Datasets:

ymoslem

/

Law-StackExchange

like 21

[ { "answer_id": 94428, "body": "<h2>Not the show you describe</h2>\n<p>Ronald McDonald is a trademark, and his appearance is copyright owned by the McDonalds corporation. That means that subject to an exemption, only McDonalds can decide what happens with Ronald McDonald.</p>\n<p>As described, you are going to use <em>Ronald McDonald</em>, not a generic clown that evokes Ronald McDonald in a comedy/horror. The most relevant exception that springs to mind is the trademark <a href=\"https://www.lottfischer.com/blog/trademark-parody/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Parody</a> exemption (and a similar exemption that exists for copyright fair use).</p>\n<p>Your movie doesn't appear to be a parody - the idea of a murderous clown protecting a burger chain is not, on its face, a parody of McDonalds. That is, it might be funny (or not) on its own terms, but it is not obviously poking fun <em>at</em> McDonalds which is the essence of parody. Obviously, your plot outline is brief and perhaps the full script is an incisive commentary on the way McDonalds is doing ... something.</p>\n<p>Further, famous marks have extra protection - works that tarnish the mark are more likely to be considered infringing. Tarnishment happens when a distinctive mark is depicted in a context of sexual activity, obscenity or illegal activity. You know, like a crazy lunatic murderer.</p>\n<p>Compare and contrast with this parody:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/jQZJX.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/jQZJX.jpg\" alt=\"Krusty Burger\" /></a></p>\n<p>This evokes McDonalds but it doesn't use any of their trademarks or copyrighted material <em>and</em> it also evokes other fast-food restaurants. The parody elements are clear: it clearly <em>isn't</em> McDonalds; it only uses as much material as necessary to get the audience to make the link; the joke is <em>about</em> fast-food restaurants: their sameness, teen-worker-exploitation, promotions, crap food etc.</p>\n<p>When they do <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD7uKwtc_FU&amp;ab_channel=superchundable\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">explicitly</a> compare Krusty Burger with McDonalds the joke is <em>about</em> <a href=\"https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/22_Short_Films_About_Springfield/Quotes\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">McDonalds</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> Y'know, I went to the McDonald's in, uh, Shelbyville on Friday night.</p>\n<p><strong>Chief Wiggum:</strong> The McWhat?</p>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> Uh, the McDonald's restaurant. I never heard of it either, but they have over 2,000 locations in this state alone.</p>\n<p><strong>Eddie:</strong> Hmm. Must have sprung up overnight.</p>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> You know the funniest thing though? It's the little differences.</p>\n<p><strong>Chief Wiggum:</strong> Example.</p>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> Well, at McDonald's you can buy a Krusty Burger with cheese, right? But they don't call it a Krusty Burger with cheese.</p>\n<p><strong>Chief Wiggum:</strong> Get out… well what do they call it?</p>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> A Quarter Pounder with cheese.</p>\n<p><strong>Chief Wiggum:</strong> A Quarter Pounder with cheese? Well I can picture the cheese, but… uh. Do they have Krusty Partially Gelatinated Non-Dairy Gum Based Beverages?</p>\n<p><strong>Lou:</strong> Mmm hmm, they call 'em Shakes.</p>\n<p><strong>Eddie:</strong> Huh, shakes. You don't know what you're gettin'.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94427, "body": "<p>Ronald McDonald is not a copyrighted work, it is a <a href=\"https://trademarks.justia.com/722/79/ronald-mcdonald-72279671.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">trademark</a>. Possibly, the clown outfit is an artistic work which could be protected by copyright. If your chosen outfit looks too much like the real clown suit, you might get sued for artistic infringement, in which case you could avail yourself of a fair use defense, pointing to the social commentary nature of your use.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "copyright", "is-x-legal" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94133, "body": "<p>Yes.</p>\n<p>The charge in that case is solicitation of assault. Usually, solicitation of a crime carries the same punishment as the underlying crime.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, if a daughter tells her father what you did to her and he unilaterally decides to assault you, out of defense of his family's honor and outrage, the daughter has not committed a crime.</p>\n", "score": 30 }, { "answer_id": 94154, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></p>\n<p>Solicitation of a crime is a crime in itself, and will be punished in the same way as the actual crime.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Als Anstifter wird gleich einem Täter bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einen\nanderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat bestimmt\nhat.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>Who intenitionally affects someone to intentionally commit an ulawful act, is punished as an instigator to the same extent as the perpetrator.</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__26.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 26 Anstiftung StGB</a> (StGB = Strafgesetzbuch, the German penal code).</p>\n<p>However you will probably not charged with conspiracy. § 277 StGB makes the preparation of certain crimes a punishable offense (even if the actual crime is not executed), but is pretty much limited to human trafficking, some drug related offenses, causing nuclear accidents and wielding weapons of mass destruction. Assault is not in there.</p>\n<p>If you order people to commit assault on a regular basis and the group includes at least three people, you might be charged according to <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__129.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 26\nStGB</a> with &quot;Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung&quot; (&quot;kriminellen Vereinigung&quot; - &quot;association of criminals&quot; being defined as a group of people who meet with the purpose of committing crimes). That also does not seem applicable to the question,</p>\n", "score": 14 }, { "answer_id": 94164, "body": "<p>In Australia this could fall under common purpose or commission by proxy. From the Criminal Code 1995:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<h3>11.2 Complicity and common purpose</h3>\n<p><strong>(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that\noffence and is punishable accordingly.</strong></p>\n<p>(2) For the person to be guilty:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) the person’s conduct must have in fact aided, abetted,\ncounselled or procured the commission of the offence by the other\nperson; and</p>\n<p>(b) the offence must have been committed by the other person.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(3) For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the\ncommission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type\nthe other person committed; or</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(b) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the\ncommission of an offence and have been reckless about the commission\nof the offence (including its fault elements) that the other person in\nfact committed.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6).</p>\n<p>(4) A person cannot be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling\nor procuring the commission of an offence if, before the offence was\ncommitted, the person:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) terminated his or her involvement; and</p>\n<p>(b) took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the\noffence.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(5) A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or\nprocuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has\nnot been prosecuted or has not been found guilty.</p>\n<p>(6) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply\nalso for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of\nthat offence because of the operation of subsection (1).</p>\n<p>(7) If the trier of fact is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a\nperson either:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) is guilty of a particular offence otherwise than because of the\noperation of subsection (1); or</p>\n<p>(b) is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1);</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>but is not able to determine which, the trier of fact may nonetheless\nfind the person guilty of that offence.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<h3>11.3 Commission by proxy</h3>\n<p><strong>A person who:</strong></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>(a) has, in relation to each physical element of an offence, a fault element applicable to that physical element; and</strong></p>\n<p><strong>(b) procures conduct of another person that (whether or not together with conduct of the procurer) would have constituted an offence on the part of the procurer if the procurer had engaged in it;</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "united-states", "assault" ]

[ { "answer_id": 19129, "body": "<p>You have no reponsibility to save someone (unless you put them in that position / were responsible for his safety, this is called owing a &quot;duty of care&quot;, e.g doctor to patient, road user to road user etc)</p>\n<p>Legally you are not a murderer. But morally, your actions are reprehensible.</p>\n", "score": 22 }, { "answer_id": 21547, "body": "<p><b>In no US jurisdiction does a failure to rescue someone constitute murder.</b> Nor is there generally a common law duty to rescue. In California, there is a statutory duty to rescue, but this falls outside its scope. However, certain other states impose a greater duty to rescue; for instance, under Vermont law:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A person who knows that another is exposed to grave\n physical harm shall... give reasonable\n assistance to the exposed person</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>(This duty has certain exceptions - like when rendering assistance would put your hypothetical scumbag in danger - which, so far as you've said, do not apply here. Penalties for violating laws like this are generally small. See <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/2012/title12/chapter23/section519\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/2012/title12/chapter23/section519</a>, <a href=\"http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/</a> and <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&amp;context=wmlr\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&amp;context=wmlr</a>)</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "murder", "duty-of-care" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93890, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>If the spouse of the US president filed for divorce, would</p>\n<p>a) the President have any claim of immunity from any litigation that\nfollowed (e.g. the division of assets in the matrimonial pot, child\ncustody etc.),</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The President could claim it, but the President wouldn't win.</p>\n<p>Notably, a number of state governors and mayors have divorced while in office, and other foreign heads of state have been divorced while in office.</p>\n<p>For example, a U.K. court recently handled the divorce of a UAE monarch (over his objections to jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds), applying the same common law principles of head of state and sovereign immunities that exist in U.S. law and concluded that it had the authority to move forward with the case.</p>\n<p>Also, any Presidential divorce would take place in state court, not in federal court. Federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce and custody cases (under the &quot;domestic relations exception&quot; to federal jurisdiction), so the civil action could not be removed to federal court, unlike federal criminal cases involving the official duties of the President and unlike civil cases over which the federal courts have jurisdiction.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>b) would all the proceedings be fully held in private,</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This would be in the reasonable discretion of the judge. It would not be a matter of right, but it is quite plausible that a judge might close the proceedings, especially if minor children were involved.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>c) could the President themselves be compelled to take the stand and</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes.</p>\n<p>A party to a lawsuit may always be compelled to take the stand, at least if no other person can provide a full substitute for the party's testimony.</p>\n<p>In ordinary civil lawsuits against the President, a President is usually compelled to testify only if an underling involved in the same matter cannot provide equivalent testimony. In many civil cases naming the President in his official capacity, the President has no personal knowledge of the facts and so can't be compelled to testify. But that would rarely be true in a divorce case, and would never be true in a divorce case where custody was an issue.</p>\n<p>This said, a state divorce court judge would almost certainly be very deferential to the scheduling concerns of the President for that testimony, and might allow that testimony to be provided remotely via videoconference so as to minimize the interruption this would pose to affairs of state and to address the security concerns of the Secret Service (i.e. the President's official bodyguards).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>d) what would happen if the President refused to do so?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The judge could hold the President in contempt of court, which is punishable by fines and/or incarceration.</p>\n<p>But a more likely outcome, tailored to minimize interference with government business, is that the Court would sanction a President who defied an order to testify by assuming as a matter of law that any testimony from the President would have been unfavorable to the President and make a conclusive adverse inference on the evidentiary issues about which the President was asked to testify against the President.</p>\n", "score": 15 } ]

[ "united-states", "divorce", "subpoena", "us-president", "immunity" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94300, "body": "<p>This is a <a href=\"https://asbar.org/code-annotated/43-1528-real-property-of-samoans-not-subject-to-execution-exception/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">law of American Samoa</a>. American Samoa is not a state of the US. American Samoans are not automatic citizens under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment says &quot;No <strong>State</strong> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws&quot;.</p>\n", "score": 9 } ]

