Yes, if the community are actively shielding these people from prosecution, they share in the responsibility. Why is that so hard to understand?

Point fingers at the ultra-orthodox and scream about child molestation, since that is exactly what they are afraid of happening if people speak about it outside of their community -- you are basically validating what they are saying to themselves when they keep it a secret.

If they weren't actively trying to cover it up then people would be pointing at the particular people responsible for the child abuse and screaming at them. As it is, in exactly the same way as the Catholic church has, their community are trying desperately to cover it all up, shield the perpetrators from any sort of punishment and allow them to carry on doing it

Damned right we should be screaming at people who do that, because they're enabling the molestors.

Nope, the Orthodox jewish community does it as well.

Does this one work? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews-child-abuse-cover-up-feature

It lets people find out things like this

Keep truth as an absolute defence for libel trials.

Charge the media in your example with attempting to pervert the course of justice, not libel.

If you care most about promoting innovation, offering carve-outs from the patent system to certain industries and technologies looks like a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. If you're emotionally invested in the success of patent law as such, then allowing certain industries to opt out looks like an admission of failure and a horrible hack.'"

Isn't that the actual, official, reason for having patent laws and protections in the first place?

Surely being 'emotionally invested in the success of patent law' would require you to want it to achieve what it was meant to achieve?

I'm pretty certain that's a rule.

Actually, the concept in UK law is "reasonable" force, which isn't the same thing at all.

They'll happily stock martial arts magazines, full of special features about new and exciting ways to hurt people.

Maybe a better choice would include, oh I dunno, not fucking shooting unarmed and restrained men in the back?

Oh perhaps that's just me

So, people who commit atrocities in the name of Jesus aren't real Christians, but people who commit atrocities in the name of Muhammed are real Muslims.

Is that how you see things in your world?

https://xkcd.com/651/

Generally speaking, no, I don't support the government being able to inject any random chemical into people's bodies.

I'm more than happy to make an exception in your case though

If the people refusing vaccinations were the only ones affected by that refusal, i'd agree with you.