This is a direct result of that to which you refer. They have had rather restrictive hate speech laws regarding some things ever since then.
Why they choose to make FB responsible for it is another one of those stupid things that seem popular occasionally with certain people. You would think they might want to use it as a resource to find people who are actually dangerous, or even just violating their speech limitation law if they really feel like they must, i guess.
Yes so much confusion. A stylized cannabis leaf (or poinsettia) that looks more like a christmas ornament with the word "Snoop" on it might be mistaken for a really bad looking maple leaf logo belonging to... whom? Never heard of 'em. Pass the j.
And yeah "leafs" is used colloquially, or in error, all the time. No it is not unique at all. In fact, i don't even find it particularly noticeable in the Toronto maple Leafs usage context.
Yes, all hail technicalities. What is beyond ridiculous is that they can seize and successfully keep perfectly legal goods and cash normally. I would not be surprised to see them move wholly to a forfeiture model where they can trump up charges so egregiously bad that it gets thrown out of court straight off, if not the prosecutor's office, but they don't care because they got everything they wanted.
I will never buy another Dr. Seuss book and recommend others do the same.
There are so many copies already extant that i think there may be a market for a First Sale Doctrine site to connect those who want books but don't wish to enrich awful rightsholders / IP bullies like this with those who have copies and don't need them, and to publicly thumb a nose at the trolls. With a special section with stats just for Seuss, Tolkein, etc.
Geller sues the government over First Amendment claims involving section 230. This is the censorship claim. It is wrong. Therefore it is not censorship with respect to the claim, which is exactly what was being discussed.
Wow what a great idea, promote and further the culture of litigiousness. Seriously, if someone had a solid actionable case they should have filed already... maybe. Trying to dig up something to file suit over is just stupid. Clearly no one noticed so can't be much of a claim.
A better idea would have been to support people who have been defamation-suit-trolled by Trump (or anyone else for that matter, seriously, wth) so the case can come to a ruling or is dropped?
"Without attribution". Except the freaking CNN logo that is plastered on the screen every second, in case you don't know what channel you were watching. If i posted it i would add a click through to the original source... assuming that CNN, in this case, had the damn clip posted themselves and it wouldn't disappear in a week.
The problem is that people like their aggregated news and whatever feeds and sites. If you don't know how to monetize your aggregated content, if you truly must, then that is your problem, regardless as to whether use is infringing or not.
If all sites were not so hellishly heavy, people would be more inclined to visit more individual sites. Business drove this, and now people, aside from being too lazy to really delve into anything most of the time, or even click through, or read past a headline or blurb, are much more reluctant to try and load one more overbearing page that might hang the browser or app and will stick with one of their preferred aggregators (and aggregators of aggregators of aggregators...), however good or bad they may be.
They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people...
That's not protection, merely another weapon for the "because i felt like it" arsenal. Codifying contempt of cop. Sort of like the arrested for resisting arrest gambit.
Surely i would agree with slapping additional fines on someone who is belligerent, loud, and abusive because they are disturbing the peace - even inside police holding cell. Where there probably other people being held as well. But a five year felony sentence for saying something? WTF. Police or not.
I suppose it is better than a beating, secret indefinite detention, or completely invented charges, which is what i imagine they think anyone dealing with police should fear already, and if they don't, they must be really dangerous people.