At least he didn't demand you remove the information under his right to be forgotten under EU law.
That worked so well for other people. I believe in one case that an Court ruled that while the original information must be removed, there is nothing that stops you from publishing about the request to be removed.
The quoted portion from Riley v. California is interesting. The minute by minute tracking of movement by monitoring a license plate which we are required to carry on our vehicles could be considered almost as invasive as location data of a device that we carry on our persons.
Internet Brands ("IB") knew about the pair doing this. We know they knew about this because IB sued (or countersued) the Wait brothers for not giving them notice of what what going on with Flanders and Callum (the rapists) before the purchase.
IB is hurt here by judicial estoppel, as it claims it was harmed by the failure to warn and now it is being sued for failure to warn.
I saw the historical documents about the prisoners of war in Stalag 13 who despite being prisoners, went out and committed acts of sabotage. If prisoners of war can go out and commit sabotage, why can't someone in prison commit crimes?
A settlement agreement is a settlement agreement. Unless, there is fraud in the inducement of the agreement, then it is over.
Typically in a settlement agreement, there are recitations that both side believe they are correct, but they are settling to avoid additional costs, AND that they waive all claims, known and unknown against each other.
Contact Hooters, Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl for the applications of men/women who did not quite make it. Give them the same training that the TSA agents currently have (an hour?). Let them do the pat downs.
Never mind, the complaints might increase because the pad downs where not thorough enough.
If you are not doing something illegal, then you should have nothing to hide from the police! Why not allow the recording without a warrant? What are you trying to hide from the police you criminal?
Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.
I listened to the oral arguments in e360insight v. Spamhaus and his questions/comments did comport with the ruling. I had one friend who practices in the 1st circuit and does quite a bit of appeal work find that sometimes the winning party gets the harder questioning. So, you can't tell.
In reading the comments about Posner, I was thinking that Posner might have been a bit of tongue in cheek about the argument of if they are allowed to do it, then they might do it.