I don't know if I missed this, but was the bomb squad or SWAT team ever called to verify and disarm the "bomb"? If not, then how is it a "hoax" when it was never a bomb in the first place? Oh, right, it's for the same reason that TSA won't let people take a bottle of water through security- it might be a bomb also... so just pitch your "bomb" into that trash can.
So, yes, as the other posters are saying, the kid was walked out in handcuffs because he wasn't "confessing" to the police's already-established narrative that he made a bomb.
So both have been bullied into accepting a plea bargain, which is a perversion of justice and due process.
Have you watched any TV shows like "Law & Order"? If the real prosecutor is anything like the ones on the TV shows, then these kids were probably threatened with a jury trial where there would be the very real possibility of them going to jail for 20 years and being put on the sexual offender registry. Okay, sure, this probably won't happen, but why take the chance when they can get a punishment without jail time and without being put on the registry?
Or maybe there was financial incentive: maybe the prosecutor said it would cost another $20,000 (or more) to take this case to trial and the families just wanted to be done with it.
The first way to fix this mess is to shut down the troll companies and their automated takedown systems. There are way too many examples of companies sending out takedown notices to see what will stick, whether it's correct or not. You know, like how a troll company for HBO sent a takedown notice to HBO.com for streaming "Game of Thrones".
Or how about stronger punishments for false claims? I hope 2600 sues Getty for this shakedown.
And why was health insurance added as a benefit to workers? Okay, I can see why companies would want to keep their employees healthy, but why not pay for auto insurance so employees could get to work on time or "food insurance" to make sure employees eat properly.
Then, over time, hospitals figured out that they could change more money care because it was covered by a company's insurance. Then combine this with the fact that hospitals basically have a monopoly on their services, and there's no reason to keep costs down.
Also, as an aside, has anyone wondered how a "non profit" hospital can afford to pay millions for a CEO or a new wing for the building? Hint: "non profit" simply means "spend all the money so there's no profit, even if that means giving anything that's left over to the CEO".
How's this for a selling point: "Sure, you may want award-winning actors and actresses, like those found in The Hunger Games and Wolf of Wall Street, but we have something better: the actor behind the laugh-out-loud movie, Pixels. And remember, Pixels wasn't the worst-rated movie of the summer."
No, this is the reaction to any takedown request. If a company censors first, then they don't have to debate whether or not they're liable for not taking it down. Sure, they're not liable, but it's quicker to take down a video than to pay lawyers to prove the argument that they're not liable.
It continues to amaze me that the justice system goes after the site instead of the source. Rather than coming down on Backpage for running a bad ad, why not contact the people that placed the ad and arrest them? It seems like Backpage is actually helping the police by making it easy to find people who advertise bad services.
But this is the same mentality that EU officials had when they told Google to "forget" articles. Yet the articles are still there! Why not go to the source of the problems?
The problem with sex abuse cases is that the punishment is NOT proportional to the crime. For example, if I murder someone and the punishment is 50 years in prison, I serve my time, and I'm done. There's no "murder offender registry" and I don't have to tell my neighbors that I killed someone 50 years ago.
Yet if these kids take any kind of plea bargain (simply to reduce the jail time), they'll go on the sex offender registry which will follow them for the rest of their lives, over something dumb they did when they were 16. From now on, whenever they move, BY LAW, they'll have to tell their neighbors that they're on the sex offender registry. The neighbors may not ask for an explanation and simply assume they're a child molester or worse.
So why should taking pictures of yourself at 16 for your girlfriend to enjoy have a far worse punishment than killing someone?
Who are these people who say they'll pay more money for a bag check, yet the theaters aren't checking people's coats and pants? What happens when a guy wears a trenchcoat full of weapons? Now, granted, the chances of this happening are slim, but still.
Don't forget that Manning is also being punished for being a trans-gender, low-ranking officer. Compare this treatment to what happened when General Patreus (a straight, white male) gave secrets to his mistress/ biographer, who then published it in a book. So which jail is he in for leaking secrets?
Okay, I understand that Vimeo can't or won't read DMCA requests, but how in the world can a video that was uploaded in 2006 be infringing on a movie made in 2015? Can't Vimeo apply some logic to these takedown requests?
And like I've said before when these companies issue takedowns for their own stuff, I say remove it. If Entura wants Vimeo to remove the official "Pixels" trailer that Columbia themselves uploaded, then fine: Vimeo should take it down and put a black mark on Columbia's user account. If Columbia tries to upload another trailer that Entura doesn't like, then Columbia should be banned.
What if we approached this tax from the opposite direction, meaning: once the tax is collected, who is it going to? Artists? A publisher? Does the company have a method in place for distributing the tax it collects to all the artists or publishers who have been slighted or offended by the technology? How can new artists sign up to get a cut of this money?
Oh, the company doesn't have any of this information? So it's just going to collect the money, call it a "tax", and keep it all for themselves?
... when a website has to give the user detailed instructions on how to and disable the browser's security settings to watch a movie. Really, there's nothing wrong with our plug-in. Trust us, turn off your security settings.
What would happen if IMDB complied with the studio's fraudulent takedown notice and actually replaced the movie's page with a big notice saying "This page was taken down due to a notice from the studio"? Would all the people who worked on the movie complain... you know, the people whose jobs are at stake when movies are pirated, but who now don't credit for working on a movie because the site has been taken down by the movie's owner.
It's interesting that no one seems to blink at minimum agreements lasting for years. I guess we're all so used to it and we don't care.
But here's a question: if Comcast is a monopoly in any given area and they're the only ones offering high-speed service (okay, that's another monopoly), then there's no other place someone can go for service. So why the minimum 2 year agreement? If a company has the best product (or the only product) then it shouldn't be afraid if people cancel.
So the only reason to have minimum agreements is because they know a certain percentage of people will get poor service or get tired of paying the monthly fees. For these people, the choice it to keep paying every month or pay the termination fee. Either way, the company keeps making money.