How many of these applications were really undercover operations, with the officers joining for the purpose of monitoring the group, rather than supporting it?
More than you might think, but fewer than you would believe.
For what reason should the government be allowed to punish an innocent person over an unlawful act they didn’t commit only because someone with power and wealth accused that person of committing that unlawful act?
I don’t know what the fuck you just said, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re advocating for a system of law where a plaintiff can accuse someone of an unlawful act and have the accused punished by the court without any serious evidence that the accused committed the unlawful act.
The plaintiff in any legal case is required to prove their claims—especially in civil torts, which copyright infringement often is. You’re asking for the courts to do the job of the plaintiff once a claim has been made, and to do it in such a way that a conviction is guaranteed—even in cases where the defendant is wholly innocent of the crime they’re accused of committing.
That isn’t justice. That isn’t even revenge. I don’t even know what the fuck to call what you’re advocating for, other than “fucked up”.
You don’t advocate for justice—you advocate for revenge, even against people who’ve committed no wrong against those you feel should seek and have their revenge.
You are a sociopathic monster of a human being, and you should seek legitimate professional medical help for your obvious mental health issues.
You seriously believe copyright holders—including large corporations—should be allowed to ruin lives based on evidence that may not even say “this person committed a crime”.
You seriously believe people should have their lives destroyed over copyright infringement they may not have even committed.
You’re literally arguing in favor of changing the law so copyright owners—including giant corporations such as Disney—can have people convicted of a crime based only on evidence that may not even prove what the accuser says it proves.
what the actual godforsaken fuck is wrong with you
Rewrite the whole of the law because it is based on a religious ceremony!
No, it’s based on a concept (monogamous committed relationships recognized by law) that has existed outside of religions—including Christianity—for a long goddamn time.
A logical, rational, system fights to remove every and all stains of fantasy cloud people floating in the sky, from law. That includes terms that are undeniably based in religious practice, rule, and law
You would have a point if “marriage” was an exclusively religious word.
No one—including you, of all people—should ever be punished by the legal system for a crime they either didn’t commit or can’t be proven to have committed. That system shouldn’t be lowering the standards of evidence to convict people of any crime, including copyright infringement. You’re arguing in favor of making those standards all but non-existent in any case involving copyright—all so corporations can crush other people into paste.
On the post: Rethinking Facebook: We Need To Make Sure That 'Good For The World' Is More Important Than 'Good For Facebook'
Facebook can’t censor people. Anyone banned from using Facebook is free to go elsewhere on the Internet and say whatever.
On the post: Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group
More than you might think, but fewer than you would believe.
On the post: Rethinking Facebook: We Need To Make Sure That 'Good For The World' Is More Important Than 'Good For Facebook'
The single best way to improve Facebook is to keep letting whoever handles their router updates do what they do. 🤣
On the post: Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group
Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
All I see is someone trying to justify hurting innocent people only because they exist.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Find someone else to obsesss over. I’m not going to fuck you.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
[citation needed]
Find someone else to obsess over.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
For what reason, then, should the government be allowed to punish innocent people without question?
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
For what reason should I trust any government if it is willing to punish innocent people over unlawful acts those people provably didn’t commit?
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Pointing out the ridiculousness of Hawley’s bullshit is not equivalent to blindly defending Facebook.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
For what reason should the government be allowed to punish an innocent person over an unlawful act they didn’t commit only because someone with power and wealth accused that person of committing that unlawful act?
On the post: Right-Wing Commentator Dan Bongino Runs Into Florida Anti-SLAPP Law, Now Owes Daily Beast $32,000 In Legal Fees
I read “fee-shifting” as “fee-shitting” at first, and I have to think Bongino did indeed shit something when he learned about this ruling.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
I don’t know what the fuck you just said, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re advocating for a system of law where a plaintiff can accuse someone of an unlawful act and have the accused punished by the court without any serious evidence that the accused committed the unlawful act.
what the fuck
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
The plaintiff in any legal case is required to prove their claims—especially in civil torts, which copyright infringement often is. You’re asking for the courts to do the job of the plaintiff once a claim has been made, and to do it in such a way that a conviction is guaranteed—even in cases where the defendant is wholly innocent of the crime they’re accused of committing.
That isn’t justice. That isn’t even revenge. I don’t even know what the fuck to call what you’re advocating for, other than “fucked up”.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
You don’t advocate for justice—you advocate for revenge, even against people who’ve committed no wrong against those you feel should seek and have their revenge.
You are a sociopathic monster of a human being, and you should seek legitimate professional medical help for your obvious mental health issues.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
You seriously believe copyright holders—including large corporations—should be allowed to ruin lives based on evidence that may not even say “this person committed a crime”.
You seriously believe people should have their lives destroyed over copyright infringement they may not have even committed.
You are a horrible person.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
You’re literally arguing in favor of changing the law so copyright owners—including giant corporations such as Disney—can have people convicted of a crime based only on evidence that may not even prove what the accuser says it proves.
what the actual godforsaken fuck is wrong with you
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
No, it’s based on a concept (monogamous committed relationships recognized by law) that has existed outside of religions—including Christianity—for a long goddamn time.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You would have a point if “marriage” was an exclusively religious word.
But it isn’t.
So you don’t.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
No one—including you, of all people—should ever be punished by the legal system for a crime they either didn’t commit or can’t be proven to have committed. That system shouldn’t be lowering the standards of evidence to convict people of any crime, including copyright infringement. You’re arguing in favor of making those standards all but non-existent in any case involving copyright—all so corporations can crush other people into paste.
what the actual fuck is wrong with you
Next >>