Since most trials boil down to "which side do you think is more credible?" question, it's no surprise that in many conservative, pro-establishment places (where being an elected official is a lifetime job) juries tend to side with the prosecution, often strongly so.
Now what does that remind me of, I could have sworn I've seen people compare the US 'justice' system with another at times. Ah yes...
'A typical example of the Cardassian approach to life was found in their jurisprudence and criminal trials, in which the verdict was always determined beforehand - guilty - and the purpose of the proceedings was not justice in the Human sense but bringing the offender to recognize the power and benevolence of the State. A trial, therefore, was an opportunity for the State to reveal how someone's guilt was proven by what they considered "the most efficient criminal investigation system in the quadrant". Consequently, charges against the accused were announced at the commencement of the trial itself, the execution date was set in advance and only the offender's spouse as well as the court-assigned nestor and counsel could attend the trial. When Benjamin Sisko once asked Gul Dukat why bother with a trial at all, Dukat responded that the people demanded it as they enjoyed watching "justice triumph over evil". The notion that they might try an innocent man by mistake was foreign to them as they believed in and always operated under the assumption that "Cardassians don't make mistakes". The typical Cardassian approach, therefore, was direct, simple, and ruthless, uncaring about how many aliens – or Cardassians – were trampled in the interests of the state.'
Tell you what, make the time fit the crime(if you claim a download is stealing the same as shoplifting, then make the penalty match. Does a $40 fine for an album download sound about right to you?), punish those that bend or break the law 'fighting piracy' with fervor equal to that you apply towards the pointless fight against piracy, and stop trying to screw everyone but pirates in your vain attempts to stomp out any potential competition or 'piracy', and then I might agree with you.
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
And just like that, their cries for 'Transparency!' are exposed for the pathetic attempts to derail or delay the vote that they truly were. They were all for 'transparency' when it would have resulted in a huge delay of the vote, but now the vote has passed, and suddenly they're acting such that the public, the ones they lied about being oh so concerned about, will have to wait even longer to find out the fine details.
And if that wasn't enough, apparently they're throwing childish fits, and refusing to do their gorram jobs just because their attempts at stopping the vote failed. Politics in action ladies and gentlemen.
More than just 'a little', the odds of not one innocent person being tried in that area in that time-frame is all but non-existent, which means that more than a few innocent people have been screwed over by the court system in that area.
Not when they're banking on using those talking points with people who aren't able to fact check their statements at the time they are making them.
A lot of the stuff they say may make a lot of sense... until you actually do a little research and find out that pretty much all of it is a mix of lies, damn lies, misdirections and falsehoods. If people were able to research the arguments that they were using, those arguments would be a lot less effective, as they'd be exposed as the rot that they are.
If I had to guess, the reason for blacking out the talking points is mostly likely to keep people from being able to show why they are wrong.
If they're careful to only use them when people cannot refute their claims, than I'm sure the talking points are most persuasive, but if someone has time to do a little research, and show the flaws in their arguments, they'd be a lot less effective.
A hundred and forty pages... Really? They could have saved a whole lot of time and effort if they'd just sent back a simple response, that despite being drastically shorter, would have gotten the exact same meaning across:
"Dear Jason Leopold,
In response to your request for documents pertaining to any harms caused by the recent leaks of classified information:
You get nothing, because despite what you or your readers may think, we don't answer to you, never have, and never will. As such we are under no obligation to explain ourselves, our actions, or our statements to any of you.
If you have any concerns or comments regarding our response, please, feel free to drop dead, as we could not care less what you think or say.
Sentencing should never, ever be based upon emotional arguments. If it was, then life sentences would be handed out like party favors, and multi-decade long sentences would be the norm for even minor crimes.
Getting rid of one of the main sources of "You're all going to die if you don't do everything we tell you to and give up all your rights!" scaremongering would probably be pretty effective at decreasing citizen fear at the very least, though given that's the exact opposite of what the government wants, I don't see them doing that any time soon.
This is particularly patronizing since just over a year ago YouTube invited me to their space in Los Angeles to give a lecture on transformative storytelling and to specifically highlight the fair use questions that arise when remixing video footage for the purposes of political parody.
I really hope he told them to get bent, and then proceeded to point to the crap he's had to deal with over this video as the reason for his refusal.
'You want me to talk about fair use? Okay, how about I start by pointing out how utterly flawed and easy to abuse your system is regarding it? And how you make those accused of violating copyright take a class on fair use, but don't do the same for those that send claims that completely ignore it? Does that sound good to you?'
The reason they keep conducting 'studies' is because the findings keep ending up 'wrong'. They don't want to hear that the management is the problem, as fixing that could cost the higher ups their jobs, no, what they want to hear is that the issue is some small thing that can be blamed on a factor that the bosses have nothing to do with.
As such the reports will keep being filed away and buried, and the bosses will continue to assure the ones handing them money that they are 'looking in to the matter', and oh by the way they need another million or two for the next round of studies.
Why do they think that legality trumps all these other issues, or makes them irrelevant?
Because they have the power to change the laws, either openly or via 'classified interpretations', so if the only way to judge whether or not something is acceptable is whether or not it's legal, then they can pretty much do anything they want.
Heh, now that would be brilliant, if all the funds seized were sent straight to pay the legal fees of those accused of crimes who are unable to afford a lawyer themselves. Money taken by the police would be used to defend those facing the police, that would be great, and provide an even greater disincentive than the idea I threw out.
The mainstream media shouldn't be able to use anyone's name/info without written consent
Thus making them even more useless than they already are, as it would be impossible to report on anything that involved someone.
Of course I can totally understand why he would say something like that, as if you had to get permission to report on someone and/or what they've done, then it would be trivially easy to simply say 'No' anytime someone wanted to report on something that you'd done and didn't want known or talked about, like say, running a revenge porn site and extortion racket.