[ "united-states", "fourteenth-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94390, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered? ... Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: &quot;Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago...&quot;?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Or is it now considered a deliberate lie?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>A judge's assessment of a witness's credibility and reliability is much more nuanced. See <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/85119/46948\">&quot;How is a judge to evaluate a witness's credibility?&quot;</a></p>\n", "score": 19 }, { "answer_id": 94395, "body": "<p>Witnesses are allowed to change or correct their testimony, especially for events that happened long ago. Memories are fallible and details fade over time.</p>\n<p>As long as the change seems genuine and in good faith, not deliberately false, courts understand witnesses can make honest mistakes. The key is whether the revised testimony seems credible. The court considers:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>How long ago the events occurred</li>\n<li>What prompted the change</li>\n<li>Was it an objective fact like a photo that showed the witness's initial memory was wrong?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If so, a genuine correction is not viewed as perjury. The witness likely just misremembered details due to the passage of time. Deliberate lies to mislead the court are viewed differently. But honest mistakes and corrections based on new information are typically allowed.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 94423, "body": "<p>A trier of fact can make determinations about the credibility of a witness for pretty much any reason that they want. They can decide a witness is lying because they contradicted their previous testimony, or because they aren't making eye contact, or they're making too much eye contact, etc.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "trial", "witnesses" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94419, "body": "<p><strong>Short Answer</strong></p>\n<p>Entrapment is law enforcement tricking someone into committing a crime they were not already willing to do. It has two parts: 1) police inducement and 2) lack of predisposition.</p>\n<p><strong>Long Answer</strong></p>\n<p>There are two key elements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Government inducement - Police must have persuaded, pressured, or lured the defendant into the crime through more than just providing an opportunity. Repeated requests, appeals to sympathy, or large financial rewards can count as inducement. Simply asking to buy drugs likely does not qualify.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Lack of predisposition - The defendant must not have been willing or planning to commit the crime prior to the police inducement. If the defendant already intended to commit the crime, entrapment likely does not apply.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The difference between a legal sting and entrapment depends on facts of each case. In a legal sting, police provide an opportunity for someone already willing to commit a crime. In entrapment, police pressure an unwilling person into a crime they otherwise would not commit.</p>\n<p>The scenario you described could potentially be entrapment based on the level of inducement and the defendant's lack of predisposition. However, more details would be needed to determine for sure. Undercover cops simply asking to buy drugs is likely not sufficient inducement to constitute entrapment.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "law-enforcement", "entrapment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94318, "body": "<p>Probably murder.</p>\n<p>Because &quot;<em>victim 2 was then shot by this man in <strong>self defense</strong>&quot;</em> hasn't been determined by a neutral third party investigation or jury - it is just his own rationale for shooting.</p>\n<p>He may not be charged, or he may be tried and acquitted on the basis of self defense, but he isn't in a position of authority to simply make a &quot;rightful death&quot; call on his own, (<em>is there such a thing?</em>) and dispose of all the evidence.</p>\n<p>Obstruction of justice would probably be the minimum charge for covering up evidence of the murder of Victim #1.</p>\n<p>There is really no valid reason for covering up a double homicide, and his actions could easily result in a double murder charge.</p>\n", "score": 23 }, { "answer_id": 94315, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>Depending on the circumstances, hiding the bodies would be either <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#_Toc536105693\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Obstructing a Coroner</em> or <em>Preventing the Burial of a Body</em></a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.</p>\n<p>The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Destroying the van could be either <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Criminal Damage</em></a> or <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#_Toc536105663\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>perverting the course of justice</em></a>, again depending on the circumstances. The latter is committed when an accused:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>does an act or series of acts;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>which has or have a tendency to pervert; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>which is or are intended to pervert;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the course of public justice.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or </p>\n</li>\n<li><p>proceedings have started or are about to start.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>_{Answer based on the assumption that as per hypothetical legal / law school questions in the UK: the facts are as stated i.e. there is no need for me to consider whether the killing of Victim 2 is self defence or not.}</p>\n", "score": 20 }, { "answer_id": 94325, "body": "<h2><a href=\"/questions/tagged/sweden\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sweden&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;sweden&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-sweden-tooltip-container\">sweden</a> An Offence against the peace of the grave</h2>\n<p>Gravfridsbrott<br />\n<em>Brottsbalken 16 kap. 10 §</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person who, without authorisation, moves, damages or treats with disrespect the corpse or ashes of a deceased person is guilty of an offence against the peace of the grave and is sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for at most two\nyears.</p>\n<p>If the offence is gross, the person is guilty of a gross offence\nagainst the peace of the grave and is sentenced to imprisonment\nfor at least six months and at most four years.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This law is used in Sweden for things like moving or trying to destroying the body of a murder victim.</p>\n", "score": 16 }, { "answer_id": 94319, "body": "<h2>Charged?</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Crimes Act 1900</a></p>\n<p><strong>Murder or manslaughter</strong> s18</p>\n<p>An assertion of self-defence would not necessarily be agreed with by the prosecutor. Especially in circumstances where it seems the accused took steps to conceal or destroy evidence and the accused is the only witness.</p>\n<p>There may be sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did <em>not</em> act in self-defence and that the killing was unlawful. If the Crown can also prove intent, then that’s murder, if they can’t it’s manslaughter.</p>\n<p><strong>Destroying or damaging property</strong> s195</p>\n<p><strong>Bushfires</strong> s203E I haven't seen it but its possible that the accused intentionally started a fire with reckless disregard if it might spread to vegetation.</p>\n<p><strong>Hindering investigation etc</strong> s315</p>\n<p><strong>Concealing a serious indictable offence</strong> s316</p>\n<p><strong>Tampering etc with evidence</strong> s317</p>\n<p><strong>General offence of perverting the course of justice</strong> s319</p>\n<p><strong>Accessory after the fact to the first murder</strong> s349</p>\n<p>Quite likely, setting fire to a van will also be an offence under environmental law.</p>\n", "score": 9 }, { "answer_id": 94329, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/westvirginia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;westvirginia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;westvirginia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-westvirginia-tooltip-container\">westvirginia</a></p>\n<p>The person may face felony charges leading up to 1-5 years in jail and a fine for each count. Even if the self-defense argument prevails and no other charges are pressed against them, they are still guilty of concealing the stabbing victim's body. Also assuming the self-defense claim for the second death is valid, the second body would not fall under this statute as the death was not result of criminal activity.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>WV Code § 61-2-5a</p>\n<p>(a) Any person who, by any means, knowingly and willfully conceals, attempts to conceal or who otherwise aids and abets any person to conceal a deceased human body where death occurred as a result of criminal activity is guilty of a felony</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 9 }, { "answer_id": 94416, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/nebraska\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nebraska&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;nebraska&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-nebraska-tooltip-container\">nebraska</a></p>\n<p>While this isn't a great match for your case it does give some insight into what could happen.</p>\n<p>In the case I am using most of the charges center around damaging the human remains as well as abandoning/concealing them. There are also issues around not reporting the death in the first place and actions taken to try and hide it.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-charges-nebraska-f330455d60aa3c01534bcb74216f8404\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">18-year-old Nebraska woman sentenced to 90 days in jail for burning fetus after abortion</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>An 18-year-old northeastern Nebraska woman was sentenced Thursday to 90 days in jail and two years of probation for burning and burying a fetus she aborted with her mother’s help in a case watched by advocates as a slew of states move to restrict abortion access.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Here the charges include damage to the corpse from burying it as well as burying it.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Celeste Burgess, of Norfolk, was sentenced in Madison County after pleading guilty earlier this year to concealing or abandoning a dead body. Two other misdemeanor charges of false reporting and concealing the death of another person were dropped, in an agreement with prosecutors.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Here show that charges include abandoning/concealing the corpse as well as issues around reporting the death</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Jessica Burgess pleaded guilty earlier this month to providing an illegal abortion, false reporting and tampering with human skeletal remains. In exchange for her plea, charges of concealing the death of another person and abortion by someone other than a licensed physician were dismissed. She faces sentencing on Sept. 22.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This shows charges around tampering with human remains.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "murder", "self-defense", "rules-of-evidence", "law-in-fiction" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94414, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></p>\n<h3>Short Answer</h3>\n<blockquote>\n<p>They're a wealthy politician with a lot of influence, and they would\ncertainly do everything in their power to rather wind up in a\nlow-security prison.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The easiest way to do it would be to have a sentence of more than twenty but less than thirty years imposed because of a very large dollar amount fraud involving a great many victims (e.g. a large Ponzi scheme). Espionage is another plausible charge that could have the same sort of sentence length.</p>\n<p>This would send them to a medium-security prison despite a lack of &quot;points&quot; from offense severity, a prior criminal record, or a history of violence, lack of gang involvement, or an absence of a prior escape attempt.</p>\n<h3>Long answer</h3>\n<p>Each U.S. state has its own system.</p>\n<p>In the U.S. federal criminal justice system, a convicted felon's assignment to a particular prison is a decision made by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, after the defendant has been sentenced by a federal judge for a particular sentence length for a particular crime. The FBP <a href=\"https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008cn.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">states</a> that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's\nimprisonment, and shall, subject to bed availability, the prisoner's\nsecurity designation, the prisoner's programmatic needs, the\nprisoner's mental and medical health needs, any request made by the\nprisoner related to faith- based needs, recommendations of the\nsentencing court, and other security concerns of the Bureau of\nPrisons, place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to\nthe prisoner's primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a\nfacility within 500 driving miles of that residence.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is quite an involved process and set of rules. And, there is necessarily flexibility in the system to reflect the availability of prison space at the time of assignment.</p>\n<p>The overall context is as follows, according to <a href=\"https://prisonprofessors.com/security-designation-custody-classification/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">a source writing as of November 2017</a> (the same source has at times had an online calculator helping people to predict an assignment):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Federal Bureau of Prisons confines 184,855 people. About 83% of\nthose people, or 154,844 inmates, serve their time inside Bureau of\nPrisons facilities. The other people serve their time in privately\nmanaged prisons or other types of facilities. Males make up more than\n93% of the federal prison population. Those people serve sentences in\nthe following types of security levels:</p>\n<p>Minimum-security Federal Prison Camps: 32,189 people, or about 17% of\nthe population</p>\n<p>Low-security Federal Correctional Institutions: 69,437 people, or\nabout 37% of the population</p>\n<p>Medium-security Federal Correctional Institutions: 55,377 or about 30%\nof the population</p>\n<p>High-security United States Penitentiaries: 21,524 people, or about\n12% of the population</p>\n<p>Unclassified: 6,980 people, or about 4% of the population</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The full federal BOP policy is <a href=\"https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a> which notes that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The review process to assign a custody level based on an inmate’s\ncriminal history, instant offense, and institutional adjustment. A\ncustody level (i.e., COMMUNITY, OUT, IN, and MAXIMUM) dictates the\ndegree of staff supervision required for an individual inmate.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The key table in the rules is below. It is somewhat hard to interpret without the larger context, but is the closest thing to an overall assignment key that exists in the rules. Basically, the left column lists a point score, which provides a default assignment, and each box has exceptions to the usual point score rules:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GZn7G.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GZn7G.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>Medium security inmates either have 0-15 points with a prior serious escape attempt or a sentence of 20 years or more remaining, or 16-23 points. But they have less than 24 points, less than 30 years of their sentence remaining, are not part of a disruptive group (read hard core gang member) and have not been involved in a prison disturbance. The circumstances that gets someone to 16-23 points are not simple to describe succinctly.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.frostbussert.com/files/cj_v31n01_sp16_folder_vasquezbussert.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Another source</a> explains the factors involved (PSR is the pre-sentencing report presented to the judge before ruling on a sentence in the case):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li><p>Voluntary surrender to custody. Where a court permits a defendant to voluntarily surrender to BOP custody for service of an initial term\nof confinement (not supervised release violation), three points are\nsubtracted from the security point total.