"The part you are forgetting is that the victims are also the perpetrators."
Forgetting? That fact has been mentioned many times, because it's the fact that makes this all so stupid. How exactly can you be both victim and perpetrator?
"Why is it OK for a teen to do it to themselves but put an adult in jail when they are a part of the crime?"
Are you serious?! The whole point of these laws is to prevent adults from abusing and/or exploiting minors. Two consenting teens of the same age swapping pics between themselves is not abuse or exploitation.
What is it exactly that you think deserves punishment here? Are you trying to disguise a moral judgement as a legal one?
"I doubth anyone on scene was qualified to say for certain that its a bomb or not."
You've looked at the photo right? You don't have to be "qualified" to know that's not a bomb, but the science teacher who saw it first was probably one of the best people on the scene to make a judgement call, and he's the only adult coming out of this mess looking alright.
It's not an outrage borne of a single indecent. This weapons-grade stupidity is being demonstrated by school officials and LEO's on a painfully regular basis. It's like they've all decided mental scarring is a good education technique. See teen sexting and armed terrorism drills for other examples.
"A briefcase that starts beeping out of nowhere could easily be misinterpreted as a bomb in a moment of panic."
A moment of panic that should immediately be followed by logic and common sense overwhelming that panic, just before a wave of inner embarrassment for leaping to a stupid assumption based on watching too many movies, and promising not to tell anyone about your brief bout of stupidity.
"Of course, it is a snippet that in full and accurate context might prove otherwise."
But is obviously didn't, since they released him without charge and apologized.
"For a site that regularly rails against perceived denials of due process, it seems out of place to present an article that lambastes in the crudest of ways the opinion of an individual who advocates investigating first."
Nice try, but no. This site regularly rails against perceived denials of legal due process. It does not say the public shouldn't voice an opinion based on the available info.
"To tell the truth, this is actually a non article, or something made up to seem like it actually is news."
Your opinion is not necessarily the truth.
"Even if that were not the case, what is wrong with a news organization asking if they can use the image."
The sheer ridiculous volume of tweets shown above show one thing wrong with it. As explained in the article, this would've been a major PITA for the recipients. The tweets mostly sound friendly and chummy, like they're doing you a solid by asking, but I'm sure these guys were pretty sick of the attention after a short while.
"They probably do have the legal right to use it anyway, fair use or not."
you sound a little confused here. If it's fair use then they have the legal right to use it. If it's not, then they don't.
"Politicians have the right to use certain parts of songs, but it is still a good idea to get permission."
Music licensing is a completely different (if equally frustrating) topic not at all related to fair use.
"This decision basically stripped the trademarks that companies and businesses have registered in their names and placed them under the protection of the first amendment so that anyone can use those brand names without having to compensate the company for the right to do so."
It's a bit ironic that you would call the judge an idiot and then demonstrate your complete confusion of copyright and trademarks. These are two different sets of laws for two different purposes, and it's sad how often the two are incorrectly conflated under the guise of "intellectual property". You should learn the difference before making any more dire predictions about the fate of poor old Hollywood.
"A consumer won't confuse it with an actual Crunch Bar, but they certainly could think that these people obtained a license from Nestle for the Crunch name so they could sell a "healthier" version."
The tiny number of dimwitted people who would leap to that conclusion do not warrant this stupid lawsuit and it's resulting waste of everyone's time and money. Why do we always have to obsess over what the dummies might think! Do Nestle really think that (a) this lawsuit will somehow educate these dummies and they'll and stop accidentally buying a Fit Crunch under false pretenses, and (b) the resulting increase in revenue will cover the cost of the lawsuit?!
"He is going after people who have unlimited data on their phones but limited data for tethering and are circumventing the limitation."
If there are limitations to your data use, it's not "unlimited". There are no explanations for using that word other as deliberately misleading marketing-speak. The word has a meaning, and they're using it in exactly the opposite manner. Why not call just call it the 20GB plan and get rid of the stupid tethering restrictions? Unless of course they're just trying to make the plan look better than it really is, which we know is the real truth.
"The article is misleading in that they are going after unlimited data users where they are clearly going after people violating the terms of their agreement."
But why are there even restrictions on tethering? From the carrier's point of view what's the difference between viewing content on my phone as opposed to viewing the same content on my non-cellular iPad via my phone? It's the same data! Instead of getting so aggressive about a terms of service violation they should perhaps realize people think their terms suck.