So far everyone is missing an important link to copyright - when does an element become small enough not to be protected any more? Given the elaborate nature of the original ceremony, and the limitations of who is able to actually participate in it (and where), it would be extremely hard to try to 'copyright' a tiny derivative of it that is a 'simple' body movement. Kind of like trying to limit anyone using the character 'shin'.
It really, really pains me to say this, but one of the successes of the UK's 'Daily Fail' (Daily Mail) as a website is that it has a robust commenting system. Not only does it allow upvotes and downvotes (without registration), but you can sort by newest/oldest, and most originally, by best-rated and worst-rated.
It says a lot to me that so many anti-social opinion pieces and 'news' providers fail to provide even simple commenting. Whether a site allows comments or not definitely influences my desire to stay on a site or not.
Additionally, forcing people via Facebook or whatever is also a problem because it's one problem if you don't want an account there - it's another if you can't actually get on (for instance, from work or somewhere with other restrictions).
You'll see that stuff was explicitly reported as hearsay in the first place, and carefully checked with a second source, also mentioned. The speaker was not 'mocked' - just held up for having a potentially scary-sounding or scaremongering attitude, none of which was out of character for her or her job position.
Second of all, the moment the video and transcript became available, they were put up and the article amended, which is way way more than many 'real' news outlets would do, and especially the faux ones.
Thirdly, this is a news/opinion piece, not a legal submission. It used an appropriate level of 'skepticism'.
Did you have an actual point other than antidirting?
The only levels of hate I ever see at this level is spouted by the Right, especially the Religious Right, railing against the slow improvement of society and civil rights, this generation the same as every preceding one.
I could transpose this entire rant back 150 years to a Confederate newspaper with minimal changes and it would be exactly the same attitude.
As a European centrist (so waaaaay left by US Fascist standards) the left doesnt' hate "white males, Western democracy, Western civilisation, heterosexuals, parental rights, or Christianity".
We hate racist attitudes and undeserved feelings of superiority, we hate abuse of democracy and the constant rise of totalitarianism (on both sides), we hate the abuses of Western civilisation as much as we hate the abuses of Eastern, African and Middle Eastern civilisation (but we live in the West...); we hate heterosexuals thinking they are the only correct/non-sinful option [and I'm straight]; we hate abuse of any rights, be they governmental, corporate, religious or parental; and we hate religions who not only do not practice what they preach, but cannot preach accurately what their religion advocates - and also want to ram it down everyone else's throats.
We are against hypocrisy and discrimination and hatred and war-mongering and the corporate takeover of society and disenfranchisement and the removal of social protections and the destruction of public health.
This doesn't excuse stupidty in all directions, with political correctness getting tangled up in an over-litigious society, but seriously, you Americans really really really really love to live in fear - of terrorists, blacks, the gub-mint, or of not having your penis substitutes. Grow the hell up.
They can't even put in protocols for limited evacuation like hospitals use, where you can close off the relevant wing, or evacuate sideways. Or have fire alarms capable of telling smoke or heat presence or whether it's spreading.
Of course, it depends whether the movie drives technology or technological spin-offs that later have a positive effect on life - such as making 3D imaging better, more useful or more accepted, as an example.