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Severity of current offense. Appendix A to Program Statement 5100.08 contains a scale of various offense behaviors, and the Designation Manual provides a corresponding point assignment for\nassessed severity. When evaluating offense severity, staff consider\nthe most severe documented behavior, as set forth in the PSR, not\nnecessarily the offense of conviction.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This ranges from 0-7. The key for assigning this score starts at page 97 of the pdf linked.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>Criminal history score. Points are assigned based on an offender’s criminal history points, taken from the judgment’s statement of\nreasons or, if not found there, from the PSR. Scoring does not factor\nin whether the court found a defendant’s points over – or\nunderrepresent criminal history.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This ranges from 0-10 based upon the criminal history score assigned at sentencing. If it is absent the BOP will (per the rule linked above):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one\nyear and one month;</p>\n<p>(b)Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least\nsixty days not counted in (a);</p>\n<p>(c)Add 1 point for each prior conviction not counted in (a) or (b), up\nto a total of 4 points for this item; and,</p>\n<p>(d)Add 2 points if the instant offense is a revocation accompanied by\na new state or federal conviction, or if the instant offense occurred\nwhile under federal supervision including incarceration, probation,\nparole or supervised release.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This together with the severity of the crime are major factors.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li>History of violence. In assessing the violent nature of prior documented findings of guilt (convictions and supervised release\nviolations), policy distinguishes between “serious” and “minor”\nincidents as well as time relative to when the case is being reviewed.\nThis category does not factor in the instant offense and can change\nover time based on an offender’s institutional adjustment (i.e.,\nviolence in the BOP can result in assignment of points).</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The rule provides with regard to this factor:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QyLLd.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QyLLd.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"5\">\n<li><p>History of escape or attempts. Acts for which there are documented findings of guilt, including absconding from community supervision or\nfailing to appear for a criminal case, will be scored.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Detainers. Points are scored for detainers, including both those actually lodged and where law enforcement indicates a firm intent to\nlodge one. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are not\nscored. Age. Given the correlation between age (youth) and negative\ninstitutional adjustment, points are assigned, with inmates under 24\nyears old receiving eight points and inmates over 55 receiving none.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Education level. Where the PSR verifies a high school degree or GED, no points are assigned. Where neither is verified, two points are\nassessed.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Drug/alcohol abuse. Where the PSR documents a defendant’s drug or alcohol abuse within the past five years, one point is assessed. If\nthere is no known abuse or abuse more than five years old, no points\nare added.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>An inmate’s security point total corresponds to a security level from\nwhich staff determine facility placement. However, security point\ntotal is not dispositive. The application of a public safety factor\n(PSF) or a management variable can impact the placement decision. The\napplication of a PSF, which is not confined to evidence of\nconvictions, is intended to address information suggesting a need for\ngreater security precautions. Examples include sentence length,\nremovable alien status, sex offender status, and threat to a\ngovernment official. Management variables are grounded in the\n“professional judgment of bureau staff” and are used to effectuate an\ninmate’s placement at a facility inconsistent with the inmate’s scored\nsecurity level. This most commonly occurs when an inmate poses either\na greater or lesser security risk than his or her assigned security\nlevel denotes or to facilitate program participation (e.g., permit\ncompletion of residential drug treatment despite a drop in security\nlevel).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is also worth noting that the federal criminal justice system, generally speaking, deals disproportionately with lower risk felons committing white collar crimes and immigration offenses, while state criminal justice systems generally deals with higher risk felons who have mostly committed &quot;blue collar&quot; crimes, often violent ones.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94404, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>Prisoner placements are risk-managed by the <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-prison-service\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">HM Prison Service</a> (<em>i.e. not the court or police etc</em>) according to the:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>risk of escape</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>harm to the public, if they were to escape</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>threat to the control and stability of a prison</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p><a href=\"https://prisonjobs.blog.gov.uk/your-a-d-guide-on-prison-categories/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: Your A-D guide on prison categories</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Setting aside bribery, corruption and undue influences the obvious way to prevent your character from weaseling out of being placed at a lower category prison is to prevent them from manipulating the risk assessment - for example, they could try to get downgraded by:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>feigning being an exemplary model prisoner demonstrating good behaviour</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>making a show of passing on their financial/legal (or even political?) knowledge and skills by actively educating other inmates</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>One option to counter these weasel-tactics would be to introduce a sceptical character, potentially with inside information, intent on scuppering their plans. But I digress towards being off-topic.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>_{Although tagged <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a>, I have answered according to the <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic\">LawSE Help Centre</a>: &quot;<em>we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]</em>&quot;}</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "sentencing", "prosecution", "prison" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94409, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>he was arrested despite technically not doing anything wrong</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>He was arrested because there was probable cause to believe that he was involved in the commission of a felony. The arrest was legal even if he was innocent. He has no basis for a successful lawsuit.</p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "united-states", "air-travel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 91099, "body": "<p>There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation.</p>\n<p>In a <a href=\"https://www.denverpost.com/2020/03/11/colorado-swat-house-destroyed-supreme-court/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado</a>, an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.)</p>\n<p>But, there does appear to be a circuit split on the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for <a href=\"https://web.archive.org/web/20230325054103/https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-did-tens-thousands-dollars-damage-mckinney-womans-house-she-got-them-pay-eminent-domain/287-89f20e5b-84a1-47f0-9251-02eade1f99d3\" rel=\"noreferrer\">the 5th Circuit in a case appealed from a U.S. District Court decision in Texas</a> reached a contrary conclusion in a case between Vicki Baker and the City of McKinney, Texas decided earlier this month in March of 2023 in which it affirmed a U.S. District Court ruling in favor of the homewoner.</p>\n<p>The fact that there is now a circuit split on the issue increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would consider a Petition for Certiorari from the 5th Circuit decision in the Texas case, although it is far from a sure thing as <a href=\"https://libguides.law.umich.edu/scotus\" rel=\"noreferrer\">only about 1%</a> of Petitions for Certiorari presented to the U.S. Supreme Court (about 80 out of 7,000 to 8,000 per year) are granted.</p>\n<p>The key issue distinguishing these two rulings is the question of whether the police power exception to the eminent domain obligation of a government applies to cases in which the person whose property is taken is innocent of any wrongdoing and any legally relevant connection to a wrongdoer. Both circuits would agree that a government does not have eminent domain liability under the constitution if, for example, the property destroyed belongs to someone who committed a crime and has their house destroyed in the process of trying to arrest the criminal.</p>\n<p>Also, neither of the decisions disputes that police may, under the police power exception, destroy property in connection with efforts to apprehend a criminal or to prevent a crime, without seeking court approval in the usual situation where there are exigent circumstances that can't wait for the slow process of conducting a court hearing on the question. The question, instead, is whether an innocent property owner has a right to bring an &quot;<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inverse_condemnation\" rel=\"noreferrer\">inverse condemnation</a>&quot; lawsuit to remedy the damage that the innocent property owner has experienced.</p>\n", "score": 31 }, { "answer_id": 91098, "body": "<p>If the police received a 911 call which was designed to make it appear as if there was a huge danger at your home, and the police act accordingly, that’s bad luck. You should get compensation from the troll if they can be found, but not from the police.</p>\n<p>If “trashing your house” was done deliberately to cause damage, and not because police expected a dangerous situation. Then you will have a hard time proving it.</p>\n<p>I suspect your home insurance might have to pay for the damage, at least it would be worth checking. They are more likely to pay than the police.</p>\n", "score": 21 }, { "answer_id": 91105, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/texas\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;texas&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;texas&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-texas-tooltip-container\">texas</a></p>\n<p>In one particular recent (at the time of this posting) case <a href=\"https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-did-tens-thousands-dollars-damage-mckinney-womans-house-she-got-them-pay-eminent-domain/287-89f20e5b-84a1-47f0-9251-02eade1f99d3\" rel=\"noreferrer\">[ref1]</a> <a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2022/07/11/after-texas-city-refused-to-pay-for-destroying-her-home-woman-wins-nearly-60000/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">[ref2]</a> <a href=\"https://ij.org/press-release/victory-jury-rules-texas-woman-is-entitled-to-59656-after-swat-team-destroyed-her-home-while-pursuing-fugitive/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">[ref3]</a>, the homeowner sued not for damages but under 5th amendment's Eminent Domain doctrine.</p>\n<p>The Federal Judge ruled that <em>“the destruction to [Plaintiff]’s home was intentional and foreseeable.”</em></p>\n<p>In this case, a fugitive was sheltered inside the plaintiff's house and had no hostage. The plaintiff claimed the defendants (law enforcement) seized the plaintiff's house to capture the fugitive.</p>\n<p>The homeowner legal counsel, in a statement, declared it doesn't matter <em>&quot;whether the government official destroying your home has a business card from the Roads Department or the Police Department.&quot;</em></p>\n<p>While the damage was caused by the SWAT pursuing a fugitive and not from a prank phone call, it still bears enough similarities.</p>\n<p>The case could still go on appeal and be reversed, though.</p>\n", "score": 18 } ]

[ "united-states", "swatting" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93513, "body": "<p>The relevant regulations in <a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-XII/subchapter-C/part-1540\" rel=\"noreferrer\">49 CFR 1540</a> refer to weapons, not firearms, and unless you are specifically permitted, you cannot carry a weapon in your carry-on luggage. The interpretation of &quot;weapon&quot; is given <a href=\"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-02-14/pdf/03-3736.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a>, which says</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Weapons are objects that may be used to attack another. TSA considers\nan item to be a weapon under 49 CFR 1540.111 if it is created for use\nas a weapon or is so similar to an item created as a weapon that it\nappears to be, or is easily used as, a weapon.</p>\n<p>Weapons include\nfirearms, as well as realistic replicas of firearms that may\nreasonably be thought to be actual weapons. Such realistic replicas\nare prohibited because their similarity in appearance to real weapons\nmay allow them to be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew.\nThe screener has the discretion to determine when a replica is so\nrealistic that it should be prohibited. Other toy weapons will be\nallowed in the sterile areas and cabin.</p>\n<p>Partial weapons and parts of weapons also are prohibited because they\nmay be carried separately by collaborators for assembly subsequent to\nentry or boarding. In addition, partial weapons may appear to be\noperative and could be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 35 }, { "answer_id": 93512, "body": "<h2>TSA considers Antique Firearms the same as <a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-XII/subchapter-C/part-1540\" rel=\"noreferrer\">any other Weapon</a>, even unloaded ones.</h2>\n<blockquote>\n<p>CFR 49 § 1540.111 Carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals.</p>\n<p>(a) On an individual's person or accessible property—prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, <strong>an individual may not have a weapon</strong>, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—</p>\n<p>(2) When the individua<strong>l is entering or in a sterile area</strong>; or</p>\n<p>(3) When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under §§ 1544.201, 1546.201, or 1562.23 of this chapter.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Firearms in the relevant law only appear for law enforcement during duties (§ 1540.111 (b)) and the transport in checked luggage. (§ 1540.111 (c)). The Sterile area is past the TSA checkpoint.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/08/23/hawaii-man-stopped-after-tsa-catches-him-antique-gun-newark-liberty\" rel=\"noreferrer\">In 2021, TSA stopped a person in Newark for trying to fly with an unloaded antique revolver.</a> They could not fly with the gun in their carry-on bag, he was allowed to deposit the gun somewhere off premises, but it is not known if they returned in time to catch their flight.</p>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 93511, "body": "<p>Black powder guns are considered firearms, they are just treated differently than modern cartridge fed weapons under the sub-set &quot;antique firearms&quot;. This category changes how the ATF regulates them, specifically with regard to dealer licensing requirements, shipping, logging sales, performing background checks, etc.</p>\n<p>However, the TSA is not part of the ATF, and considering the extensive list of things banned from the passenger cabin of airliners, (<a href=\"https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/firearms\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">including BB guns, which are not firearms</a>) it would be illogical to presume that antique status of a weapon might make it acceptable to carry one onto an airplane.</p>\n", "score": 10 } ]

