It also recognises the important role search plays
By punishing search for playing that role.
Seriously the leap of logic that has to happen to make anyone think this statement and this law match up at all just blows my mind.
“The Supreme Court has said this attack is okay because there are certain “safety valves” like fair use built in”
Which, of course, is already a problem because it’s only a defence to a legal attack. If someone hits you with false claims, it doesn’t matter if you had the fair use right if you’re out of business fighting the false claims
It's a much bigger problem than just that. The problem is exacerbated by judges unwillingness to recognize when a law should be unconstitutional because it doesn't have those "safety valves" in it. This was shown perfectly in Disney vs Vidangel where Disney's verbal arguments were literally "no one gets to decide when DRM can be broken but us". By that interpretation the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face but the Ninth Circuit couldn't be bothered to recognize that.
Nothing about that ruling implies that the state has any authority at all, only that landowners clearly have some degree of airspace over their land over which the government cannot have authority to regulate.
They're already regulated to a point of severe paranoia and in some cases blatant illegality. What about it don't you like exactly? And why do you feel they need more regulation rather than less?
There is no such thing as hate speech.
The notion that some combination of words can of its own accord be hateful is false.
Someone can say something out of hate certainly. But even that does not make the words they speak inherently hateful. It makes their intent hateful.
And even in that context, you should never make hating someone illegal. Banning how people are allowed to feel toward others is a juvenile attempt to make something you don't like "go away". It will only give those expressing those feelings legitimacy to feel that way and make the whole situation worse.
The lack of evidence or data pointing to a spike in sex offenses against children during Halloween suggests the laws on the books are working.
It also suggests the laws on the books are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. In fact it suggests that far more than that they are "working".
Sorry but sex offender registries are some of the most disgusting representations of abusive overpunishment we have today. When someone has served the time the law dictates they should for crimes they've committed they have a right to be treated as an honest citizen. And that doesn't even get in to how many of these registries are abused by law enforcement to punish people for whatever reason they want to come up with.
I think most here would agree that it's disturbing that individuals serving in the judicial system choose politics or even just their own personal opinion over actual law.
Of course pretending that that's somehow unique to the US is just silly. It's true of every country in the world, even independent of democracy. It's a people problem, not a system problem.
A passcode may be used so habitually that its retrieval is a function of muscle memory rather than an exercise of conscious thought
Talk about twisting yourself into knots to convince yourself you can get away with something.
Even if you're so used to entering a passcode that it is muscle memory you still have to engage in a conscious choice to trigger that memory. Entering the code is still a choice actively made by the user. Trying to run around that to pretend it's not an act of speech is absurd.
People usually want to blame the "new" thing on the logic that they didn't see this problem before so it must be the fault of something that has changed.
This logic is certainly sound as a starting point but you have to take the time to dig in and actually prove that that's the case. The other likely possibility is the one that most people don't want to acknowledge can be true: that the problem has always been there and the "new" thing has just made it visible for the first time.
We don't like to admit that we might have a problem. We don't like to face the fact that we might need to change to help fix that problem. So we default to finding something else to blame for the symptoms that are so clearly visible we can't ignore them anymore.
The alternative is to remove intermediary liability protection FOR those that engage in censorship
Censorship by private entities is a First Amendment protected activity. You don't get to throw that away just because you don't like what they are censoring.
fossil fuels that are largely responsible for our climate crisis
Stating facts not in evidence.
Now I get that a lot of people are going to hate me for saying this. Please understand that I am not saying this out of anger. I'm ok with disagreeing with all of you on things like this. I say this because I have studied the evidence that is repeatedly presented for this and I honestly feel this describes it. I am not ok letting people make this kind of statement as if it was absolute proven fact.
Oh it's way worse than that.
If there weren't any clearly marked signs against trespassing and this business's parking lot was clearly connected to a main road (like almost every business on the planet) it was 100% legal for someone to stop there for a short time.
There is no trespassing case. It's not just weak, it doesn't exist.
Honestly this is just an incredibly selfish idea to jump to. I don't see any chance you actually have evidence to back up this ridiculous claim.
Also person of what color? And why should the color of any person's skin have any effect on how mad people "should" be over it?
The problem is that the solution isn't as simple as that. Google needs to pull all presence it has in the country out entirely so that it can't be forced to pay fines like this. Otherwise they will start fining them for not linking at all.
The positive side to this is that imposing these kinds of insane fines moves the needle a lot closer to it no longer being financially worth staying in the country.
Back then, the US government considered the export of strong encryption to be a criminal act.
Put in simpler terms, they considered speech to be a criminal act if said speech crossed international borders. It continues to amaze me how easily people can ignore the fact that math is just speech when they don't like how things are being spoken.