I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
He'd free to be an asshole to be sure, just like everyone is free to call him out for being an asshole(twice over in fact given he tried to turn his jackass comments to his benefit by deleting them and making it look like the lawyer was the sleazy one.)
"You're free to say what you want" is not the same thing as "You're free to say anything you want and not be called out on what you say."
Really? This is the hill you want to defend? This world-class asshole? The person who displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy in suing someone for doing something he himself did to others, and then gleefully celebrated the person's death, followed by doubling-down on their assholeishness by continuing to sue and unmask the other, now dead person?
While sometimes things work out such that defending justice or fairness requires that you defend someone you don't agree with or even are disgusted by there is nothing to defend here. You've got someone acting like jackass incarnate, for no other reason than he can, and this is the guy you want to defend?
(Wrote up the setup and forgot the 'punchline'...)
As such any sane, 'moderate' candidate from either party would be all but tarred and feathered by their own party for not 'standing up to those twisted evildoers from the other tribe' and being 'too weak to adequately serve the interests of those voting for them'.
After all if people wanted to vote for tribe B they'd vote for someone in tribe B, why 'waste' a vote on someone that might as well be a member of the other tribe but that's too dishonest to admit it?
The fine isn't to pay for the trial, as bad as that would be.
No, this is a fine for daring to sue the police for their actions, punishment for not being a good little peon and accepting his 'bad luck', since those in positions of authority are never wrong and they never make mistakes or do something they didn't mean to.
(And of course this being Turkey they are absolutely never thin-skinned children masquerading as adults, throwing tantrums when people say mean things about them. Never ever.)
That the fine may be somewhat small is irrelevant as it's secondary, the primary purposes of it is to send a message, and that it's done quite well.
Part of the problem is that the extremists on both sides are running the show, and the 'well' of discourse and discussion has been completely poisoned by those on both sides.
If A is for something, then B had better be against it.
If B proposes something, then any good member of the A party had better vote against it.
Compromise is a sign of weakness, if the other tribe is for something your tribe is against it, even if you personally are for it, and if you have the audacity to suggest that the other tribe might have a good idea on something you'll be torn to shreds by members from your own tribe for being 'weak' and 'betraying the interests of those that voted for you'.
Even if the prices were the same streaming services would still have a significant perk that standard cable doesn't:
The ability to watch what you want, when you want.
Instead of sitting down and hoping that there's something interesting on and that you haven't missed out on too much of it streaming services allow you to watch anything in the catalog they offer, at any time, even allowing you to pause and do something else for a while without having to worry about missing anything.
Convincing people to drop that and go back to the 'I hope there's something decent on' of 'standard' cable is a hard sell to put it mildly, and unfortunately for the cable companies more and more people are starting with 'Watch whatever, at any time'-streaming as the default.
I always find it funny when people post in the comments talking about how sites should in fact be liable for the comments and/or submissions of their users, completely oblivious to the fact that were that the case they themselves wouldn't be able to comment at all, because it would be too risky for sites to allow user submitted content.
It's kinda like watching someone standing on a bridge, arguing that the bridge supporting them shouldn't exist. They're arguing against the very thing that provides them support/speech, either incapable or unwilling to understand that such a move would negatively impact them as well.
Thanks, that link is much easier to figure out than what they had. Looks like it's time to get used to a new system for the comment section, at least most of it looks fairly simple to remember, with just the links being complicated.
Theoretically sure, but so much as hint that you are aware of the term 'jury nullification' and you can bet you'll be struck from the jury pool on the spot. Judges and prosecutors really don't care for the idea that the schmucks in the jury box can overrule them by deciding that yeah the defendant broke the law, but the law and/or circumstances is/are unjust so they shouldn't be punished for it.
To which the judge simply has to respond with "I don't believe you, provide the password or rot in a cell until you remember'."
If the judge doesn't believe that you don't remember your password they don't have to prove that you did in fact forget it, you have to prove that you did, and since that's entirely based upon your word that you did...
If every judge didn't turn into a professional contortionist the second a cop became a defendant, sure. What would be a slam dunk case against anyone without a badge is suddenly 'uncertain' when a cop is being accused, with 'extenuating circumstances' and 'professional immunity' and whatnot getting in the way.
And of course the final kick to the crotch is that even if a fine is handed out it's the public paying the bill, with those actually responsible not having to pay so much as a dime of their own money, meaning they have absolutely no reason not to do it again.