[ "united-states", "is-x-legal", "air-travel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94351, "body": "<p>The <em>Copyright Act</em> provides that (17 U.S.C. <a href=\"https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">§ 102</a>):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed¹ in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It also says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There is no explicit requirement that the work be legally produced, and there is no exception for copyright protection if the work is illegally produced.</p>\n<p>See also Celia Lerman, &quot;<a href=\"https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-2-No-2_2_Lerman_Protecting_Artistic_Vandalism.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law</a>&quot; (2013) 2 N.Y.U. J. Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 295:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>there are several examples outside of graffiti where copyright protects right-infringing works. Copyright still attaches to photographs taken that violate privacy rights: a paparazzi photographer has obtained copyright protection over a picture that he took of a celebrity while violating her rights to privacy, and a camp counsellor obtained copyright over a picture of a minor, taken without her parent's permission. A journalist has received copyright protection over an article that reveals state secrets. A student may obtain copyright protection for a painting of a minor killing a policeman, even though the work could constitute an illegal threat under criminal law.</p>\n<p>Copyright protection is denied to a work only if the work itself violates copyright. ...</p>\n<p>If U.S. copyright law included a general &quot;illegality clause,&quot; then copyright would not protect works that offend any other body of law. Such clauses are contained in other copyright and trademark laws around the world. U.S. copyright law does not include such a provision. ...</p>\n<p>[a vandal's] work can still be protected under copyright, because vandalism does not preclude copyright protection.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p>^{1. § 101: &quot;A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.&quot;}</p>\n", "score": 11 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94385, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>Short Answer:</p>\n<p>Paying legal fees for a criminal organisation is not (by my reading of the law) an offence. But if it is, retrospective legislation is prohibited in all but a few situations.</p>\n<p>Long Answer:</p>\n<p>There are two issues here:</p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Support for an organised crime group</strong></li>\n</ol>\n<p>This is an offence contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/45?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 45</a> Serious Crime Act 2015:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) A person who participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence.</p>\n<p>(2) For this purpose, a person participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person takes part in any activities that the person knows or reasonably suspects—</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a) are criminal activities of an organised crime group, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b) <strong>will help an organised crime group to carry on criminal activities</strong></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>HOWEVER</strong> it seems unlikely that &quot;<em>donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions</em>&quot; would meet the emboldened requirements at subsection 2(b) as it does not appear to be supporting &quot;criminal activities.&quot; That said, each case will be considered on its own merits.</p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong>Retrospective legislation</strong></li>\n</ol>\n<p>Generally, this is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/6?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Article 7</a> Human Rights Act 1988:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No punishment without law</p>\n<p>1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.</p>\n<p>2 This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>However, paragraph 2 does allow for retrospective legislation if the need arises. For example the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/13/contents\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">War Crimes Act 1991</a> retrospectively criminalises murder etc committed in Germany or its occupied territories during the second world war.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>_{Although tagged <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a>, I have answered according to the <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic\">LawSE Help Centre</a>: &quot;<em>we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]</em>&quot;}</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "germany", "last-generation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94375, "body": "<p>Graffiti artists are routinely found financially liable for their work, but assertions of copyright infringement by graffiti artists are vanishingly rare, so I don't know if that has ever happened in that context.</p>\n<p>In many jurisdictions, filing a lawsuit against someone waives any statute of limitations defense you may have against counterclaims filed by the person you are suing in any related matter. So, if that rule applies, a counterclaim for financial loss from graffiti could be brought in a copyright infringement lawsuit, even though the statute of limitations on the damages claim would otherwise have run. But, I don't know if such a rule applies to copyright infringement claims filed in federal court.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "liability" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94393, "body": "<h2>Sounds like you aren't sharing the same definition of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">living document</a></h2>\n<p>A prenup is simply a contract, and most contracts are &quot;fixed&quot; at the time of their formation: the rights and obligations of each party are defined for all time (or for as long as the contract lasts). This is not what I and I suspect you, would understand to be a living document.</p>\n<p>However, some contracts contain terms that allow their terms to be varied - either by agreement or unilaterally. That sort of contract would be a living document.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding, any contract can be varied or replaced with a new contract until by agreement of all parties as long as the contract is still on foot. Your lawyer may be thinking of the prenup in this way, and, at a stretch, that would make it a living document.</p>\n<p>Your lawyer's advice is sound - your circumstances have changed, and you should at least look at the prenup to decide if you are still happy with its terms in light of your new circumstances. That's a review.</p>\n<p>It most definitely &quot;is what it is&quot;, but if &quot;what it is&quot; doesn't suit your relationship's current status, you can, with the agreement of your partner, change &quot;what it is&quot;. Without reviewing it, you can't make an informed decision if the current agreement even makes sense in the light of the present. It may be that you're perfectly happy with &quot;what it is&quot;, or that you're unhappy but trying to change it would make you more unhappy, or that discussing it like adults with your partner and deciding to change or not change is a good or bad idea. But you can't know unless you do the review first.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94394, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Is his advice that a Prenup is a living document correct?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In a sense. It's a smart advice of a salesperson.</p>\n<p>With or without a lawyer, you need to understand if the existing prenup still works for you.</p>\n<p>Steps to get that understanding:</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>Read the existing prenup, make sure you understand every fancy legal term used in it and how it applied to you at the time it was written.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Identify the differences in your current situation to what it was back then.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Figure if the prenup still works for you now. If not, figure how would you like to change it, and whether your partner would agree.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>You would need a lawyer only if:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>You can't do the above on your own; or</li>\n<li>You can, and you realise that you actually want to make changes to the prenup. These would need to comply with <a href=\"https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441396.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">s 21F of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976</a>.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "prenuptial-agreement", "living" ]

[ { "answer_id": 90740, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Why is this reply not considered an agreement to sell the company?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Because a sender's opportunism regarding the bizarre contents of the autoreply preclude a finding that there is a meeting of the minds.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Could someone get out of a contract by proving that their email agreeing to it (e.g., &quot;Yes, I agree to the contract&quot;) was an autoreply?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It mostly depends on the element of authorization to set up the autoreply that way.</p>\n<p>If the person who wrote the autoreply was authorized by the user of the email account to set it up that way, the contract binds the user. This form of blind and reckless formation of contracts is an extreme scenario of <a href=\"http://www.oneclubofjusticides.com/p/restatement-second-contracts.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Restatement (Second) of Contracts</a> at §154(b).</p>\n<p>The contract might be null and void as unreasonable, contrary to public policy, and/or on other grounds. But a wide range of scenarios would fall short of warranting a nullification of the contract.</p>\n<p>(Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the linked site.)</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 90787, "body": "<p>The first and most important of the 3 conditions for a binding contract (mutual understanding and agreement to the terms, exchange of value, not criminal) prevents a binding contract from being forced on someone.</p>\n<p>Signing and everything else is secondary, Mr Poop could sign a paper contract with the same terms, in front of the President, both Houses, and all 9 justices, and as long as it was clear that he didn’t mean it, all the paper would be is souvenir autograph, not a binding contract.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94380, "body": "<ul>\n<li>You <strong>believe</strong> you know the address.<br />\nI write &quot;believe&quot; because this might be yet another level of misdirection or a <a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/10/lawsuit-how-a-quiet-kansas-home-wound-up-with-600-million-ip-addresses-and-a-world-of-trouble/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">systematic error in IP geolocation</a>. But assume that your information is true. There is a state where this happens, with law enforcement agencies.</li>\n<li>Is the conduct <strong>criminal</strong> where the perpetrator lives?<br />\nCountries interpret the freedom of speech in different ways. In many, it is no crime to use a VPN to disguise the own IP, or to use an alias on the web. But in many countries, the activities you describe would amount to stalking, which can be a crime.</li>\n<li>You mention that the police takes little interest.<br />\nIn many countries, the police prioritize specific, real-world incidents (cars being stolen, drugs being sold) over having to resolve an IP and probably getting nowhere. But it is often possible for the victim to file first a criminal complaint, and then a complaint against the prosecution if the case is not charged.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>As long as you do not name countries, I cannot get more specific.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "internet" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94346, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>They each committed both the civil tort of trespass (<a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Wikipedia</a>) and the criminal offence of Making off without payment contrary to s3 Theft Act 1978 (<a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31/section/3\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">legislation</a>; <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences#_Theft52\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CPS guidance</a>).</p>\n<p>A person might have explicit or implied permission to enter a cinema building, but the person doesn't have licence to do anything they want whatsoever in the building. When they enter an area without permission, or they exceed their licence, they commit trespass. If they watch a film and leave with no intention to pay, then they commit s3 Theft.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "theft", "trespass" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94379, "body": "<p>This supposes that the patentable concept can’t be learned form the operation of the whole program and hiding the invention while making use of the invention in public is not a disclosure.</p>\n<p>However, in the US there is a famous case</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parte Kuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>that concluded a public demonstration that didn’t expose the inner workings did start the clock on a bar to patentability. See previous question <a href=\"https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20886/would-the-demonstration-of-an-invention-be-considered-public-disclosure\">https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20886/would-the-demonstration-of-an-invention-be-considered-public-disclosure</a></p>\n<p>The answer (from me) has the caveat that this is a pre-AIA case and courts might come to a different answer under that current law.</p>\n<p>The U.S. has viewed public use, especially commercial public use, as disqualifying (after a grace period) but the rest of the world puts its emphasis on actual disclosure of the inventive concept so this result might be different elsewhere.</p>\n<p>One thought experiment would be to analogize with an article in a widely available journal with the words Don’t read the article that starts on page 19 on the cover. From a disclosure point of view I do not think that is different from it being possible, but illegal, to read.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94378, "body": "<p>I don’t think anyone anticipated that the “prior art” could have been created by illegal means. Something simpler, you printed a description of your invention and locked it into a safe. I crack the safe and publish that description.</p>\n<p>IF this counts as prior art (a big if), and you can’t get the patent, and you lose money due to my illegal actions, then you can sue me for the damages.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "patents" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94182, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>There are likely several offences under the <em>Inclosed Lands Protection Act</em> 1901.</p>\n<p>Under <a href=\"http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s4.