Like all writing rules, the injunction to start with the trouble can be broken, and it should be sometimes - if there's good reason.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You take out an injunction against somebody or some organisation and immediately news of that injunction and the people involved and the story behind the injunction is in a legal-free world on Twitter and the Internet. It's pointless.
Once you are a proper, serious law-maker, you can't break the laws you're writing.
The injunction to be nice is used to deflect criticism and stifle the legitimate anger of dissent.
People read legal writing differently. When you're at the crux of a legal argument, every step is a step in the argument. The judge will see any holes. If you do that in fiction, it's too long and boring.
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.
Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.
A realistic view of humanity will stop the proliferation of impossible injunctions.
Every lawsuit results from somebody doing something wrong. If everybody did right, we wouldn't need laws.
Frequently you have a clash between the more sterile letter of the law and the justice that underlies it, and I think one of the things I've been trying more or less, where it was possible, is to go with the justice rather than the letter of the law.
I don't think you can write according to a set of rules and laws; every writer is so different.
No opposing quotes found.