(I have good OTA reception where I am, so I'm fortunate in that respect. But even without that, having lived happily without a cable bill for 10 years, I can't imagine ever choosing to give money to a cable company again.)
(f) Resource data collected in violation of this section in the possession of any governmental entity as defined by W.S. 1-39-103(a)(i) shall be expunged by the entity from all files and data bases, and it shall not be considered in determining any agency action.
It would appear that even if you did manage to share your data with the news media, Wyoming state officials and agencies would be required to pretend it didn't exist.
Congratulations, people of Wyoming. Willful ignorance is now the law of the land.
Prepaid flipphone is obviously best. No crapware. (Very little ware of any kind, to be honest.) No camera, so no need to worry about who takes the better pictures. And little danger -- even with alcohol -- of a phone-related discussion escalating to assault.
Finally, in my previous post, I had suggested that the guy who took the video, Feidin Santana, was looking to "cash in." However, the details suggest that Santana is almost entirely out of the loop here. Instead, his lawyer, Todd Rutherford, is basically running the show and made the deal without much awareness by Santana about what's being done in his name and with his copyrights.
Thank you for clarifying this.
I'm afraid this poor guy just trusted his lawyer who told him, "Don't worry. I'll take care of everything." The same lawyer who hired a publicist halfway around the world who's now shaking down people and making Santana look like some greedy opportunist looking to profit from someone's killing. And I have little doubt that the publicist and lawyer will abandon him when the shit hits the fan.
There is another drone bill (AB-56) by Assemblymember Bill Quirk that is apparently nearly identical to the original -- pre-totalrewrite -- AB-37. Campos is listed as principal co-author (although I don't know when she was added in that role). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml
I think it might be suggesting that all responsibility for this would lie with the user, not the library. Which seems sensible. (Mandatory -- yet vague -- threatening notices, however... not so sensible.)
I'd guess the school sacrificed the student in order to appease the company that made the FCAT tests. I wouldn't be surprised if the company has some clause in its contract with the state demanding as much. Testing is big business.
Apples and oranges. Or, less metaphorically, the situation you described is based on someone's actions in the business, not on their identity.
Anti-discrimination laws still allow businesses to remove customers or refuse service on the basis of their behavior in the shop/restaurant/whatever. So your old employer would not have had a problem (unless of course the rules about behavior were enforced in a discriminatory manner).