I was rather thinking the paper would try something. "Hacking" is probably hilarious enough to stick. Maybe defamation and trademark infringement or publicity rights. They can pull anything out of a hat, apparently.
Wow, that's... A whole state gone doomsday prepper right there. And here i thought it was something slightly more innocuous, like the Home Ports program attempted by the navy during the Reagan base-closure years. *'Because most people in the middle of America haven't seen a real naval vessel with guns and things and flags'.
*Yes, that is damn close to a verbatim quote. The last 6 words totally are.
Sort of, possibly. The charitable (and one accurate) interpretation is due to the fact that simple removal of the cert itself does not get rid of it. Most will not know how to figure this out. (Even those who successfully delete the cert and don't know why theirs doesn't regenerate because they are in the habit of killing pointless services to begin with.)
Still, could be a bit of attitude from Dell in there too.
I am about having an aneurysm here over how many other people still use mail clients. I run into this in very few other places. (And, quite frankly, cannot get anyone to switch to one, no matter how much they complain about their webmail - functionality, interface, the constantly changing UI on some of them, ads, etc. Although most of them who have been around long enough remember liking Outlook Express for some reason...)
If anyone ever threatened anyone, anyone else can usually see the point. It's a bit of a given.
So you are backing up the claims of a threat with evidence, or...?
Since Ledonne isn't breaching confidentiality as the university has done (selectively), we won't find out the "story" of the single putative threat on Facebook to someone who was pestering Ledonne. But the university had previously found no threat in the communication. This rather appears to be an abuse by the president, former president, and the campus cops.
And if he was making credible threats and they chose not to press charges, then they are equally idiotic and wrong in that regard.
Regardless: Bringing up this video game and film are irrelevant and stupid, as are a number of other claims listed which have nothing to do with anything, as far as one can tell, except it seems they are trying to construct a "motive" as well as disparage Ledonne's character.
It's like if someone from the Union of Concerned Scientists got irritated with someone bothering them and maybe said something someone wanted to construe as a threat. To make that threat "credible", the police point out that this scientist has done nuclear weapons research showing just how bad the effects of such weapons are, used and unused. So, he must be a dangerous individual who is going to go all Nagasaki on someone.
Never mind that, you know, video games!
Heaven forbid the cops ever talk about these spree killings, because boy are they screwed next time someone calls excessive force on them, right?
I don't think they are so likely to change along those reasons, nor are they likely to be held very much more accountable in the near future.
If there is some back-off effect in actual policing, it isn't due to their fear, it's because they want to be jerks.
If there were a realization that they were more accountable, should such a thing actually be true, they wouldn't be backing off from "aggressively policing", but merely "policing with aggression". Which is not what the claimed Ferguson Effect is, and doesn't appear to be happening, either.
Not only is this mechanism stupid, horrible, and just plain wrong from a legal standpoint, the desire is idiotic and the results will never be what they want.
The correct thing is to make this "bad content" available to a wider audience where people can comment on how wrong it is. Or wow, throw your own official government propaganda on top. Plus, you'd think it would perfectly suit their intentions to try and scare everyone into supporting other things they want to do in the name of The War On Terror.
And it doesn't matter how a person identifies, if they behaved the same as Davis. Some Christians do not have a monopoly on believing what Davis does. Plenty of other Christians believe differently, at least insofar as to government representatives attempting to enforce their personal faith on others, if not thinking that some cherry-picked words from their book are simply odious, or at least as worthy of disregard as nearby words about wearing mixed fibers.
Davis actively interfered with normal operations of our secular government. Others would be fired or go to jail for doing the same, regardless of whatever thing they claim is the source of their behavior. Religion already gets enough privilege and leeway in this respect, far more than any other claim of conscience. (Unless it is currently a religion in disfavor, then we see whether secular law is upheld or not.)