the responding officer should have arrested the principal for conspiracy to commit child abuse, destruction of evidence, and intimating a witness. it's time these petty little dictators are taught that letting kids be bullied because they aren't on the "Favorites" list is a crime.
what the supreme court fails to understand here is that there aren't many reasonable people in the law enforcement field anymore. i mean they expect officers who think that killing unarmed men on tape is no big deal, or prosecutors who hide evidence and see no problem with people spending decades in prison they should not have had to as "reasonable people." this situation is worsened by politicians who think their town needs an armored assault victim for an epidemic of "cop killings" that amounts to two offers in 30 years. reasonable people left the law side of the government years ago.
"Do you really want the owner of a flower shop to be personally liable if someone pricks their finger?"
someone pricking their finger is not a crime. i love how you come up with a civil matter that would be laughed out of the court as a reason to exclude executives from being forced to confront their criminal actions.
for example, a CEO ordering a private security officer to beat someone half to death, as a coercion tactic is something they get away with all the time. These CEO's came closer every day to bringing this country down than the hijackers on Sept 11 and not one of them is facing criminal charges. all the while the government is destroying the foundations of this country to bring "criminals and terrorists" to justice.
the only way to fix capitalism is to remove corporate person hood, and to update the laws so that when CEO's and other corporate executives that commit, allow or order crimes to be committed they can be prosecuted up to and including capital offenses.
i'm no legal scholar but since microsoft found the leaker through violating The Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Wiretap Act can the leaker be prosecuted since all evidence is fruit of a posionious tree
if this ruling goes in Smokey's favor then it's only a matter of time before the sony bono copyright act is ruled unconstitutional since it expands copyright beyond the life of the only party who legally has claim to the copyright.
the laws should ban distracted driving. they should however make you guilty of capital murder if anyone is hurt because your to much of a idiot to stop playing angry birds or watching hulu to pay attention to driving. and any accident that doesn't involve fatalities is automatically and fully your fault.
I've always suspected Huawei , being backed by the a secretive communist government, might be spying on me which is why i avoided their products, what made me scream at the top of my lungs in rage was the discovery that Cisco was doing it.
i wonder if this criminal indictment came about due to his refusal to act like a sane person in his lawsuits.
truth is other than posting contact info the truth is i see nothing wrong with his site. if you are foolish enough to give nudes to someone you should make sure they are mature enough to pull something like this if the relationship goes wrong.
the old internet adage applies here: knowledge (or nude photos) is power, beware who you give that power to.
sounds to me like the guy was wearing google glass and someone in theater decided to illegally pretend to a federal agent and illegally kidnap the man thinking he was recording the movie. not showing the card is him going to sue the theater.
i have said it once and will say it again... they are going to do this until someone sues content id and the media companies falsely claiming copyright on others work getting the ridiculous punitive damages.
if you claim in a dcma notice to own something someone else owns you open yourself to these damages. i eagerly wait to see someone hand themselves a serious whooping with the automated dcma's
how can anyone fight for their rights, only to trample the rights of others and stand on the moral ground? Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. if someone does not want to cater/photograph/officiate or otherwise preside/participate in your LGBT weddings or events it is their right.
It is YOUR RIGHT to choose another business to shower your money on.to simply, use the courts to force someone to do these things is immoral. When you go to court to FORCE them to take your business, you are impeding their rights, and the message is sent your not wanting equality, your DEMANDING them to put your rights above theirs.
and that is the reason so many people are against marriage equality.
this is exactly why my friends jokingly calling me a troglodyte. i refuse to buy anything digital and when they ask me why i buy a physical copy of something. i tell them because i have legal rights to prevent the arse who distributes it from taking it from me and keeping my money. if i buy a comic or dvd physically, i have rights, if digital it's a theft waiting to happen.