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s4</a> it is unlawful to enter into inclosed lands (which includes all buildings) without the consent of the owner or controller. The balloon releasers did not have explicit permission and entering with the intent to disrupt means they cannot rely upon implied permission.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s4b.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s4B</a> makes this an aggravated offence if the intention for entering is to disrupt any business or undertaking taking place on the inclosed lands. Because there were 3 or more people involved, the maximum penalty is 200 penalty units (currently $22,000) or 3 years.</p>\n<p>In addition, the occupiers could seek damages under the torts of trespass or nuisance.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 94229, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>The more likely offence, if at all¹, would be contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 4A</a> Public Order Act</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person ... distress, he uses ... disorderly behaviour ... thereby causing that or another person distress.</p>\n<p>An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place.</p>\n<p>[<em>edited for ease of reading</em>]</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: CPS, Public Order Offences</a></p>\n<p><strong>FOR GENERAL INTEREST AND AWARENESS</strong>:</p>\n<p>There are a number of <em>potentially</em> related offences that I have discounted for the reasons shown:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><strong>LOCKING ON</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/part/1/crossheading/offences-relating-to-locking-on?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">sections 1 and 2</a> Public Order Act 2023 - fails to meet the definition of <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/section/34?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">serious disruption</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLIES</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/14A?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 14A</a> Public Order Act 1986 - can only be committed in the &quot;open air&quot;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>BURGLARY</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 9(1)(a)</a> Theft Act 1968 - hinges on the definition of &quot;criminal damage&quot; (very tenuous IMO)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITE</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/4/crossheading/trespass-on-designated-site?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 128</a> Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - fails to meet the definitions of &quot;protected or designated site&quot;</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<hr />\n<p>¹_{There is nothing on open source nor via mainstream media (that I can find) to say whether a complaint has been made to the police or a criminal investigation is underway so this may all be moot.}</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94377, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">offence of aggravated trespass, s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994</a>, seems to fit the circumstances on the face of them.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he\ntrespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which\npersons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining\nland, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—</p>\n<p>(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or\nany of them from engaging in that activity,</p>\n<p>(b)of obstructing that activity, or</p>\n<p>(c)of disrupting that activity.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It doesn't provide for a defence or lawful excuse.*</p>\n<p>&quot;Land&quot; includes buildings: <a href=\"https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1814.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin)</a>.</p>\n<p>My understanding is that the people who set the alarms were invited to the banquet. However, the fact of the invitation of the banquet did not give them licence to release electronic alarms tied to balloons at the banquet.</p>\n<p>The act need not be illegal in itself. The necessary element is that the person carried out the act with the intention of intimidating, obstructing or disrupting. The people who released the balloons seem to openly admit to intention to disrupt the banquet.</p>\n<p>However, I doubt there will be any prosecutions in these particular circumstances. In which case the behaviour was legal.</p>\n<p>^{*In contrast, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Penalty for wilful obstruction s137 Highways Act 1980</a> starts, &quot;If a person, without lawful authority or excuse&quot;. This is what Just Stop Oil rely on when they slow-walk along a road. They have the excuse of exercising the right to freedom of protest; they excercise their rights within the constraints so far tolerated by the authorities. Fewer people seem to be aware of the &quot;lawful authority or excuse&quot; than claim awareness of the Highways Act.}</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "freedom-of-speech", "any-jurisdiction", "protest", "nuisance" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94372, "body": "<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set everyday procedural rules in state court, although it can mandate processes that flow from the constitution. In criminal cases, this allows it to regulate courtroom conduct that is prejudicial to defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has prohibited keeping criminal defendants facing trial in a cage in the courtroom as is common in many jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.</p>\n<p>The Rittenhouse case took place in state court, over which the U.S. Supreme Court has limited authority in such matters.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has broad authority to establish court rules in the federal courts and could adopt rules in those courts if it deemed fit, and if its proposed rules were not legislatively vetoed by Congress.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "jurisdiction", "us-supreme-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94369, "body": "<p>Maybe not. <a href=\"https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/right-of-access/how-should-we-supply-information-to-the-requester/#format\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The ICO says</a> that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The right of access enables individuals to obtain their personal data rather than giving them a right to see copies of documents containing their personal data.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It might be valid to interpret the DPA / UKGDPR in a way that the relevant personal data undergoing processing in their system is the <em>existence</em> of the letters, but that you are not entitled to a <em>copy</em> of the letters. This is in line with the purpose of the right to access, that you can check what data they are processing about you and whether it is correct. If that argument holds and the data subject insists on receiving a copy of the letters, it might be legitimate to charge them a fee for these copies.</p>\n<p>But in practice:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The data controller might not make this argument and just hand over the copies. It is worth a try.</li>\n<li>A right to access founded in data protection might not be the only way to receive a copy of these materials. If the letters are relevant for legal proceedings, they could perhaps be requested during the disclosure process.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "gdpr", "data-ownership" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94363, "body": "<h2><a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></h2>\n<p>In Germany this is a solved matter:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Killing on request is illegal.</li>\n<li>Killing someone to consume them can be <em>Mord</em>.</li>\n<li>Eating human remains is illegal, <strong>even</strong> with consent of the dead.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Why do we know this? Because <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Armin Meiwes</a> did exactly that: he was involved in killing Bernd-Jürgen Armando Brandes, who wanted to die, and ate the remains of him. He currently is incarcerated for life due to the conviction of Mord. This is because he was found to have killed for his own sexual gratification - one of the factors that can turn an unlawful killing/<em>Totschlag</em> (<a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__212.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 212 StGB</a>) (~manslaughter) into Mord (<a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__211.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 211 StGB</a>) (~murder 1st degree) under german law.</p>\n<p>Consuming the remains of a human body is, as the courts found, <a href=\"https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rung_der_Totenruhe\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Störung der Totenruhe</em></a> under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__168.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 168 StgB</a> (disturbing the rest of human remains). It is not possible to consent to being eaten, as you can not give your body to anything but research or medical education legally and you have to be buried in a designated graveyard.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94355, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>If your friend has not guilty of an offence, it is not because of consent. Consent is vitiated when the accused intends and causes serious bodily harm to the other (<em>R. v. Paice</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/1k6m2#par18\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2005 SCC 22 at para. 18</a>).</p>\n<p>However, the defence of necessity <em>may</em> be available, although the Supreme Court has never directly decided this issue. See <em>R. v. Latimer</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/523c#par40\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2001 SCC 1 at para. 40</a> (also surveying the law in other jurisdictions):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The third requirement for the necessity defence is proportionality; it requires the trial judge to consider, as a question of law rather than fact, whether the harm avoided was proportionate to the harm inflicted. It is difficult, at the conceptual level, to imagine a circumstance in which the proportionality requirement could be met for a homicide. <strong>We leave open, if and until it arises, the question of whether the proportionality requirement could be met in a homicide situation</strong>. <strong>In England, the defence of necessity is probably not available for homicide</strong>: <em>R. v. Howe</em>, [1987] 1 A.C. 417 (H.L.), at pp. 453 and 429; J. Smith, <em>Smith &amp; Hogan: Criminal Law</em> (9th ed. 1999), at pp. 249-51. The famous case of <em>R. v. Dudley and Stephens</em> (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 273, involving cannibalism on the high seas, is often cited as establishing the unavailability of the defence of necessity for homicide, although the case is not conclusive: see R. Card, Card Cross and Jones: Criminal Law (12th ed. 1992), at p. 532; <em>Smith &amp; Hogan: Criminal Law</em>, <em>supra</em>, at pp. 249 and 251. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has suggested the defence should not be available for a person who intentionally kills or seriously harms another person: <em>Report on Recodifying Criminal Law</em> (1987), at p. 36. <strong>American jurisdictions are divided on this question, with a number of them denying the necessity defence for murder</strong>: P. H. Robinson, <em>Criminal Law Defenses</em> (1984), vol. 2, at pp. 63-65; see also <em>United States v. Holmes</em>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383). The American <em>Model Penal Code</em> proposes that the defence of necessity would be available for homicide: American Law Institute, <em>Model Penal Code and Commentaries</em> (1985), Part I, vol. 2, at § 3.02, pp. 14-15; see also W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr., <em>Substantive Criminal Law</em> (1986), vol. 1, at p. 634.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94361, "body": "<p>As @James K indicated in a comment:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Private law involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts and torts, (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that affects the public order. <strong>In general terms, private law involves interactions between private individuals</strong>, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: Wikipedia</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The effect of section 156 is that anyone adversely affected by a public authority's failings under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/1?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Part 11, Chapter 1</a> cannot sue: any redress is by way of judicial review.</p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/11/1/8\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Note</a> to section 156 offers this example:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A local council fails to give due regard to the requirements of the public sector equality duty when deciding to stop funding a local women’s refuge. An individual would not be able to sue the local council as a result and claim compensation. She would need to consider whether to pursue judicial review proceedings.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "legal-terms" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94317, "body": "<h2>There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion</h2>\n<p>First, it’s not clear that the document you signed amounts to a contract. For example, what consideration did the school give you in return for the permission you gave them? Providing you with an education doesn’t count - they were legally obliged to do that already.</p>\n<p>If it is a contract then whether and how it can be revoked would depend on the terms of that contract witch I’m guessing you don’t have a copy of. Notwithstanding, as a minor, you have the right to void the contract until a reasonable time after you turn 18. Even if it is now many years since that happened, it might be reasonable since you only just discovered the website.</p>\n<p>If it isn’t a contract, then it would be revocable at any time.</p>\n<h2>Practicalities</h2>\n<p>Make a fuss and they may take the photos down even if they are not obliged to. They presumably have plenty of photos of kids who aren’t you and aren’t complaining and if you make it so it’s easier to change the website than to deal with you, thy’ll change the website.</p>\n<p>I suspect their inertia is because they once paid a web developer to create the site, it has never since been updated, they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t want to have to pay someone to find out. Otherwise, why would they have photos of ex-students rather than current students? If so, an offer by you to cover the costs, might solve your problem.</p>\n", "score": 30 }, { "answer_id": 94314, "body": "<p>The first question is, is the school required to obtain your consent. The answer is highly jurisdiction-dependent. California is very protective of the individual's personality right and there are specific statutes that define this right. Alaska does not recognize &quot;right of publicity&quot; even on common law grounds, but Ohio does recognize a common law right of publicity. Idaho recognizes a general right of privacy, but no published ruling has recognized a right of publicity that would require consent to photograph a person in a public place.