I read it as ", then don't take naked pictures of yourself. and place them willingly on the unsecured internet"
With that implied addendum it is definitely not victim blaming.
Without it, well yes it is skirting on victim blaming.
And though it is an action, (as is the action of writing and voicing something) it's a form of speech since you are conveying a communication to others. Speech doesn't have to be specifically verbal or written.
Becasue posting an image that YOU took of your significant other in the all together whilst repugnant and morally wrong is quite legal since you own the photo and copyright and they agreed to you taking the photo.
If you can prove that they took the photo without your knowledge in a private setting well that's harassment (different law). If the person photographed was a minor, again different criminal already in place law. If the photos were hacked (unauthorised access) again thats a seperate criminal already in place criminal law.
There is NOTHING inherently illegal about posting your own photos that you took online. Though it could be unlawful.
Australia (my home) is currently going through this at moment since a whole lot of photos were posted to 8chan after a phone hack occured. Most idiots are victim blaming, but the other side are trying to ask for new laws that would have so much chilling effect its unreal. It's a real problem but ad hoc measures like Google is NOT the correct way of doing things
And America wonders when they try to spout that they are a democracy with due process laws that people in EVERY part of the world point at your Star Chamber/Kangaroo Court (Call it a Grand jury if you will) and laugh hilariously!
It's also why Grand Jury indictments from The USA hold no weight in English Rule law countries
No defamation is an absolutely different beast then "right of reputation".
The right of reputation is specifically designed to bypass defamation defenses so that people cannot voice there opinions or present factual evidence of proven past events that the person did and does not want anyone to remember. It's a tool to rewrite history for those who have the wherewithal (money, power, influence) and cannot stand that the peons now have a platform to remember things by.
It is NOT about defamation and has no bearing on the histrionics of defamation actions.
Wow you can cut&paste but cannot read the actual tl;dr summary at the top of the article (under the title and above the byline) that Glyn writes.
The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future.
It seems you have no idea how courts are influenced by other court decisions, especially a decision by a major court like this both in the EU, US, Oceania etc. And like most people who stick there heads in the sand you are cherry picking your quotes.
PS: I'm Aussie so calling me US-Centric want wash either.
The Bill is ONLY in it's first reading and this is a report by the senate committee on recommendations. In fact the Copyright industry is NOT happy in the recommendations that the Senate has requested, namely:
* That a specific cost analysis is done in two years time * That it STAYS within the purview of the Federal Court of Australia ONLY (This is a BIG plus and stops any tom dick or MPAA going to any federal circuit court in the country! they have to go to the one ONLY) * That costs will be set by the court (and the FCA is very cost aware and will most likely err on the side of the ISP due to our equity structures) * That order are to be published and show on landing pages as well what order etc. * That all Federal court rules especially ones including those allowing interested parties (interveners or amicus curiae) are upheld. * that the definition of 'facilitate' is clarified specifically in this context not something the MPAA wanted at all) * And that the court is allowed full discretion in it's inherent right to appoint an outside (court appointed) expert into such things as feasibility and whether each case by case basis is actually plausible. * plus a few other minor things.
Though a major change in the original bill that the Senate is proposing that I do not particularly like is the removal of 'must' to 'may' in what matters the court should take into account. The courts wont like that either. Judges hate ambiguity and too much discretion on these sensitive matters since it is guaranteed that it will then go to appeal. Though luckily that will then cost the Licensee/rightholder more then LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
I was trying to make things simple for this forum. Though yes other than for 'serious misconduct' which is defined in the regulations a serious of written warnings (3 maximum) need to be given with all procedural fairness being given to the employee.
This is even moreso if the company does over a certain amount of turnover per annum and even more if they have over x number of employees. The fines are astronomical and can be cause to pierce the corporate veil and criminally charge (and fine) the company directors.
There has always been a 30day 'at will' (though again with major caveats) period too. Though 90 days is a bit too long I personally believe. Contracts with 1 days notice for employment are moot and are therefore unlawful/unenforceable contracts.
NZ & Aust employement laws are pretty similar due to the Union movement in both Countries and other similarities.
Re: Re: Re: Even if he IS an employee, how's he eligible?
Weird.... and very serfdom like.
Though a question. Who decides what is and isn't misconduct? Is it specific things or very arbitrary and who has the onus? Seems to me the Employee to claim unemployment should not have to prove misconduct (serious, egregious or otherwise) and should receive unemployment by default unless proven (upon balance I would hazard a guess) by the Unemployment authority.
Employers in Aust/NZ can terminate 'at will' though have to give specific set notice which is based on how long the employee has worked at the organisation. That termination cannot be becasue there is no more work either, otherwise that is classified as retrench3emnt which comes under a whole range of other rules with HUGE payments and fines.
An employee on other hand can leave at will at any time (even if contracted though notice needs to be given) since contracts of employment cannot force someone to do something when they don't want to (that's classified as slavery. Though if that happens unemployment is still given though there is a waiting period of 6 weeks or so.
You lot in the US have weird unemployment laws/rules..
Most elsewhere on the planet if terminated for cause you actually receive unemployment benefits since if you are not terminated for cause the governments go after the employer and sue the crap out of em for wrongful dismissal (in most instances.. retrenchment is diff)
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
To paraphrase CD Projekt Red when talking about Bothlings:
“Saying out of the blue’s stupid is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either.”
You not only know nothing about the company in question, the game itself, nor the history of DRM in the last 25 yrs, but every word you utter keeps making me want to write a script that whenever your comment appears it just says "I eat paste" over and over again.
Oh and for acquiring Gwiz's moniker in the way you are doing means you are a hypocrite of the nth degree as well. In your own words, a Thief as well.
(The original -- “Saying a botchling’s ugly is like saying shit’s not particularly tasty: can’t say it’s a lie, but it doesn’t exactly convey the whole truth, either. ”)