The main issue though, as much as we all understand that this is legally bullshit is that they CAN enforce their 'no medal for you' policy. So yes a company I am certain could totally get away with tweeting about their supported athlete and win whatever legal backlash came at them. Threatening the very athletes the IOC is pretending to protect, while objectively horrible, will also be effective. If you were shooting for reprehensible but effective than job done guys, congrats.
End this simply, and in a similar manner to when Euro newspapers tried charging Google to link to them. Have google sense country of origin for people from France. Pull up a 404 listing why google is not available to the French, along with the contact information for the policos involved. Let them explain to their populous why they no longer have access to google.
And, yet again, DRM will introduce many people to the world of piracy when they look into getting back something they already paid for. And once they discover quite how easy it is.... DRM, flying the flag for piracy yet again.
I'd say its an amazing commentary on the world we live in that you don't see a spin on the movie where a brave NSA agent is hunting an 'Enemy of the State' and saving the day. Clearly not the movie that was made and my version is more high fantasy, but by name alone you could easily go either way.
Flat out Google needs to simply turn off functions to France for a few days, with a nice little 404 explaining why and which politicians are responsible. The polis feel entitled up against google, lets see how they feel when a few million angry citizens contact them. If they cave this will come up again elsewhere. Show that they are not going to allow countries to apply extra territorial laws somewhere big enough to notice but small enough not to be missed.
The problem with a totally open review process was you open yourselves up to people with political axes to grind. For reference on that look up any discussion regarding wiki edits on evolution or climate change. You'd end up with similar issues on peer review papers. Having said that an open site where reviewers are somehow verified and could review anything in their fields wouldn't be a bad idea.
"You can only pull abusive shit like this if no one notices and we will shine the big look at the moron light at you if you keep this up. Any questions?" Theres your explanation, does not work in all cases.
The basic question also overlooks the economics of human nature. Given that a computer might opt to sacrifice you and your children would you chose to buy it? Even knowing its in general safer I think most people would opt for a manual car that would let them save their children over half a dozen pedestrians for example. The software may need to be passenger centric to gain market traction and make the roads on average safer even if that situation itself isn't.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Your are entitled to not have the government in any way limit you speech. You are not entitled to there being no repercussion for what you say. Go around being openly racist and expect to be shunned. Go around saying your boss is a asshat and the product of generations of inbreeding and expect there will be a response. Your right to say these things, however, is still there.
Who in fact needs 'it all'? I'm not denying, were it cheap enough, I wouldn't turn down the option. But realistically what do most households watch? 5 channels? 10? Hulu/Netflix covers the vast bulk of my needs. Frankly if the BBC would get their heads out of their asses and let non Brits pay the license fee and stream I'd happily toss them some money as well. As for the other streaming services, I'll keep an eye out and possibly swap what I'm subscribing to, but I'm certainly not looking to build up a 200 channel package and that seems to be what the deniers don't get. I don't need the 'Weather between the 42nd and 43rd parallel on a tuesday channel,' just a short list that run the bulk of the stations I want.
I would say not only should they be convicted of perjury but that conviction should be public record for future cases where said cop testifies. Even ignoring the fact that they shouldn't lie for any reason, know that getting caught will effect their future credibility in court just might matter. At the moment there just isn't a downside for them.
I would honestly say 'no' and 'yes'. Not that the owner will stop, but why risk having any future funds in any legal risk when he can just as easily fold Perfect 10 and incorporate Perfect 11? The litigant is dead, long live the litigant and all that.