Talk:Lawfare/Archives/2014

Distinction from "Vexatious Litigation?"
Should there be some kind of discussion as to how "lawfare" is distinguished from run-of-the-mill "vexatious litigation?" I know the latter appears in the "See Also" section, but in my (admittedly inexpert) understanding, I'm not sure how one differs from the other. Both seem to refer to the use of litigation or legal proceedings as a form of harassment, regardless of an individual case's legal merits. But as I understand it "vexatious litigation" is a term which has some level of official acceptance or legal recognition. Is this the only distinction? Or is one a subset/specific form of the other? Or am I missing a larger, more important point altogether? Even just a few lines discussing the differences or similarities would suffice. dkamouflage (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there may be some distinction, as the term is evolving. But to discuss that distinction in the article we would need supporting footnotes. The distinction, as I understand it, is: lawfare targets public officials.  Vexatious litigation targets anyone.  If vexatious litigation has a purpose it is to extract money: extortion with a threat of legal fees.  But often vexatious litigation has no real purpose other than to vex. An angry frustrated person flailing about with legal papers.  Lawfare on the other hand is purposeful, even if that purpose is a motive ulterior to the litigation: to hamstring a public official, keep them from doing their job.  Finally, vexatious litigation is usually frivolous.  But lawfare is more effective if the claim is substantive. A real case ties up a public official more effectively than a frivolous one quickly tossed out of court.  That said, it is quite true that vexatious litigation can be used as a form of lawfare. And that a war criminal will dismiss efforts to bring him to justice as frivolous, vexatious, and lawfare. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  12:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dershowitz
Atxav8r has twice added content. I have removed it. Atxav8r would like an explanation. OK, then: The content is a political rant and the source doesn't even mention "lawfare". Either of those would be a good reason to remove it from our article on this "lawfare" neologism. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)