On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/3/3 Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>: >> The relevant question here isn't whether she can communicate, but whether >> she can understand well enough to be her own legal person (e.g. it might >> rely on being able to communicate consent, etc.). Something of the sort >> came up around CFJ 1856; following that attempted registration, someone >> (I forget who) tried to register on behalf of their (then) 3-year old. -G. > > Any biological organism that is generally capable of > communicating by email in English (including via a translation > service) is a person. > > His daughter, with aid from him, is able to communicate by email in > English. I think it's fairly clear cut.
But if a sufficient number of the communications are sufficiently unclear to communicate through these fora, does it count as an ability to communicate by email in English? Here, it's worth distinguishing between a "foreigner" who clearly knows what they want to communicate in their own language, writes the communication, then has trouble with translation, and someone who needs assistance to formulate the basics of the communication (e.g. the idea behind the words). Personally, I would judge UNDETERMINED (without specific evidence of attempts to communicate in email for the judge to examine) or IRRELEVANT (without specific examples of Victoria trying to do something in Agora that depends on personhood). -G
