What is their goal then?
To become famous, like Greta, and get free tickets to climate conferences where they'll be lauded as heroes for doing effectively nothing.
I'm getting sick and tired for assholes like this trying to use the court system for what is effectively a political problem.
And, if anything, they should sue China.
100 miles wide
No, law enforcement considers it 100 miles wide.
The Supreme Court never ruled on this. Every time this came up, cases were plea bargained or dismissed.
However, in this case, there is no doubt: the researcher crossed the border and fucked up by not wiping (or even locking) his phone.
Ah, "disinformation," the new buzzword to get around free speech and shut up your political enemies, since it's entirely subjective yet it has that objective-y sound!
There is no freedom of speech in the U.K., and there has not been any for a very long time, every looong before Brexit.
And before y'all butthurt chavs start downvoting, have a look at this very comprehensive list of people arrested for what everywhere else in the world would constitute free speech:
In October 2011, 28-year old Stephen Birrell was sentenced to eight months in jail for engaging in Scottish sectarianism. He made posts to a Facebook page called "Neil Lennon should be banned" which insulted Catholics and the Pope. Sheriff Bill Totten stated "the right-thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland will not allow any behaviour of this nature".
In May 2012, 21-year old Liam Stacey spent 56 days in jail for tweeting "LOL, Fuck Muamba. He's dead."
During the 2012 Olympics, diver Tom Daley retweeted a message that said "You let your dad down i hope you know that", insulting him for finishing fourth. Its 17-year old author was arrested on suspicion of "malicious communication"
In October 2012, 19-year old Matthew Woods was jailed for 12 weeks because of jokes he made about two abducted children April Jones and Madeleine McCann. The messages, including "Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?" were copied from Sickipedia and posted to Facebook
In December 2014, 19-year old Ross Loraine was arrested and cited for making light of the 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash on Twitter. The tweet, which he deleted shortly after posting, stated that after the driver's vehicle struck pedestrians, this was "the most trash it has picked up in one day"
In March 2015, 24-year old Scott Lamont was sentenced to spend four months in jail for singing Billy Boys at a Rangers FC game.
In January 2019, community cohesion officer Mansoor Gul questioned Lincolnshire ex-police officer Harry Miller over the fact that he had retweeted a poem that condemned gender transitions. While confirming that no crime had been committed, Gul stated that it qualified as a "hate incident" and told Miller that his employer might be displeased.
In July 2022, British army veteran Darren Brady, was arrested "on suspicion of sending by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing message" for allegedly retweeting an image of the "Progress Pride Flag" arranged into a swastika.
Source for all of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And even the press is not safe: British Press forbidden to write about public figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sincerely, Fuck The UK.
and the US have the AUDACITY of calling themselves a free country
At least I don't get arrested for "offensive" tweets.
I shudder to think of the reaction if the were to run today . .
We are both old enough to know that there would be an invasion of pink/blue haired whales on a random street in a large city.
The one the government down here in Brazil is trying to approve is even more insane.
Canada fucked around and found out.
Brazil is going to be next. I'd be surprised if Facebook and Google really let an asshole dictator judge tell them what they can and cannot do.
I can appreciate the concept behind this idea
Really? Did you read the article?
They want to fund this by taxing others.
For every penny they take that someone worked for, that worker does not get the benefits of their work
For every penny that they give to someone that did not work for it, that freeloader gets the benefits of somebody else's work.
And I really don't care how much someone earns. If they worked for it, they earned it. Taxes should go to fund the common good, roads, police, fire departments. Using the government's guns to take cash from person A who worked for it, only to give it to person B who did not work for it, is nothing but legalized robbery.
And I know that the communists of
Reddit is one of the most intolerant communities online. If you do not fall in line with the Narrative, then you're toast. It's a bunch of intolerant pricks using "tolerance" as a cudgel. God forbid you have a differing opinion on Reddit.
This.
And then, of course, some asshole automatically assumes that the dissenters are Trumpians.
The fact that companies fight tooth and nail to prevent unions tells you everything you need to know.
Unions are only needed in markets where there is an abundance of labor, and where skill does not matter.
As long as recruiters are still using LinkedIn as a hunting ground for techies, there is no need for unions.
It terrifies them if workers gain bargaining power.
No. What terrifies them is the added overhead and complexity. Unions needing to "approve" promotions. Unions dictating who can do what work and who cannot. Unions trying to run the company, instead of the company leadership.
I buddy of mine once told me the story about his company going to a conference and setting up the booth. They were not allowed to carry the stuff inside themselves: the hotel had union employees that needed to do that. But, if something was heavier than 100lbs (~45kg), it had to be carried by two union employees. And because there were now two union employees, a supervisor was required.
And for that reason I will never vote to unionize. Oh, and mandatory union dues, whether you want it or not. Pure wage theft.
How many more 12-year old girls have to commit suicide before you are willing to even acknowledge there's a problem here?
Bullshit argument.
In 1991, 29% considered suicide, 7% attempted.
In 2017, 17% considered suicide, 7% attempted.
source.
If the actual data shows anything, it's that you are wrong.
These old fossils are democratically elected by people on the premise that they are solving specific problems.
They were not democratically elected.
A number of countries voted against the European Constitution during the referenda. France voted against with a 10% margin, and The Netherlands voted against with a 23% margin (reference).
However, a few months later, it was nevertheless adopted.
The EUSSR is a bunch of undemocratic dictators. Even funnier is that privacy is oh-so-important when it comes to extracting a billion dollars from American companies, but a danger to everyone when it comes to encryption. Right.
perhaps they don't care
I think this is the case.
They are not an EUSSR based company, so why would they comply with the EUSSR's undemocratic laws?
I've said here time and time again that it's one thing to create laws that you want to apply outside of your jurisdiction, it's another thing to enforce them. Which is, as we see here, not possible.
They won't give up on half a billion relatively wealthy consumers.
Until they're sick and tired of Brussel's Politburo, and do.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
