Every Star Trek episode involving a trial shows that the way Starfleet conducts its justice system is incredibly stupid.

The Menagerie, Measure of a Man (and like 3 other TNG episodes), Ad Astra Per Aspera, that DS9 one where the Klingons want to extradite Worf... all stupid.

The only one you can't really blame for being stupid in this regard is Voyager, because they always have the "we aren't in the Alpha Quadrant" excuse to fall back on.

What bothered me most about this ep is that Riker is forced to act as some kind of prosecutor. And he’s like no, I won’t do it. And she’s like you better do it, and to the best of your ability yada yada or else I’m gonna something something. Like how is she gonna know if he does this to the best of his ability. Why wouldn’t he just completely blow it? Or at least in some plausible attempt at an effort. What was she gonna do then, have another trial for Riker for being a bad fake lawyer? Is the concept of conflict of interest not a thing in future robot court?

I mean... yeah, the episode isn't as focused on procedural detail, and I do live for legal process minutia, but I can fill in the blanks just fine and suspend disbelief.

I mean, the question being raised is whether Data has been operating as a person willingly joined Starfleet or as salvaged equipment. If Data had been roaming around on his own and then applied to join Starfleet I'd be more nitpicky, but he was found and turned on by Starfleet and he seems to have been in the system since, so I can see the question of how to categorize him coming up retroactively. Especially in retrospect, since we eventually get undeniable confirmation that AGI is very much possible within their normal gear.

I mean, for the record, by the time Voyager comes around we know that they have protocols to use holographic AIs to substitute in for key personnel, so if you can have a "EMH" slot in for an officer you can have a piece of salvaged machinery operate with a rank and then reassign it to a different role... unless that entity has personhood. It IS a sci-fi as hell concept, but a valid one in-universe.

Me, I would have very much enjoyed Noonyien Soong arguing whether he still owns Data and learn what is legal salvage in Starfleet territory but for the sake of 90s network TV I can see "Is this android truly a life form" being the approach to a Trek episode. And thematically... well, I can't get through the Goldberg and Stewart scene about slavery without tearing up. It isn't just how good they both are, it's the "oh, crap, they're saying the thing" element to it, too.

Of course that means Starfleet straight up condoned slavery later, as per Star Trek Picard season 1. I would gladly remove all of Picard from lore at this point, but nope, officially Starfleet had legal proceedings to determine that Soong androids are people and to remove their autonomy is akin to slavery and then went ahead and did it anyway.

Picard sucks and is the worst Star Trek thing ever, is what I'm trying to say. Yes, way worse than anything in Discovery. Including season three.

Hot take. But put it in the context of the year it was aired, not today. Star Trek (and sci fi in general) was suffering from being perceived as "blue babes and laser guns".

This episode was thoughtful if taken as standalone. And TNG really was about taking the episodes more or less independently. The season long story arcs and such didn't exist. People weren't binge watching. So the world building was less important than the specific hypothetical moral quandary of the week. Like, they are almost like Asimov short stories with a shared cast.

It wasn't until a few years later that serialized TV even really became a thing -- Twin Peaks probably was the first here, but Babylon 5 would have a good claim (and DS9, Buffy, and others were coming together then too). So the style of storytelling on TNG S2 is different.

Divorce the story from Star Trek and the setting and evaluate it as a sci fi ethical quandary. And in that framework, it is a remarkable episode.

Also, Brent Spiner played it well :)

Hmm for the sake of discussion, it could be such that that legal tribunal was calling into question all of that history. Just because a "crime" (in this case a misclassification) occured and was propagated for many years doesn't mean it is correct tomorrow.

The point of the episode was the kangaroo court. It was that data had served as a valid, meaningful, human-like member of the staff for years, and all that was at risk. It does the very star trek thing of highlighting real world issues, in that people all over the world suffer from kangaroo court style judicial-injustice, and Picard's achievement is that much more impressive given the hill to climb. (Corruption)

Even in a seemingly idealistic futurist-future, injustice can arise, and minorities can be swept up in the mess. The federation is not perfect, and this episode is a crystal clear example of it's potential faults. (Executives with opinions trump up proceedings to bring about their own goals, essentially corrupt bureaucracy wrapped in judicial procedure)

You are not taking crazy pills, its premise does suffer when watched with a "critical eye" (i.e. thinking about it even a little).

The reason it's remembered so fondly (imho) is two fold. It is one of the first "thought provoking" episodes. And the first couple of seasons were... not the best to put it mildly.

edit: admittedly, I do enjoy it, but I really have to turn my brain off to do so.

The existing legal precedent is absolutely ignored in lieu of courtroom spectacle. An excuse to have Picard wax poetic, which he does to great effect.

I think the concept is still high minded even if they ignored previous continuity for the sake of having the argument in the first place.

The antagonist is also a character that has little experience actually working with Data; so his ignorance is to be expected. I'm also not really sure how allowing him to be in Starfleet, hold ranks and what not means anything about his humanity.

I mean, even if they considered him to be nothing more than a machine, having him go through the academy and actually gain experience doing his job is a good test of the machine's ability to pretend to be human. It doesn't necessarily mean Starfleet wouldn't do the same for something like a non-android, AI powered robot that nobody would consider to be human.

I don't think the point even is "are androids human?" The point was "what makes a human human?" Our definition of it in reality is based more on emotion than rationality; there is a certain je ne sais quoi about what makes us different from other animals and opinions differ wildly about it.

Having not seen it or any of TNG; is it perhaps supposed to be hated, an allusion to other (obvious) demands for human rights? To be deliberately infuriating that it's even a question?

All Johnny 5 had to do was laugh at a religious joke told by Steve Gottenburg. Guess the 80s were more advanced socially in that regard

In hindsight, there's a book that sort of covers Data early career, or at least what he was doing when Picard met him. The main focus of the book is Picard's time before the Enterprise. https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Buried_Age

Noone is sure what to make of Data at that point. He is doing some computer database management stuff at some remote location and is content to just do that. Picard shows him how to have aspirations for more.

Starfleet never really thought or cared about Data's needs or wants, let alone sentience, until Maddox wanted to vivisect him

Didn't Legal Eagle on yt do a video about this ep?