What? Product liability laws are not designed to protect you from other people misusing a product. If someone strangles me with a telephone cord, are the telephone manufacturers liable?

Absolutely correct, he should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. As should anyone who's ever sold a paedophile a car, a bottle of water, a loaf of bread, or a digital camera, because they've all been aiding and abetting paedophiles.

There's a very good argument that polygraph tests are there for no reason other than to unduly stress suspects into giving a confession. Think along the lines of "oh, well, you can admit it now, and we'll go easy on you, or you can take the polygraph test and then we've got no incentive to be generous". Despite the fact "we'll go easy on you" means literally nothing, and has been documented as meaning nothing over and over again.

I can't remember the name of it, but there's a statistical analysis that shows that the number of terrorists found during TSA searches is statistically insignificant compared to the number of false positives. I'd be willing to bet the same principle applies here.

The SECOND sentence in your link refutes your point.

Fair enough. I would disagree, especially as the use of mat in Russia is a public order offence in itself, but that's my opinion.

They called the head of the Orthodox Church a "suka" [http://www.russiaslam.com/glossary#ÑÑfÐÐ] (no Cyrillic on /. so if link doesn't work, try www.russiaslam.com/glossary and scroll down to the word that looks like "cyka")... that's pretty much definitely religious hatred.

Russians take religion pretty seriously, although I agree, a lot of the trial was for show.

While I don't support the incarceration of Pussy Riot, can you imagine what would happen if Anal Cunt barged into a service at, for example, St. Paul's Cathedral in London, and started singing and swearing and blaspheming? Don't forget, the Sex Pistols were arrested for performing God Save The Queen. One of the women who was convicted also took part in an orgy in a museum, and is part of a group that (amongst other illegal acts of shock-protest) shoplifted a raw chicken by inserting it into a woman's vagina.

I think three years is extremely harsh, but to dismiss the charges as "chanting an anti-Putin slogan" is massively oversimplifying the issue. Were it to have happened in the UK, I would not be surprised if there were a (short) custodial sentence.

I don't disagree with your main point though, corruption is rife, and despite attempts to rid the country of it, it almost certainly goes right the way to the top. Russian people have next to no faith in their legal system.

Only on fucking Slashdot would this be +5 insightful, not +5 funny.

As I see it, either a) Assange did rape one or both of the women who have complained, in which case he will be found guilty, and rightly, serve a sentence for his crime. Or b) he didn't do it, and he was set up. If he was in fact set up, then it stands to reason that he was set up by somebody with the wherewithal to ensure that the case is solid enough to lead to a conviction. Either way, if he was to face potential charges in Sweden, I can't see a case in which he would be found not guilty.

Of course, this is all moot, because the US would have him trussed up and Gitmo-bound within 5 minutes of landing on Swedish soil.

No, that doesn't mean that at all. That means that if a work is used for nonprofit educational purposes that should be CONSIDERED as a FACTOR in trying to determine whether or not it is an infringement of copyright. If I downloaded (in full) a recent Hollywood release and showed it to a class in art history (because there was a scene shot in an art gallery) without charging for it, I could fairly say that it was a nonprofit educational use of the film. However, it would fall down on the other three factors - the nature of the copyrighted work is not substantially in line with the purpose for which it was used, there was no need to show the whole work, and it is relatively likely that nobody in that class will go out and purchase the film having already seen it. "Educational purposes" is not the catch-all that some people seem to think it is.

Government disappoint electorate. More at ten.

Although I would agree that his original post wasn't racist, his follow-up comments calling people wogs and telling them to go and pick some cotton are fairly unambiguously so.

No, you're 100% freer.

Ignore that - my misreading. The correct complaints/appeals would go through here: http://www.lgo.org.uk/ if it had not been adequately resolved by the authority themselves.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/sscs/