re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?

quote:

---

It goes without saying that "lawfare" is a newfound term that is thrown around with varying definitions, given the context

---

Agree

quote:

---

So can we give a universally agreed-upon definition of "lawfare"?

---

No. It is effectively-- and perhaps technically-- best considered a slang word (even if it's a slang word more generally utilized by a better educated group of people than slang words are generally attributed to). As a slang word, it will inherently have a somewhat elastic meaning in contrast to something specific like "toxic tort".

Even terms like "show trial"-- which is a variant of lawfare-- has a slang-like quality that resists the specificity that you're trying to impose on "lawfare" itself. For example, to many, both the Jan 6 hearings and prosecutions have been a type of show trial intended to dissuade people from standing up to the govt. To the other side, these are justified proceedings which hold a valid end.

If you can't reach a consensus on the validity of some trials, you cannot reach a consensus on what lawfare is either (as they're inherently intertwined). It is thus an open-ended philosophical question compared to a closed-ended philosophical question.

To be clear, lawfare is a real thing... Unequal application of the law (one party getting prosecuted for an offense when the other does not), show trials, cases designed purely to slow down a political opponent are all examples of lawfare. But it is a matter of discernment and personal opinion to define it. There's no way around that, and it will impede your intention of pinning it down. This is partly a function of people having unequal facility at perception and discernment (some people are sheep and not everyone can be Goethe); and is also a function of the dishonesty of some people who promote and / or support lawfare activity.