While it's true that the United States is a litigious society, there are certain circumstances where lawsuits are appropriate. This is one of them. Lawsuits have become a perfect tool for its citizens to hold public officials and institutions accountable for their actions.
Somebody thought this was a great idea? The person who thought this was a good idea should be drawn and quartered. It's like staging a terrorist attack in the middle of New York City to develop better security measures or staging an attack in Columbine.
This was thought up in poor taste, bad decision making.
There was no advanced notice because there are "no real life advance notices when it comes to attacks"? When officers burst into school rooms with their weapons drawn? What the fuck? Pardon me, but this was only an exercise drill for the police and they scared the hell out of the students in the process.
If I were a parent, I would be filing a lawsuit against the school administrators, the school, the school district and the law enforcement agencies who thought this was a great idea.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Here's a novel idea, if you don't want your internet connection tHrottled, STOP SHARING MOVIES, MUSIC. SOFTWARE, ANIME AND TELEVISION SHOWS.
ISPs throttled a user's internet connection when they are downloading pirated content that they have not paid for. VPNs always get targeted because 99% of people who are using VPNs are doing so to watch streaming content that is not licensed for their region or they are sharing copyrighted content.
Really? Everyone from President Obama, to Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi to Hillary Clinton has been calling for democracy in Middle Eastern nations. Exactly what dark cave did you get the idea from that Democrats have never been for a democratic society?
So much for Democrats protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. I always said that Democrats were never for a democratic society. They are much more aligned with the philosophy of the Republican Party than anything else.
We don't have a two-part system of government, we only have one party.
The Republican Party, with splinter groups consisting of The Tea Party and The Democratic Party.
This sounds to me like the White House is jealous that Israel is getting all the fun bombing and killing civilians and now the Obama Administration wants in on the fun with targeting, bombing and killing civilians.
I guess Obama wants to test this new action in Syria before testing it in large population centers like the United States. And Democrats call Republicans the bloodthirsty lot?
There it is. Ken "Popehat" White just proved just how stupid uneducated people like himself are. "Stupider"? That's not even a word. It's "stupid" or "more stupid". Every English professor must be turning over in their graves for seeing such atrocious grammar being used by those who are supposed to be educated.
I seriously doubt that SDCC has a copyright or trademark over "Comic-Con" or any variation on that theme. More than likely, they only have the rights to "San Diego Comic Con". SDCC is just trying to use its heavyweight status to scare Salt Lake Comic Con into backing off by wrongfully claiming that it has the rights to "comic con" which is a generic term. It's similar to SciFi Channel's and their attempt to copyright "SciFi", which their claim was denied because scifi is a generic term.
Like I said, this whole thing blew itself out of proportion only because of that sport's car that appeared at a convention hotel, which SDCC demanded that the automobile be delivered to them instead, even though they had no claim to the car, and that it was paid for by Salt Lake Comic Con.
I've been following this story ever since it first developed earlier this summer and I'm shocked that techdirt is only just now reporting on it.
This doesn't surprise me that Techdirt got this lawsuit wrong. I run one of the most frequented anime and manga communities online and I can assure the reader at techdirt that while the article is technically correct, Timothy Geigner got his article wrong.
The lawsuit isn't contesting "comic con", as Timothy noted above, the term "comic con" is generic and you cannot copyright generic terms. The lawsuit is over the way Salt Lake City stylized the fonts for "comic con", making it seem like the Salt Lake City convention was associated with San Diego Comic Con.
(see linked picture)
The sports car is what set off the whole lawsuit process with San Diego demanding that the car be delivered to them, even though it was Salt Lake City Comic Con who paid for the advertising on the car.
It's seriously doubtful that anyone can hold a trademark on the words "comic con" or in any variation but this is simply SDCC suing Salt Lake over the way they have displayed the logo for their comic con.
This Chinese citizen has no basis to sue. Even if Google wasn't directed to censor content that Chinese authorities find questionable, Google has the right to limit your access to their own content. As a user, you do not have an entitlement to the services of a website if they decide not to grant you that access.
I wish Techdirt would stop holding up Michael brown like he;s some kind of self appointed saint. You wouldn't hold up a cop killer or a rapist in the same manner. So why would you hold up Michael Brown, a black man who robbed a store, assaulted the store owner and then proclaim Michael Brown as a champion of what's wrong with race relations.
Perhaps if Michael Brown had never robbed that store owner or assaulted that store owner, then this crap wouldn't have happened in the first place. Michael Brown was nothing more than a thug from the hood who was prompted to rob a store of some cigarettes and then assault the owner of the store.
In this country, you get arrested and charged with a crime for doing just that. Michael Brown is NOT Rosa Parks. Michael Brown is a thug and I find it disengenuous that another black man, that idiot Eric Holder, is trying to hold Michael brown up like he's some type of fucking saint.
Roca Labs needs to understand that you cannot sue somebody for exercising their first amendment rights. But, I gotta give them credit for having big balls for trying to do exactly that. It will be the first time that someone has been sued for practicing their right to free speech.
That's crazy because it's like saying "I robbed a bank because lyrics in a rap song told me too". Does Roca Labs make any sense and are they serious?
First of all, just because Roca Labs has it written that you cannot post negative comments about its products after you purchase them, doesn't mean that Roca Labs has a leg to stand on. Any court in this country, on this planet, would laugh Roca Labs out of their court for being so restrictive on consumers in the first place. Why? Because that violates an individual's first amendment right to free speech. Roca cannot claim that your purchase of their product prevents you from speaking negatively about their company. After all, if that were true, then why aren't they suing the Better Business Bureau?
I don't even see this passing the laugh test with any competent court because any judge in this country would dismiss any such lawsuit before it could even get put on the docket.
Aereo has never agreed to pay for any transmission fees, which is what the cable broadcasters wanted them to do. Aereo stuck their noses up at the cable industry and thought that since it was being broadcasted over free spectrum that they could capture and retransmit that content without paying for it.
Aereo did nothing but stick its nose up in the air to those who owned that content. ABC, CBS, NBC ... they wanted payment from Aereo for retransmitting that content but Aereo refused to compensate those networks.
Aereo is attempting to borrow elements from Column A, Column B and Column C and trying to claim that it's a cable company by borrowing ideas from every column in order to come up with something entirely different.
Online streaming services cannot claim they are a cable company because that's not how cable companies work as cable companies have to pay for transmission rights from the studios who own that content.
And Aereo has tried to get away with not paying for transmission rights. I just don't see Aereo willing to pay anything for any content they want to stream. They're trying get something for nothing and that's not how the cable business works.
Additionally, reclassifying itself as a cable company without paying for retransmission rights. It's a joke because Aereo doesn't want to pay for that content. It's like a torrent site deciding to reclassify itself as a cable service. It doesn't pass the laugh test.