Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.
Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.
The TOS doesn’t say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can’t waive that anyway.
What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.
The plaintiff doesn’t say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant’s menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
“Here is nothing missing, but a cat urinated on this during a certain night. Cursed be the pesty cat that urinated over this book during the night in Deventer and because of it many others [other cats] too. And beware well not to leave open books at night where cats can come.”
This timepiece is of your forefathers.
I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:
But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.
The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest
But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.
It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.
I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.
It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.
I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.
The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.
The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.
A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Not that SCOTUS is held to the same code of conduct that all other federal judges are held to, of course.
For some reason this specific graphic has always been one of my favorite parts of this movie.
Edit: I love the internet sometimes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94jIQm0YcCs
Install SponsorBlock.
A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.
Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing