There are not a lot of reasons to want to prevent someone from voicing an argument you know to be false. If censoring it were somehow easier than just explaining how you know it's false, and you are lazy, maybe but I'm pretty sure that's never been the case in any lawsuit.
What is and is not offensive is 100% subjective. Redskins or left nut might offend one person and not another. Labeling words as offensive without taking context and intent into consideration is just prejudicing based on vernacular.
"After unanticipated press coverage sufficiently raised community awareness about this issue, NHPD plans for this initiative have been shelved… "
At first, I thought this to be a refreshingly honest quote. Normally they would want to claim the negative reaction was unanticipated, not that the awareness was unanticipated. He is actually admitting they knew people would hate the idea and they hoped to slide it under the radar.
But then I read it again with my cynic glasses on and realized he is probably trying to claim that the press coverage "raised the awareness" such that people are now aware that they shouldn't be leaving their valuables unattended, so the initiative has already been successful (cue patting ourselves on the back)
This "pumpkin spice" crap is ambiguous.. do they have pumpkin flavour or just ginger cinnamon and nutmeg? Inquiring minds want to know! If they have actual pumpkin flavour, they are worth more than this guy's game!
He just used the article for a short time while the friend wasn't using it, the difference between borrowing and giving and copying in this case is arguing semantics. What he did was the digital equivalent of borrowing his friends article. You make a copy of a book when you check it out of the library today.. Thats just how computers work, lending, giving, selling, buying, storing, backing up, everything is done through copies.
The friend is allowed to make copies of the stories from his subscription, but he isn't allowed to make copies for the purpose of lending them out, or giving them to anyone, his agreement likely specifies he can only do it for personal use, and, if so, that is where the infringement is.. Squarely on the friend's shoulders.