khepri @ khepri @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

64

Joined

2 yr. ago

Shatner for one, who at the time was arguably still the most-recognizable name in sci-fi TV and movies.

Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.

I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that's what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren't publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that "pub" literally means "public" but they aren't owned by some government entity, you don't have a "right" to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can't take place there are set by the private owners.

I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we're out in public? And what would "knowing that you're being recorded" consist of? Like if there's a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don't see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says "cameras in use" is that enough? It's just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there's really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it's range in public.

Shrooms specifically were a weird choice for the headline for sure. But it's just another variation on "drugs make you stupid and only teetotallers have an accurate perception of the world". It's really no less offensive than if they'd gone with "only a woman would believe..." or "you'd have to be a middle-school dropout to believe...". Like why? Why target some random group and call them out as idiots incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces, when it has absolutely 0 to do with the content of the article? You'd have to be on PCP to believe this is a good way to write a headline :D

It's how authoritarians operate in every realm. No matter how fair or objective or established the process is, they will insist on playing the victim, crying wolf, and framing as an attack on "all of us" everything that might infringe on their God-given right to do whatever they want to whoever they want. It's a big part of the reason why you can't give a mouse a cookie when it comes to Nazis.

Yes, if you are certain that complying with discovery is going to expose more crimes and get you and your seditious buddies in more hot water, a good soldier like Giuliani will take the L of a default judgement, simply because he's more afraid of what his "friends" will do to him than what the justice system will do to him.

It's not easy to lose a case by default for failing to comply with discovery. You have to really work hard for the court to basically say "your conduct is so bad that you've forfeited your right to continue making a defense". But due process is still a process, and if you straight up refuse to fulfill your end of the process, and turn down the many chances to comply with discovery that the judge will give you, then this happens. Alex Jones went down for the same thing in his defamation case. These turds all think they can just buck every system or break any norm that suits them, which is why they always go down for the dumbest simplest shit in these cases like perjury, discovery, and witness tampering.

two groups of people working in the same branch of government having a meeting does sound pretty bad tbh, should probably have Jim Jordan get on that.

I think this is the right take. Americans have Section 230 (for now) that quite broadly protects communications platforms from liability over what 3rd parties (users) post to their platform about Piracy. We also have the 1st Amendment which more or less protects anything you say short of direct, specific calls to commit crimes and some types of slander/libel. It's why we can say goofy shit like "now I'm not saying you should do this or encouraging anyone to do this, but if you were going to anyway here's how:..." and get away with it.

In the EU, not so much. They have "methods and means" rules that can get platform owners in trouble for 3rd parties just posting about BitTorrent clients or providing advice like "Google X if you want to find Y" on their platform if it's smells of possible piracy. We're so used in the US to just being able to disclaim everything we say that this is a bit shocking. But talking about tools and techniques, even if you preamble with "now don't ever use these for piracy bros, ok, I don't advocate for using this advice in that way" is not going to save the user or even the platform owners from trouble. It is not just about posting direct links to pirated content or hosting/torrent sites. Maybe a point that is little-understood in the threads I've been reading on here about this.

It's almost like our made-up borders and laws are somehow at odds with the fact that, in almost all cases, anyone can access any information from any place these days, and that information is replicated and stored across the globe!

I wish other people were making this point as well. Certain content is illegal various places around the world, and I don't think anyone is saying we want the admins to risk that, but entire communities are - at worst - slightly more prone than others to having users post illegal content. If I post illegal content anywhere, sure, go ahead and remove/ban. But removing discussion of entire topics, just because those communities* might* be places where people might be a little more likely try and post such content, just isn't making sense to me. Isn't it the content, not the name of the channel, that's the issue, or am I missing something?

Yes, they certainly have to meet requirements for air exchange. And if you define "airtightness" as that, then yes, the ones that met that definition met that definition. What they are not is the common definition of airtightness, as in a sealed glass jar, steel can, scuba tank, or submarine, which if you look at the comments here was what was confusing a lot of people. I don't think anyone was contending that there aren't tests that these houses have to pass, just that the word airtightness, as understood by laypeople, isn't an accurate term to describe these homes.

They aren't "airtight", that would awful. They are well-insulated and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and air exchange cooling. The way roofs and windows and orientation on the land is usually done for western homes is just terribly inefficient for capturing and releasing heat in the right ways. Just some thick walls, a bank of windows facing the sunrise ,and some proper roof vents that can be opened when it's hot is all most passive houses really are.

Yeah, it's much more like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing than a trap. Or a "backed yourself in to a corner" you might say, or, "completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it". But it's only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a 'trap'

Well its a good thing no famous or political person has ever been on trial then because obviously no jury on earth could handle that fairly if it ever were to happen. I think voir dire exists mainly to make sure that folks who think like that never make it on to juries. Just because some people couldn't render an impartial verdict on a politician they had an opinion of doesn't make it impossible for lawyers and judges to find a jury capable of doing so. People like that exist, and lawyers find them for trials all the time, I promise you.

Absolutely right. "Impartial" doesn't mean you've never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don't live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven't heard or believe things about what they've done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you've let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It's a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge "the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can't get a fair trial!!" Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as "too famous" for justice, there is no such thing as "too infamous" for justice. And there is no such thing as "the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I've done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts."

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if "I'm too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers" was a defense?

And I'm sure that's true to your personal experience. But I hope you'll accept that for millions of Americans, we feel like one side wants to criminalize our very existence and way of life, and one side does not. Corruption aside, which I can agree is rampant across the spectrum, one side is openly questioning whether entire groups of people should be allowed to live out their lives enjoying the same freedoms as the rest of us, and that, for me, is important.