That's not actually true. The Federal Arbitration Act makes it nearly impossible to invalidate an arbitration clause. It preempt state laws and mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements. Another thing that it does is make it nearly impossible to appeal an arbitration award. That means that if the arbitrator makes a mistake of law or ignores facts, you cannot correct the errors.

It's time we all sit back and remember the first rule of dealing with cops. They do not have any obligation to tell you the truth. The courts give them a pass because criminals lie.

Note: if you lie to the police, the odds are good that you will be charged, because lying to the police is a crime.

The honesty street is one way.

--AC

When did she consent to let you look at her body whenever you want? When did she consent to let you observe her sexual relationship with her boyfriend? Do you feel like just because you've seen a woman naked, you have the right to walk into her home whenever you want? Do you have the right to invite your friends into her bathroom while she showers?

She didn't consent to have those particular pictures which she shared with her boyfriend disseminated to you. She did consent to have a different image presented on the magazine.

Ah, but I get it now. It's because of the way she dressed in the X-men, isn't it. Oh, because of the way she dressed on the magazine. Once a woman has done that, or its equivalent, her consent no longer matters.

--AC

You don't know shit about the law, do you?

Let's take this a piece at a time. First, contributory negligence is a tort doctrine, not a criminal doctrine. Second, the doctrine of contributory negligence has fallen by the wayside in most American jurisdictions. It was a shitty doctrine used by wealthy industrial interests to avoid having to pay for the injuries they caused. Third, the doctrine of contributory negligence applies to situations where both actors are negligent. Guess what? The hackers who publicized the photos didn't accidentally plug in their own usernames and passwords and suddenly find themselves in possession of naked photos of dozens of women. They didn't accidentally publish those photos to 4chan and reddit. This was intentional conduct. Which means the doctrine of contributory negligence wouldn't even come into the equation. Fourth, the doctrine of contributory negligence was tempered by the "last clear chance" doctrine. That means that, as between the two parties to the civil suit, if both were at fault (i.e., negligent), then the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident is at fault. Here, the ones who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the "accident" would be the ones who hacked into the accounts.

People are also entitled to expect others to follow the law and to act reasonably. That's one of the perks of civilization. You seem like the kind of guy who believes that people who get hurt in car crashes should have known better before getting on the highway, or maybe that women have a responsibility to keep their ankles, wrists, and heads covered.

None of the women who were targeted by the people who did this consented to have their pictures publicized. That's really the end of the blame analysis.

--AC

The problem, of course, is that the celebrities did not consent to the theft of their pictures. Right. I mean, implicit in your phrasing is that these women consented to the distribution of their nude photographs.

So if, by transmitting anything on the Internet, you consent to its disclosure and use by others, you would have no problem posting your credit card number, CVV number, expiration date, and home address posted here, right? You've used Amazon before, so you've already consented to the dissemination of that information.

The odds are that the people behind this behavior aren't 13-year olds. Likely, they're men in their 20s and 30s who think that women have no right to sexual autonomy. IOW that women exist merely to provide men with sexual gratification (except the ugly ones--they're not sure how to deal with those women). But whatever their ages, if they did this, they should go to jail. It is criminal. It is hateful. What other motivation is there to invade someone's privacy like that? Seriously. If you lose your wallet and I find it, what's the proper response? A) Look at your drivers license and try to return your wallet; or B) post your credit card information all over the internet? The fact that you were negligent in losing the wallet doesn't give me the right to take shit that doesn't belong to me.

--AC

Right, until the moment that it goes from being a single shoplifter to a shoplifting ring or a high value shoplifter. At that point, public resources do get spent on the investigation, because it becomes worthwhile. Here, you've got a case involving someone breaching the security on not just one, but dozens of accounts. This, then, falls into that later category.

--AC

Sex crimes are not limited to penetrative sex. In most jurisdictions, peeping toms get tagged with criminal charges.

--AC

Not sure where you live, bud, but in most jurisdictions, being a peeping tom is a crime. Moreover, in many jurisdictions, you peep, you get tagged as a sex offender.

--AC

Here's an example of why we should not be as trusting as Bennett: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

--AC

They also don't have to tell you the truth when they speak to you.

You, OTOH, face serious penalties if you are not completely truthful when you speak to them.

--AC

Great. Problem's solved. The deficit has significantly decreased in the past two years. Hell, it's down 35% since last year. Yay. Problem solved.

--AC

That's great for the anti-vaxers and their kids, but once the vax rate drops low enough, even vaccinated kids can catch these diseases. So no, they don't die because they believed it and acted on it. They die because other people believed it and acted on it.

--AC

Unless you sign a written contract providing for arbitration, see 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq.

--AC

Tinder.

--AC

Yeah, gunwalking. That sounds really bad. The facts, however, are a bit different than had been reported initially.

This is an illuminating read: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

--AC