Being crushed between two icebergs is not a point force. A closer analogy would be a ping pong ball between two large blocks of wood. The ball gets crushed.

Each different country should be able to follow it's laws. It is up to the people in the country to change those laws if desired.

I agree that disseminating information is protected speech. I do not agree that disseminating the copy written property of someone else is protected speech.

Actually you begin running headlong toward a civil society. Hate speech, incite to riot, libel, slander, etc are not protected speech. These types of speech have been found to be detrimental to civil society and have been made illegal in most places. Just because something is auditory in nature does not make it protected speech.

There are a few thing wrong wit this statement.
1. The court who handed down the injunction is the arbiter for copyright law.
2. The cache-only service is the means of enforcing the injunction.
3. If you go to the other end of the spectrum and follow the lowest level of law the copyright is dead on the internet.
4. The cache only service could segregate the different sources to different IPs so different countries could enforce their own laws by blocking selected content.

I never said that. All I said is that they are very different and setting up a scenario so that infringing and non-infringing content is served from the same IP may be contrived.

Cloudflare could serve from different IPs if they wanted to but don't. That's what I mean by "human shield". Shield infringing material with non-infringing material. That is much the same as shielding combatants with non-combatants.

Sorry but "sharing" artistic works that can be purchased elsewhere is not speech. It may not be piracy but trying to hide behind free speech is not valid.

Is this the internet version of human shield?
1. Host infringing site under an IP
2. Host a non-infringing site under same IP
3. Act outraged when both are blocked.
I am not saying blocking is right but there might be some "spin" going on.

Some of of can tell the difference between fiction and reality. They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.

That is a generalized assumption based on one incident. You have no idea if they have paid out in other instances.

Then there is the alternate scenario.
1. Find bug.
2. Report to Groupon.
3. Publish on group just long enough to get noticed and replicated.
4. Garner publicity for finding bug.
5. Groupon deny bounty
6. Garner more publicity from controversy.

It might not be as innocent as they make it out to be. For some the notoriety is more important than the money.

The other issue are the 30 additional bugs just permutations of the bug that was published?

By not following the rules he is disqualified from the program no matter how many bugs he submitted.

The same as before and they might actually follow the rules and get paid.

I am not defending Google or age discrimination. I am just saying that an industry average is a poor indicator of discrimination in a single company. The telling number is the difference, if any, between the ages of people who applied and that of people who were hired.

BTW, I am over 50 and therefore not a youngun.

I did. That does not mean that the same spread of programmers applied for jobs at Google.

It is not a "rule" it is average over an entire industry. I bet there are a number of older companies working with older technology that have a much higher median age. Are you going to accuse them of age discrimination when few young people apply for their jobs?

Discrimination is based on who applies and not an industry average.

Part of the requirements to be paid a bounty is following the "responsible disclosure policy". The submitter did not follow that policy and therefore did not get paid. It seems pretty simple.