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=63.60&amp;full=true\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Washington</a> statutorily recognizes the right of publicity. That right is &quot;freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by contract or inter vivos transfer&quot;. However, permission is not required in case of &quot;matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire, and parody&quot;. Therefore defendants could argue that permission is not required. If we assume that there was contractual licencing of the right of publicity, the question is whether the contract can not be repudiated. <a href=\"https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.28.030\" rel=\"noreferrer\">RCW 26.28.030</a> says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A minor is bound, not only by contracts for necessaries, but also by\nhis or her other contracts, unless he or she disaffirms them within a\nreasonable time after he or she attains his or her majority, and\nrestores to the other party all money and property received by him or\nher by virtue of the contract, and remaining within his or her control\nat any time after his or her attaining his or her majority.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You could have repudiated that agreement some years ago, but that reasonable time has passed.</p>\n", "score": 14 }, { "answer_id": 94312, "body": "<p>Depending on jurisdiction, the right to any picture of you may be yours. Some countries allow taking and publishing pictures of you, as long as you are in public or on the picture taker's private property.</p>\n<p>However, you explicitly gave them permission to take pictures and use your pictures.</p>\n<p>Assuming they do indeed show you on school ground doing school activities, there is little you can do.</p>\n<p>The only option you may have is your age when signing. You said it was in school, so if you were very young, you may have a case where your consent is actually not valid, because you were to young to realize what that specific thing you signed meant.</p>\n<p>To find out whether this might be a loophole, contact a local lawyer that knows your jurisdiction's age restrictions on consenting to specific things and tell them the details including your age at the time this was signed.</p>\n<p>On the &quot;technically not about the law, but still a solution&quot; side, you can have that lawyer write the school a letter. Sometimes, a lawyer's letterhead on a real piece of paper does way more than any legal construct or email that may come in. They may not want to find out whether they are right, when avoiding legal problems can be as easy as removing a picture.</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 94353, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>They declined, citing the document that everyone signs.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Ask to see their copy of the release that you signed. Since this was some number of years ago, I'd wager that they don't actually have it. If they don't have a signed release form, then they can't claim that as the basis to use your photo. &quot;Trust us, you signed a release at one point&quot; isn't a legally-valid argument.</p>\n<p>If they <em>can</em> somehow produce the release form, it should have a date on it. You'll be able to calculate your exact age at that time and evaluate whether you were legally capable of entering into that sort of contract according to the laws of your particular locale (typically 18 in the US).</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94357, "body": "<p>At least in the United States, <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">False Light</a></em> is a tort (claim) you can make. Unlike defamation, the statements are factual, but portray a misleading impression of the person.</p>\n<p>So if they are representing you in a cringe way, you could have a cause for action.</p>\n<p>Note that they would have a defense if you are actually cringe. :)</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law", "gdpr", "privacy", "ccpa", "coppa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94348, "body": "<p>The <a href=\"https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">statutory instrument search site</a> allows you to do an advanced search for all statutory instruments made under a particular enabling act.</p>\n<p>For example, <a href=\"https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/?SearchTerm=&amp;House=&amp;ActOfParliamentId=SmQ2LS8f&amp;LayingBodyId=&amp;Procedure=&amp;ParliamentaryProcess=&amp;RecommendedForProcedureChange=&amp;ConcernsRaisedByCommittee=&amp;MotionToStop=&amp;DebateScheduled=&amp;ShowAdvanced=true\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">these are all the statutory instruments made or in process under the Equality Act 2010</a>.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "legal-research" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94302, "body": "<p>Laws update, collectively, very frequently. Laws are embodied in statutes, regulations, and court rulings, statutes being the most stable of the three. In terms of what an individual lawyer would do, the most important is to focus on the relevant and ignore the irrelevant. If you mostly write wills and trusts, that defines a subset of issues that are important to you; if you are a tax attorney, that is another subset. If you ask a contract attorney about some highly speculative matter of constitutional law, the answer will most likely be &quot;That's outside my area of specialization&quot;.</p>\n<p>The concepts of &quot;subscribe&quot; and &quot;free&quot; are mostly antithetical. If you want the really good stuff, you can subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis. If you want the really free stuff (as generally seen here), the simplest solution is to use Google which may direct you to Findlaw, Justia, Cornell, Avvo or Law SE (unabashed plug).</p>\n<p>New is not necessarily better, and frankly, new statutes are the least informative, because legislatures often say things that are less than clear on the face of it, and will need to await either administrative creation of a regulation that spells out what the law means, or a court ruling that does the same thing – maybe 10 years after the law was passed.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94344, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Laws don't update often</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Laws update more often than you think between new legislation, new regulations, and especially, new case law interpreting the statutes and the common law. As pertinent to any particular U.S. state, it probably updates at least several times a month, and often multiple times a week.</p>\n<p>When I was a professional journalist covering a Colorado law beat (among others), some of my go to sources were for state law:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The Colorado Supreme Court's <a href=\"https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case announcements webpage</a> (it updates most Mondays, or on Tuesdays when the Monday is a holiday).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals <a href=\"https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case announcements webpage</a> (it updates most Thursdays).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The Colorado General Assembly (i.e. state legislature's) <a href=\"http://leg.colorado.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">webpage</a> (it updates every time new action is taken on a state legislative bill).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Most U.S. states have similar online resources. In addition for federal law I reviewed:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href=\"https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions/daily\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case announcement webpage</a>.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://www.scotusblog.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SCOTUS blog</a> which provides comprehensive coverage of the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The <a href=\"https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">How Appealing blog</a> which aggregates news reports and scholarly work and original sources about appellate case law developments.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>I relied to a lesser extent <a href=\"https://www.govtrack.us/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Govtrac</a> which provides tracking of the status of bills in the U.S. Congress and mainstream news media sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Denver Post, to alert me to new developments that I would then research and report upon myself from original sources.</p>\n<p>I also regularly skimmed posts on the <a href=\"http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Law Professor's Blog network</a> and a few other prominent law blogs such as <a href=\"https://abovethelaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Above the Law</a>, <a href=\"https://blog.ericgoldman.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Blog</a>, <a href=\"https://www.lawfaremedia.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Lawfare</a> (on national security related law), the <a href=\"https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Legal Theory Blog</a> (on recent law review articles), <a href=\"https://www.professorbainbridge.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Professor Bainbridge</a> (on the law of publicly held companies and securities law), and the <a href=\"https://reason.com/volokh/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Volokh Conspiracy</a> (an academically oriented law blog with a libertarian slant, including a <a href=\"https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/28/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-221/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">weekly roundup of notable federal appellate court decisions</a>).</p>\n<p>I also read the <em>Colorado Lawyer</em> magazine which is the monthly newsletter of the Colorado Bar Association and contains substantive posts about new developments pertinent to Colorado lawyers.</p>\n<p>I also receive newsletters from various thinking tanks and interest groups, such as the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. These newsletters track developments in the law in areas relevant to their subject-matter areas.</p>\n<p>This strategy is all well and good when you have a position like the journalist's position that I had at the time, to follow literally everything that is going on in the law before deciding what to drill down and write about, but isn't a good strategy for keeping track of a specific field of law, for which paid services (for example, a subscription to the newsletters of the trade publication Law360) are more efficient.</p>\n<p>I usually subscribe to one of the two main paid tax services, RIA or CCH, which provide updates on the changes in federal tax laws on a regular basis and provides pamphlets summing up new tax legislation when it is enacted.</p>\n<p>Frequently, practicing lawyers will only research legal issues as they come up, and then resort to paid sources such as Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis to check the state of the law updated to the minute, at the time that the research question comes up.</p>\n<p>Most lawyers are also required to take continuing legal education (CLE) classes on a regular basis, which usually contain updates on the law of the subject-matter of the class (with the specific subjects, other than professional ethics, usually left up to the lawyer in question).</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "lawyer", "legal-research" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94345, "body": "<p>There are no regulations specifically made under s.22(2)(b).</p>\n<p>Presumably that's because either &quot;provision, criterion or practice&quot; is too broad for the government to define with any precision, or they have decided to leave it up to the Employment Tribunal to assess each claim on its own particular set of circumstances as can be seen by my simplistic search returning <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions?keywords=%22Equality+act+2010%22+%22disability%22+%22pcp%22+%22provision,+criterion+or+practice%22+&amp;tribunal_decision_country%5B%5D=england-and-wales\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1,500+ potentially relevant hits</a>.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "discrimination", "regulations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94341, "body": "<p><strong>When do you have to file form L-4?</strong></p>\n<p>When one of the conditions for <a href=\"https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/other_forms/inheritance/itl4.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Form L-4</a> <em>Affidavit Requesting Preliminary Waivers: Resident Decedents</em> are met:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>A complete Inheritance or Estate Tax return cannot be completed yet; or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>All beneficiaries are Class A, but estate does not qualify to use Form L-8</strong>; or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>All beneficiaries are Class E, or Class E and Class A.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For awareness, Form <a href=\"https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/other_forms/inheritance/itl8.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">L-8</a> <em>Affidavit for Non-Real Estate Investments: Resident Decedents</em> is for the release of:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>New Jersey bank accounts;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Stock in New Jersey corporations;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Brokerage accounts; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>New Jersey investment bonds.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>NB, L-8 cannot be used for real estate, which requires <a href=\"https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/other_forms/inheritance/itl9.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Form L-9</a> <em>Affidavit for Real Property Tax Waiver Resident Decedent</em></p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "tax-law", "new-jersey", "trusts-and-estates" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94332, "body": "<p>It depends on the warranty itself. <a href=\"https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/thinkcentre_pdf/l505-0010-03_en_update.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Here</a> is one warranty, which only protects against manufacturing defects and excludes any software issues (whether pre-installed or user-installed). I'm a little surprised that a manufacturer is willing to include someone else's software under their warranty. This also excludes</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident,\nmodification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural\ndisasters, power surges, improper maintenance, or use not in\naccordance with product information materials</p>\n<p>failure of, or damage caused by, any third party products, including\nthose that X may provide or integrate into the X product at your\nrequest</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This does not say &quot;If you change the OS, you void the warranty&quot;. But, if you change the OS and that causes hardware damage, that voids the warranty. The next question is, what evidence do you have that the problem is a manufacturing problem rather than a consequence of changing the OS. They would have to answer the same question in court.</p>\n<p>It is legally absurd to claim that you have to prove that it is logically impossible that you contributed to the problem, you only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence, when you take them to court. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a claim. You claim that the product was defective, now you must prove it. But you don't have to prove it to the standard of absolute ccertainty.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94337, "body": "<h2>Consumer Guarantees</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>Irrespective of the existence of any warranty, there is a statutory <a href=\"https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">guarantee</a> that goods sold to a consumer are, among other things, of acceptable quality and durability. That is, it must last for a reasonable time considering the nature of the good, the price of the good, statements made by the retailer or manufacturer, and any other circumstances.