Suppose I legally own private images of a former girlfriend, which I kept private as I should. Suppose she and her husband wish to take possession of those images, including any copies in my possession (I state no one else has copies, and this is true). Their lawyer submits a proposal to me, which includes monetary compensation for my time and for voluntarily giving up something which I legally own. If I accept, am I at risk of being charged with extortion?

This said, public release of unconvicted arrested people is barbaric. Having said also this, one must note that there's a strong lobby who defends criminals against their potential victims and their right to defend themselves. This includes the knowledge, for instance, that your new neighbor is a convicted sex offender.

You seem to underestimate the irresistible attractiveness of danglies, moreover, if you are unable to prevent a male competitor to bite yours off, you don't deserve reproduction.

Maybe the designer isn't that intelligent, but she's got a sense of humor.

Obviously not too many, otherwise evolution would have taken care of the flaw. Which, since so many species thrive with this kind of epiglottis, is more a trade-off than a major flaw.

You just proved /. needs a Score:6

Not really, not always. Many people are willing to pay more for better tv sets, fancy cars, U2 concerts, great food.
The problem in this case is technology helped low-level musicians much more than mid-range ones, not that people love crap.

You may have guessed the "different from" sign disappeared from the subject of my post.

Not just different. Wildly different. Here almost everyone sides with the self-defense (established) theory. The few exceptions are on the whole suspiciously grammar-impaired.
In the general public it's the opposite, starting from Tricky Baracky who feels a strong sense of identity with the aggressor (did he often use the term "cracker" as a pot-smoking teenager?).

Since GZ would be dead now hadn't he carried a gun, I guess you'll advocate for NW to change their policies.
Or, ask a 17 years old football player to bash your head on concrete, and you'll agree.

Out of joke, the point is there is much more pressure to protect the criminal's life than the victim's. This has to be changed.

Could you please clarify who "We" is? Because as far as I can understand Americans as a whole and American business everywhere got an enormous advantage by electing a President who is so hard to hate by lowlives and traditional enemies around the world. Not even his runner-ups dared to attack him harshly.

Moreover, a President who is so teleprompter-dependent (to put it mildly) is every lobbyist's dream. Very good for the economy.

I took the liberty to FTFY since I can't believe you really think Carter an Clinton were some kind of press darlings, so it must be an oversight on your part.

I'm afraid you fail to see a much bigger ignorance in your mentality. You talk about citizens while you should rather say the tiny % of citizens who actually give a damn about internet freedom (or lack of control and regulation).

People make revolutions for things they care about; unsurprisingly, they let politicians do what the lobbies command on all the other issues.
In my country I can't see thousands of protesters in the streets on this issue. Not even dozens. Not even one.

Politicians are evil, but on this matter they don't even need to be, to get what they want.

Whoa, do lobbyists use violence in Finland? Because AFAIK they use cash everywhere else, so it's greed over spinelessness

Or mature rock guitar players, in which case the bot's mother would likely have any charge dropped.

You're already on the tricky one in point two. What's obvious for you might not be for others. Bill Clinton's cheating behavior was child's play compared to JFK's, to name one. But when the big dogs start barking the whole Land of Freedom barks. And when they don't, no Chihuahua does.

Coming to Tricky Baracky, do you really think that private sexual behavior is less compatible with the office than, say, keep on talking in an official occasion during the Queen's Anthem, being hushed by her in front of everyone and thus becoming the laughing stock of ... well, anyone who cares to notice? Trained waiters know better. Is there a minimum competence level which is compatible with "the office"? Does this level include the oratorical ability not to talk folly in case of teleprompter malfunction? We all know this guy isn't smarter than Bush II, but "we give a breathalyzer to asthmatic children in the ER", for fuck's sake!?.

But I truly admire the US ruling class artfulness in choosing a guy who's so hard to hate or even criticize for any fool around the world (Benghazi and Snowdengate under Romney, go figure ...).

Your implication is false. Albert Schweitzer didn't hate blacks and considered them inferior. Something similar could be said about Lincoln. You would be right only if science showed blacks are truly inferior.

1) Yes. 2) No. 3) At the ATM, to get some cash.