azuth

No, it was not clarified, they vaguely mentioned they were not based in “free speech” US but it’s pretty clear that it was their own policy since they changed it (they do say they were asking mods to ban all mentions of jury nullification).

If their opinion was actually based on law, they would not change their policy. They would probably also have added it to their TOS before hand.

Yeah that’s not actually incorrect too badly. Well perhaps the “bound together” bit but like history for the massive systems, yeah, it is somewhat shared. Common law and whatnot. Although Italy definitely doesn’tuse common law anymore so Trump would be better of comparing US to brits in that sense.

I doubt Italy ever used common law as that originated in Medieval England. It’s civil law that descents from Roman law (specifically Justinian’s codification of it). Since civil law is way more common around the world most countries have more in common with Rome than the US (or other Anglo countries) do.

You are right however that trying to portray the US as a modern ‘Rome’ is not a Trump thing but common American propaganda.

This would only make sense if Nintendo’s legal actions either actually prevented emulation or piracy of their games or recouped the lost revenue (lol).

But they don’t you can still emulate the switch and still get games for it (which was never a grey area unlike emulators). You could do for most of it’s lifetime. You could also pirate on original HW, sometimes without HW modification at all.

Emulators have existed and still exist for older nintendo systems and you can still get old nintendo games despite decades of nintendo’s legal efforts, just like you can get pirated movies or music despite decades of legal efforts…

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Your parents made you watch a film because they were concerned you could not distinguish reality from fiction?

You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.

No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.

Calling that murky is missing the point.

Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).

We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right

We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.

‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.

It’s your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it’s not an article on the exact topic.

More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don’t mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.

Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.

But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?

Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts ‘celebrating’ violence. It’s their right to do so but so is mine and other’s to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.

You are not answering the question.

You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.

Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?

That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.

I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone’s opinion.

I did not exclude future crimes from my question.

Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?

It just looks brighter to the point it could be different gamma settings.

There is a bigger brightness range in the top screenshot the bottom looks washed out.

It was a combination of some infrastructure being offline (a VOR beacon) thus requiring a different procedure that was not followed correctly.

I don’t believe the pilots ever considered they had crossed into Soviet airspace, they were probably unaware of any deviation from their flight plan.

Nor was there any contact with Soviet forces. Were they ordered to leave the airspace would significantly change the share of blame making the pilots criminal and letting the Soviets off easily.

The intercept claims to have tried to have fired warning shots but admits they were not really visible in the night. I think that if he flown directly in front of them, they would notice if not visually the turbulence. But the decision seems to have been taken that it was not a civilian plane at a higher level and the identification part of the intercept a formality. Apparently they had actually missed intercepting some actual spy planes recently and they had to save face.

You are welcome.

The EU is a complicated thing. It’s certainly the most integrated international organization and pushes the envelope so to speak. It’s also portrayed as a equivalent to a state quite often, whether for practical (an easy if inaccurate analog) or even ideological (EU federalists) reasons.

Also France is not in particular trouble at least in regards to it’s ability to function. At most legislative elections will be needed.

I think most of the differences are to either take advantage (make it cover more incoming strikes) or accommodate (keep it from poking you in the head) the cross guard.

Yes the US already were invading Syria, an offensive operation. This ain’t self-defense.

There is no provision to expel a member, it was considered in drafts for the treaty of Lisbon but not included.

It’s possible to suspend members’ voting rights but it requires an unanimous vote of the European council (sans the target member who can’t vote).

In what way would it just happen? The treaties do not allow it, amending the treaties would require an unanimous vote, trying to circumvent would cause any of the non top members (pop or economy wise) to gtfo asap.

The WTO can levy fines and penalties as well, I guess they are a state. The UN also requires compliance with various treaties from it’s members (including accepting refugees). Some EU members can be argued to be easier to whipped into compliance due to EU funds being critical to their level of living. Of course the IMF also has had a lot of leverage over poor countries, even EU ones.

The EU does not have an army, or even a federal police force to enforce compliance in member states. It can only try to coax compliance by withholding funds and other benefits. Contrast this to Little Rock Nine, where the US government sent it’s own army (EU doesn’t have one) and was able to take control of the Arkansas NG from it’s government. The EU cannot do this. Especially not to fucking France.

I’m not sure you’re aware of how much power they have consolidated while assuring you you are a sovereign, independent state. Which just seems to mean yes, they won’t help if you need it.

They have been granted power in a lot of fields, including trade and human rights. It would not be a problem for my country to leave the EU, the issues would be the lack of market access. Your second sentence makes even less sense than usual, what help? Is that what you would call “the EU” (aka foreigners) sending their non-existent troops to run things? No thanks mate.

The EU is not a federal state.

Its an international organization with sovereign independent States as members. Not ‘federal states’ like US or German states or ‘countries’ like Wales and Scotland that are part of the UK.

It has more in common with the UN than the USA or Germany.

The EU doesn’t do anything in such cases because the members did not agree to allow it to play a part in such matters. EU powers are delegated to it by members.

The EU can’t kick someone out, they also can’t prevent anybody leaving.

There are national armies, they do not answer to EU officials, I doubt they swear to uphold and defend EU law or the treaty of Lisbon, when I was conscripted we swore to uphold our nation’s constitution, laws and morals.

There are some EU task forced (similar to NATO task forces) that deploy under EU decisions, they would definitely not follow EU commands versus their own country’s (they are mixed at unit level not individuals).

You have a deeply wrong understanding of the EU to the point where you cannot meaningly criticize it or even roast it.