. A greater understanding of our legal system (my second definition of respect), minus the fluff surrounding it (language, attire, etc.), would be a good thing in my book.
I understand that there is inherent complexity in matters of finesse, whether it be law, engineering, or programming, but I don't think we need to actively propagate stifling behaviors like suggesting that suits (and the equivalent for women) must be worn at all times, forever, in the courtroom.
I don't really buy the point about social signaling. You don't wear a suit to court for the same reason you wear one to a board meeting--you do it for the same reason you wear one to a funeral.
If you want more people to understand legal procedure, you should suggest they read The Illustrated Guide to the Law, a webcomic by a defense attorney.
...which is why, even though it's stupid, it makes a difference in your favor if you dress up to go to traffic court. Sometimes they care, sometimes they don't, but it's not usually worth the extra risk if you already own a suit, or even a dress shirt and khakis.
True but on the flipside, me personally I trust someone that isn't in a suit (maybe not as hacker look like Stallman) more than someone in a suit.
I think it is a generational thing, dressing up to me is mostly getting into your sheep B.S. clothing to make whatever you are doing look better. I have also been working in the game industry where suits usually mean you aren't a good fit or it is someone to probably not trust i.e. publisher/salesman.
I think for court you should put on your best, but in most cases I distrust the suit more than I trust it.
I am not so sure it's generational as I assume you are on the younger side... Forty-five here and I don't trust people in suits to much (or really religious people).
The casual dress code is still a dress code - tech is generally biased against those who dress up, which is not any different from those who stick to more traditional formal dress codes except that casual is cheaper to shop for, is more comfortable, and easier to maintain. That doesn't make anyone who adheres to one or the other dress code any better.
Ugh yes. I almost always dress up from tshirts+jeans due to a myriad of reasons (for one, tshirts aren't usually designed to fit boobs on the bigger side), and I've gotten negative comments as a result. I don't dress like a geek so I must be a wife/gf/non-tech person (one guy at defcon called me a slut...), I dressed like everyone else, I must be sucking up and trying to get "in"... can't win.
If it helps any, dressing up in suits as a stereotypical white nerd doesn't help either.
I generally just like to dress up as it makes me get in the zone of "work time" better. But I never have gotten called a slut i'll admit, but I do often get comments of "must have an interview today huh" and so on. I find the whole geek/nerd culture around clothes annoying as shit. For a group that professes to not care about the external person, we sure as shit do judge people on their dress.
That said, keep dressing up, it impresses the non nerds and interestingly allows you to drive conversations with them easier.
Also I got a comment today from a barista "you always wear the coolest sweaters" and then I explained where I get them. I dunno its fun finding cool clothes and I'm willing to share in my findings. So I think I will stick with getting my fashion insulted by nerds, and you should too.
Tell the jerks that call you not a geek to explain how to make a one instruction set computer off basic logic principles. Or whatever your speciality is really, if they flounder just go never judge a book by its cover. Then walk away and sashay it up is how I would handle those situations. Good luck!
Tell the jerks that call you not a geek to explain how to make a one instruction set computer off basic logic principles. Or whatever your speciality is really, if they flounder just go never judge a book by its cover. Then walk away and sashay it up is how I would handle those situations. Good luck!
In my experience - as a bystander, since I'm a man - that'd be a good way to provoke insults and (if the jerk knows you) defamation behind your back.
Quite possibly, however I have low tolerance for those kind of jerks in real life. I've long since given up caring what they think or say behind my back or in front of it.
WTF? Woman should be more worried about what is said behind their backs then men? Are you saying when someone is a jerk to you to just take it? Being a man, you know that's not how we roll so why should a woman do anything different?
I'm saying that women are much more likely to have anything said behind their backs, and of what is said being taken seriously by others. I never said you should "just take it", you're assuming stuff I didn't write.
And just because I'm a man that doesn't mean I "roll" in a certain way.
I have been in the workforce a long time and never noticed people talk more about woman behind their backs then men. Source on some research in that area?
So you are saying woman should be more concerned about their "reputation" then men? Sounds a little sexist to me... Hint, if you are going to give advice maybe you shouldn't involve gender when it is irrelevant.
No, I'm not saying women should be more concerned. I also never gave any advice. I'm not sure why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, and nothing else.
>In my experience - as a bystander, since I'm a man - that'd be a good way to provoke insults and (if the jerk knows you) defamation behind your back.
You were not saying (as a man) you don't think it would be wise to confront someone who was rude to their face because they may talk behind her back? Sounds like advice... Oh, wait! It was just a warning!
??? I was referring to the original comment which was about things said to one's face. It was icebraining that was concerned about things said behind one's back.
Ironically, vis-a-vis this thread, my non-court, non-client in the office legal uniform is slacks or jeans and a flannel shirt.[1] It's as comfortable as you can get in winter, and I get no shit from anyone about it.
[1] My Oregonian wife is slowly turning me into a lumberjack.
It's not a dress code. It's just not adhering to another dress code. There's a difference. You don't just wear a suit RANDOMLY. Any random thing you wear is casual. Literally millions of different styles are casual, and there's like maybe five different styles of suits?
When I go out, I personally feel more comfortable in good looking, "business-casual" sort of clothes. That's generally a brown vest, some black pants and slightly fancy shirt, all of which I got for a total of 20 quid at a charity shop back in the UK. And yet, that set of clothes which probably costs less as a whole than the gaming shirt my buddy was wearing at the time got me an off-hand remark of "dressing up too fancy for a geek".
I'm very much a geek at heart and the guy knew it... but don't mistake the shirt-and-jeans culture for a "wear what you like" culture. It's a "wear what I like" culture, and the "what I like" is shirt and jeans.
Casual dress code does not include a clown costume, so it's far more constrained than your suggesting.
As to suits it's one of those fractal breakdowns with a lot of varity if you get specific enough. EX: You could say fat vs skinny ties, but the there is a wide range of patterns wich fit a wide range of shirt colors. Not just Red tie on white shirt.
Personally I like semi formal dress codes simply because they have a default and require minimal thought. Where casual has a lot of 'hidden' rules.
Actually, in the valley casual dress for men tends to consist of dark blue jeans, button down shirt, dress shoes, and blazer. It's as monotonous as tshirts/jeans/tennis shoes
Really? Wear a suit to your next startup interview and see what the negative reaction is. I worked at a company where anything other than jeans was frowned upon. You know what, in August I'd rather not wear jeans. Dress pants are way more comfortable (hint, they breath better).
A few years ago I was working for a west coast tech company (not bay area) and was regularly wearing long-sleeve button-down shirts (without a tie) with khaki pants.
A few coworkers said something to me, but I didn't think anything of it because (from my perspective) they didn't care about their own appearance. Then my boss told me that the company actually didn't have a dress code and I didn't need to dress like that; I assured him that I was dressed that way because I liked dressing that way. Then HR talked with me. That's when I finally took the hint.
The dress codes that most people are familiar with place a lower-bound on how you can dress. "No shoes, no shirt, no service", or "You're a groomsman, you can't show up to the wedding in a t-shirt you lunatic". The tech industry has a dress code, but it places an upper-bound on how you can dress.
My humble conspiracy theory? Upper-bound dress codes encourage social stratification. This is desired by people who are in power, but are surrounded by very clever and moderately well paid people (developers). Imagine if software developers stopped thinking of themselves as "others" and started assuming the role of respected professionals with all the social standing a respected professional typically gets.
Usually when you're new and don't already know the dress code, you show up 1 step above what you guess would be acceptable. Typically it's better to be over-dressed for a day or two rather than be under-dressed (fear or looking unprofessional/not serious).
The government only has lawyers, so pretty much everyone in the audience (save for the occasional law student) is by default in support of the EFF. All we need you to do is show up 30 minutes before, wear a suit, be quiet, and watch.
I went to the last one in Oakland and there was about 20-30 people who came to watch. However, at another case in SF, it was at capacity and they had to set up a live feed to the cafeteria for the overflow. Hopefully, that happens this time, too :)
If you are in the bay area, I highly encourage you to go (this one is very near the Oakland 12th St BART). You are watching history in the making.