Wasn't this exactly how good net neutrailty showed up in the US? Namely bad net neutrality got passed and Verison STILL complained, and that got the FCC in such a tizzy that they went and did things mostly right?
I love how you made this an anti-liberal political post. The supreme court, which has done the most damage to the fourth amendment, is currently split between liberals and conservatives. Its not a 'liberal' court.
The problem is, you know the court has violated the law in this case. You can't hope to be contacted by another plaintiff who got their case disappeared who is less sympathetic so you can address this problem. Inaction will lead to more problems.
I have been told by those more knowledgable than me that people with certain mental abnormalities (such as certain places on the autism spectrum) will not ever realize that people will find certain interactions harmful or unwanted. Meaning such a person could certainly Harass and Stalk me and even after it is explained to them will be unable to understand that the attention is unwanted. Is your understanding of intent such that the person I have described can't be charged with intent? By my previous understanding they are directly attempting to contact that person and are actively seeking that person out, so they could be charged. But the new definition of intent I read suggests not.
Well, if you are renting your hopper it would be a solid argument to make with customer service. Assuming of course you are paying more for the hopper then a lower priced regular DVR option. Then you might be able to argue that you paid for the hopper specifically for a feature that is no longer operating as advertised. But then again in that situation They'd probably just switch you over to a new plan with the cheaper dvr you didn't want originally.
Im not sure i understand the scope of the intent requirement. As I have read it on previous similar articles there needs to be intent to express the harassing behavior at the Harassed. So you have to actually talk shit to their face, not just talk shit in general.
But the discussion on the vanilla Stalking law seems to suggest you need intent to Harass or Cause emotional distress. So does this mean someone without the emotional/empathic ability to recognize the potential for harm can't ever be convicted of harassment?
OK, since some wrong information was carefully not said here, And this is a US site and I am a US citizen and protected by the speech act, I'll say it. Its not Elton John (though he got the injunction). Its his spouse, David Furnich who reportedly had a threesome with Daniel Laurence and his spouse Pieter Van den Bergh.
You refrence boiler plate required by google and twitter, but I fail to see how that applies to the 40% of bogus claims reported by Attomatic. They claim that 29% don't meet the requirements of the law, not that 29% dont meet the requirements of either the law or our own seperate requirements.
in response to your second point, the entire reasoning of the cannary is the assumption that you can not compel speech. You are correct that they are useless if that assumption is invalid, but given the question of compelled speech keeps getting brought up in legal filings as an assumed no go, thats not settled law yet.