</p>\n<p>For a “mid range laptop”, a reasonable time would be 2 or 3 years.</p>\n<p>Now, if a good is used abnormally, then that may reduce what is a reasonable time. However, using a different operating system would not normally be abnormal use.</p>\n<p>However, the operating system does tell the hardware what to do. It could, for example, disable a CPU fan and cook the CPU. That would be abnormal use. This is not the sort of thing an out-of-the-box Linux would do - the code’s author would have to make a deliberate choice to do things that risk damage to the hardware.</p>\n<p>Where a consumer guarantee is breached, you have a right to a repair, replacement, or refund.</p>\n<h2>Warranty</h2>\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">warranty</a> is an <em>extra</em> promise over and above the guarantees. A warranty can’t take away the guarantee or suggest in any way that the consumer is not entitled to the guarantee.</p>\n<p>Beyond that, a consumer must follow the terms of the warranty to have the benefit of it. If it says you can’t change the OS, then you can’t change the OS. If you do, you void the warranty but you still have the guarantee.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "software", "warranties", "hardware", "computer", "right-to-repair" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94336, "body": "<p>According to <a href=\"http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/lawbod/2018/05/31/law-french-when-law-and-language-collide/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the Law Bod's Blog, Law French – When Law and Language Collide</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... After 1066 French became the language of the elite. During the reign of Edward I the first statute was written in French and Law was professionalised<a href=\"http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/lawbod/2018/05/31/law-french-when-law-and-language-collide/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1</a>. This led to the development of a weird little dialect called law French.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As you can see from the image below law French is a bizarre mix of French, Latin, Anglo-Saxon and whatever other languages happened to be hanging around. ...</p>\n<p>Continental French was originally being used in courts but during the reign of Henry III and Edward I Anglo-French was used to create an entirely new legal vocabulary ‘giving special meanings to ordinary words ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>^{Above from the second result returned from a web search for &quot;why was french used for English law&quot;. The first result, <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_French\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">a Wikipedia article about law French</a>, is also informative.}</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "legal-history" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94268, "body": "<p>The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the <em>why</em> that you've asked us not to consider.</p>\n<p>If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either <a href=\"https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_7_lawyer_as_witness/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Rule 3.7</a> or <a href=\"https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Canon 3</a>.</p>\n<p>If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Crim. R. 12</a>, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 94270, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>In a similar vein to <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/94268/35069\">bdb848</a>'s answer...</p>\n<p>Witnesses are called to either offer testimony concerning facts in issue relating to the indictment, or to give evidence on the defendant's good / bad character.</p>\n<p>Enquiries in to the &quot;criminal process&quot; are dealt with independently and away from the jury.</p>\n<p>For example:</p>\n<p>Complaints against a judge are investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, by virtue of the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1919/contents/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014</a>.</p>\n<p>Allegations of prosecutoral failings or abuse of process are usually dealt with in a <em>voir dire</em> following a defence application under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/78?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 78</a>\nPolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or via the court's inherent powers.</p>\n<p>There is also the possibility of a &quot;Misconduct in Public Office&quot; investigation if the alleged failings and / or abuse of process are severe enough.</p>\n<p>So no: they can't be called unless they are a <em>bone fide</em> witness.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 94278, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-zealand\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-zealand-tooltip-container\">new-zealand</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>A prosecutor who is <em>also</em> already a witness for their case can be compelled to testify about the conduct of their prosecution.</p>\n<p>In <a href=\"https://duckfiles.nz/decided/2021.09.29%20%5BNZDC%2019459%5D%20acquittal%20judgment.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Greendrake v McConnochie</em></a> I was on the witness stand in the role of a witness for the case I was prosecuting self-represented (private prosecution). However, the only questions the defence wanted to ask were pertaining to my roles of an investigator and prosecutor in the case, not a witness as to the elements of the charges in question.</p>\n<p>I objected to those questions on the basis that I was only giving evidence in the role of a witness <em>for</em> the prosecution. To no avail: the judge overruled my objections and I had to give the answers.</p>\n<p>In theory, I could request an adjournment and appeal the decision to overrule my objection, but I did not as I had nothing to hide anyway. But the precedent now remains.</p>\n<p>However, to be compelled to testify like that, a prosecutor (or a judge) must <em>already</em> be on the witness stand — on their own volition. There is no way to compel them to be there in the first place.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94281, "body": "<p>In the Scopes trial, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial#Examination_of_Bryan\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the defence called William Jennings Bryan, who was a counsel for the prosecution, as an expert witness</a>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was &quot;to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible&quot;. Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted &quot;We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So I'd say yes for a prosecutor.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "judge", "prosecution" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94330, "body": "<p><strong>Yes</strong></p>\n<p>An American would spell it as “your honor,” but yes, this is how we refer to all judges.</p>\n<p>This is simply a custom that shows respect. There is no law or concrete fact I could cite that requires this; it is more of a “tradition.” But I have seen plenty of court proceedings (mostly on TV), and I can confirm that all judges, ranging from small claims court to the Supreme Court, are called “Your honor.” (The chief justice of the Supreme Court is sometimes addressed as “Chief Justice.”) Googling articles about courtroom etiquette also mostly leads to people who agree with this.</p>\n<p>Apparently, there are some countries where it is customary to say “my honor,” or even something else altogether. Sometimes people from these countries immigrate to the US and continue using their local terminology in a US court. Although every judge is different, my perception is that most judges try to be inclusive of other cultures, and if whatever term they use is intended as a sign of respect, most judges will usually just interpret it as it was intended.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94311, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<h2>“Your Honour” is acceptable except for those who should know better</h2>\n<p>For most people in courts, calling the presiding officer “Your Honour” while it may not be strictly <a href=\"https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculty-law/news/dummies-guide-addressing-judicial-officers\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">correct</a> might be corrected but probably won’t be.</p>\n<p>If you are a lawyer representing a client in court you should know the nuances:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>“Your Honour” is the default</li>\n<li>The Chief Justice of a superior court should be addressed as “Chief Justice”</li>\n<li>Except the President of the Court of Appeal or the Industrial Relations Commission who should be addressed as “President”</li>\n<li>Federal Court magistrates may be addressed as either “Your Honour” or “Federal Magistrate”</li>\n<li>District Court Judges are properly addressed as”Your Honour Judge” but the Judge is often omitted after the first mention</li>\n<li>An acting judge should be called “Judge” but yo are unlikely to be corrected in you use “Your Honour”</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Magistrates were formerly addressed as “Your Worship” but that’s now obsolete. Basically because no one dragged before a Local Court knew that and the law was changed to reflect the reality that most self-represented litigants used “Your Honour”.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94323, "body": "<p>The Indiana constitution is phrased differently to the US constitution in such a way to exclude pre-emptive pardons:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(Indiana) The Governor may grant reprieves,\ncommutations, and pardons, <strong>after conviction</strong>, for all offenses\nexcept treason and cases of impeachment</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(US constitution) he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(my emphasis)</p>\n<p>The Indiana constitution explicitly states that the Governor may grant pardons <em>after conviction</em> and does not give the Governor the power to grant pardons <em>before conviction</em>.</p>\n<p>By contrast, the Supreme court has judged that the President may issue pardons <em>after commission</em>, that is after the offence has been committed, and potentially before the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. They can't issue pardons for crimes not yet committed.</p>\n<p>The scope of pardons issued by the Governor is limited; this power is subject to regulation by law issued by the Legislature, and (if there is no regulation giving sole power of pardon to the president) the Legislature may form a council to review pardons. The council's advice and consent must be sought. In fact, the Legislature appoints the Parole Board to this role. So the Parole Board gives advice and consent to pardons issued by the Governor.</p>\n<p>In practice, therefore, the Parole Board makes these decisions, as Governors rarely refuse pardons recommended by the Board. Generally, though, pardons are rare, Mike Pence granted only three during his tenure as Governor.</p>\n<p>References:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/iga-publications/indiana_constitution/Archive%20Constitution%20(as%20amended%202018).pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Constituion of Indiana</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/indiana-restoration-of-rights-pardon-expungement-sealing/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Guide to pardons in Indiana</a></li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 14 } ]

[ "pardon", "executive", "indiana" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94328, "body": "<p>The cited provision is:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This language originates in the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999</a>. This statutory instrument was made in response to a 1996 decision of the European Court of Justice (<a href=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61994CJ0013\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>P v S and Cornwall County Council</em>, C-13/94</a>) that <a href=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31976L0207\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 </a>, regarding equal treatment of men and women, also covered discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. The regulations were made in order to bring domestic law up to date with the EU requirement, by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The definition at the time, found in the amended <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/65/section/82/1999-05-01\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 82</a>, was:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;gender reassignment&quot; means a process which is undertaken under medical supervision for the purpose of reassigning a person’s sex by changing physiological or other characteristics of sex, and includes any part of such a process</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the idea of &quot;other characteristics&quot; or &quot;other attributes&quot; comes from the 1999 version of the law. I expect that the change to &quot;attributes&quot; is simply because the Equality Act 2010 uses the term &quot;characteristic&quot; to mean something else, as it consolidates many different regimes about discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability, etc., all of which are called &quot;characteristics&quot;.</p>\n<p>The more recent text removes the part about &quot;medical supervision&quot;, and explicitly includes people at any stage of transition. <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/4\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Notes</a> to the 2010 Act give the example:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(These notes are not binding in law but they do give a good idea of what the drafters meant to say. The concept of 'passes' is also not the most sensitive language to bring in, since trans people do not necessarily want to measure themselves by their ability to pass undetected, and may present differently in different contexts.)</p>\n<p>The example shows that someone can have the protected characteristic without having, or contemplating, any change to their body. So from this example, the other attributes of sex would include all those ways in which the man &quot;continues to live as a man&quot;. From general knowledge of trans men, that could include using a masculine name and pronouns; wearing traditionally-male clothes; wearing a binder, baggy clothing, padding in the crotch, or other ways to suggest a more masculine than feminine body; having a traditionally-male haircut; using traditionally-masculine body language; pitching the voice lower; and so on. The situation for trans women would be parallel. These things are all attributes of sex, in that our society abounds in stereotypes of what is a &quot;manly handshake&quot;, or a &quot;girly drink&quot;, or otherwise associated with a particular sex. They are to do with behaviour more than the body.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "discrimination", "interpretation", "transgender", "equality-act-2010" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94295, "body": "<p>See UK Parliament Glossary, &quot;<a href=\"https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lords-spiritual-and-temporal/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Lords Spiritual and Temporal</a>&quot;:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Lords Spiritual are made up of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester as well as specific bishops of the Church of England.</p>\n<p>The Lords Temporal are made up of Life Peers, the Earl Marshal, Lord Great Chamberlain, Hereditary Peers elected under the Standing Orders.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94327, "body": "<p>The division between these categories of peers is of ancient origin. Ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as bishops, hold an office given to them by the Church; whereas noblemen, such as earls, hold titles given to them or an ancestor by the Crown. While the extent to which either system was really in charge was greatly contested historically (can kings choose or veto bishops? can the Pope get rid of a king? etc.), both groups were significant enough that they had to be represented in royal councils. Political theory of the Middle Ages, and earlier, had a great deal to say about the power and relationships of these authorities, but the main point is that &quot;church stuff&quot; and &quot;secular government stuff&quot; were seen as two separate things, albeit interconnected.</p>\n<p>These English words &quot;spiritual&quot; and &quot;temporal&quot; are direct translations of French words used in mediaeval legal language, which themselves come from Latin. &quot;Temporal&quot;, or &quot;existing in time&quot;, refers to things associated with this present world, in distinction to &quot;spiritual&quot; things which transcend it, i.e. relating to God and the Church. These are theologically loaded words because they come from Christian doctrine, in a strand of Western theology coming through Augustine to the mediaeval scholastics and therefore into political thought of the time.</p>\n<p>Even before the present enacting formula was settled, statutes often included some sort of reference to the various people in Parliament who had given their assent. Without trying to list all the variations, a typical example is 36 Edward III c.1 (the Confirmation of Charters, etc. Act 1362), which has (in French; this and other quotations are followed by my translations):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>p assent des Prelatz, Ducs, Countez, Barons et autres g^antz</p>\n<p> by assent of the prelates, dukes, earls, barons and other great men\n</blockquote>\n<p>or the Latin of 25 Edward I c.1 (the Restraint on Taxation, Purveyance, etc. Act 1297),</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>assensu communi Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Abbatum et aliorum Praelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, Militum, Burgensium, et aliorum liberorum hominum</p>\n<p>the assent of all archbishops, bishops, abbots and other prelates, the earls, barons, knights, burgesses and other free men\n</blockquote>\n<p>We see here the classic notion of the three estates of society (clergy, nobility, everyone else) by the ordering of the titles, even though they are not grouped in the classes of &quot;lords spiritual&quot;, &quot;lords temporal&quot;, and &quot;commons&quot;. Over time, the precise composition has varied. The 1297 Act does not mention dukes, because there weren't any in England at the time. It does call out abbots, who were only rarely summoned to parliament, and not at all after the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII.</p>\n<p>The specific terms for &quot;lords spiritual&quot; and &quot;lords temporal&quot; were frequently used from the reign of Richard II. For example, the law 16 Ric II c.5, now called &quot;The Statute of Praemunire 1392&quot;, recites that the lords spiritual were examined in council on certain contentious examples of papal power:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>ce demandez estoit des ẜ^rs esp̃uels [...] cestassavoir Ercevesq̃s Evesq̃s et aut^ꝯs p^ꝯlats [...]</p>\n<p> It was demanded of the lords spiritual ... that is to say, the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates [....]\n</blockquote>\n<p>It also speaks about the lords temporal (seigneurs temporals) as a separate category.</p>\n<p>The clergy may also have &quot;temporalities&quot;, which are properties they hold according to the secular legal system. When a bishop is invested, by the nature of their appointment they immediately receive the &quot;spiritualities&quot; of the office, effectively the power to run the diocese, and <em>separately</em> are given the temporalities by order of the Crown. At various times, bishops have been required to declare that their temporalities came from the Crown as opposed to from the Pope, which is part of an attempt to draw the temporal-spiritual line in a certain place (and to deny the authority of a foreign power to overrule the king). It is also a bit muddy that bishops are nominally chosen by the dean and chapter of their see - but in fact they are required to choose the person named in the <em>congé d'élire</em> given to them by the King on the advice of ministers - but in fact the ministers are effectively bound to advise the King to name the person that the church wants anyway. Notwithstanding all of this, the bishops in the House of Lords are still Lords Spiritual, because they sit there by virtue of their spiritual office.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "legal-terms", "legal-history", "parliament" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94326, "body": "<p>It is. <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Part 2 Chapter 1 Section 8</a> specifically says &quot;People who are not married or civil partners do not have this characteristic.&quot;</p>\n<p>In practical terms, a claim for unlawful dismissal would not have to rely on this Act or this Characteristic. Many company handbooks refer to avoiding discrimination on &quot;marital status&quot;, so the claim could be made that the company had acted against policy. Not as strong as national law, but likely to succeed in absence of other factors. Single people who were expected to cover shifts that people with a family consistently avoided could argue <a href=\"https://www.acas.org.uk/dismissals/constructive-dismissal\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">constructive dismissal</a> on &quot;making unreasonable changes to working patterns or place of work without agreement&quot; grounds. And cases of sexual harassment are as likely to refer to Sections 11 or 12 of the Act as to Section 8.</p>\n<p>There appears to be some interest in this - <a href=\"https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-66-issue-03/singled-out-discrimination-for-living-alone/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">north of the border if not in England and Wale</a>s - and perhaps less jurisdictionally in <a href=\"https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/living-single/201809/singlism-how-serious-is-it-really\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Bella De Paulo's article for Psychology Today</a>, which concludes &quot;All serious forms of prejudice and discrimination go through a similar process of going unrecognized, then getting dismissed and belittled once people start pointing them out, and in the best cases, eventually getting taken seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court, the other judges did not think gender discrimination existed. ...&quot;</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "discrimination", "any-jurisdiction" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94172, "body": "<p>The only one I can find so far relates to a Brazilian citizen getting married abroad, called a:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Consular Declaration of Civil Status</em></li>\n</ul>\n<p>These are issued by the Consular Authority to:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Brazilian citizens who intend to marry before a foreign authority within their jurisdiction.</p>\n<p>The document is issued in English.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/embaixada-helsinque/servicos-consulares/declaracao-consular-de-estado-civil\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: gov.br</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(I have yet to find if a comparable certificate is available in-country, for marriage or otherwise, but none of the official guidance sites I have trawled though mention it)</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "legal-terms", "brazil" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94324, "body": "<p>So your privacy rules are &quot;nothing ever leaves the computer, and the only private information stored is the user's email address which is stored inside the application&quot;. So that's what goes into your privacy policy.</p>\n<p>Normally a privacy policy would be viewable on your website, but you can also just add a menu item &quot;View Privacy Policy&quot; into your application, where you display the privacy policy.</p>\n<p>As others mentioned in comments, what exactly is going on with that email address? If it isn't used, why is it stored? So I suppose you use it somehow. Put that into your privacy policy. &quot;Your email address is recorded so you can receive an email when a new version of the application becomes available&quot;, just as an example what could go into your privacy policy. If that's your only use obviously.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "privacy", "software", "data-ownership" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94284, "body": "<p>Seven years.</p>\n<p>See the paragraph 13 of the <a href=\"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/911194/crown-court-rrds.docx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Crown Court Records Retention and Disposition Schedule</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>13 Recordings of trials -- Keep for <strong>7 years</strong> and then destroy</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For awareness, and completeness, the list of retention schedules for other courts and tribunals may be found <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/record-retention-and-disposition-schedules\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "recording", "court-records", "crown-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94273, "body": "<h2><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/53525/10334\">Facts are not copyrightable</a> <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></h2>\n<p>Facts are not copyrightable since at least <strong>Feist</strong> Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340\" rel=\"noreferrer\">499 U.S. 340 (1991)</a>.</p>\n<p>IF you take <strong>only</strong> the facts and not the expression, then the news site can do nothing: you do not violate copyright by taking <strong>only</strong> the facts. Or as Scotus said in Feist:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As a statutory matter, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101\" rel=\"noreferrer\">17 U.S.C. § 101</a> does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h2>News contain more than facts.</h2>\n<p>However, do note that news are not mere facts - like a phonebook as the Feist case was - but have their facts intricately entwined with expression. That's why press agencies like Reuters work: They get informed of facts, write an article and news sites buy that article's expression to refine it into their style. Most newspapers buy these articles, which leads to the appearance of nigh simultaneously reporting on the same event.</p>\n<p>To understand where the line is between fact and expression, compare the following headlines from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933\" rel=\"noreferrer\">24th March 1933</a>, all regarding the same event:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set%5Bmets%5D=https://content.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/zefys/SNP2719372X-19330324-0-0-0-0.xml\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Berliner Morgenpost</a> titled their front page: Ermächtigungsgesetz mit 441 gegen 94 Stimmen angenommen (Enabeling Act approved with 441 to 94 votes) - That is merely reporting facts.</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set%5Bmets%5D=https://content.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/zefys/SNP24329435-19330324-0-0-0-0.xml\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Deutch Chinesische Nachrichten</a> titled the front page: Ein Neues Zeitalter (A new Age) - This is an expression of opinion - and thus protected.</li>\n<li>New York Times titled, deep inside, in the category <em>Special Cable</em>: <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/1933/03/24/archives/speech-of-hitler-in-reichstag-on-his-policies-for-germany.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Speech of Hitler in Reichstag on His Policies for Germany</a> - That is a fact.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 21 }, { "answer_id": 94283, "body": "<p>In <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a>, you have to consider the ancillary copyright for press publishers (Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger), specified in §§ 87f to 87h UrhG.</p>\n<p>The publisher has the exclusive right to publish their news publication online. However, they explicitly cannot prevent you from</p>\n<ul>\n<li>using facts from the news publication</li>\n<li>linking to the news publication</li>\n<li>using individual words or very short snippets from the news publication</li>\n</ul>\n<p>So yes, it would probably be possible to create, publish, and sell such a news digest, as long as you avoid lifting quotes from the news publication. You should write everything in your own words.</p>\n<p>In this context, you should review the history of the Leistungsschutzrecht, and in particular the role of Google Search and Google News. Many publishers that had advocated for this Leistungsschutzrecht ended up giving Google gratis licenses so that snippets/teasers could be shown in Google services. You would not benefit from such a license, and would have to be more careful.</p>\n<p>Compared to the <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a>, Germany and Europe has more complicated copyright rules, with lots of ancillary rights that make a simple statement like &quot;facts are not copyrightable&quot; slightly incorrect. For example, facts are not copyrightable, but databases as collections of facts are. There's also a very low threshold of originality, so that even short text snippets must be assumed to be covered by copyright.</p>\n<p>As to why copying news doesn't seem to be a common business model: it is reasonably common to report on something that was originally reported by another newspaper. However, there are practical downsides:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the news would be delayed</li>\n<li>summarizing stuff in your own words is still a lot of work (though automation is arriving)</li>\n<li>legal risks if you include snippets of the original</li>\n<li>why would people read your summary if they can read the original?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>At least for newspapers and similar press products, it is rare for journalists to write their own stories. Instead, a lot of news is licensed from news agencies, e.g. Reuters, Associated Press, or dpa. This syndication is cost-effective and avoids legal problems. The main value of a publication in that workflow is to select relevant stories and to maybe provide a bit of context for the audience. Reporting on others' stories is more common in areas that are more online and informal, for example tech news.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 94320, "body": "<p>In the United States, this would be a form of unfair competition. The law treats things that behave like property as if they were property. Early knowledge of news, gathered at great effort and expense, behaves like property and so courts treat it like property. If you use the property of another to harm them, courts may fashion equitable remedies.</p>\n<p>See the Supreme Court's ruling in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) for a case of precisely this:</p>\n<p>&quot;<em>The contention that the news is abandoned to the public for all purposes when published in the first newspaper is untenable.</em> Abandonment is a question of intent, and the entire organization of the Associated Press negatives such a purpose. The cost of the service would be prohibitive if the reward were to be so limited. No single newspaper, no small group of newspapers, could sustain the expenditure. Indeed, it is one of the most obvious results of defendant's theory that, <em>by permitting indiscriminate publication by anybody and everybody for purposes of profit in competition with the news-gatherer, it would render publication profitless</em>, or so little profitable as in effect to cut off the service by rendering the cost prohibitive in comparison with the return. The practical needs and requirements of the business are reflected in complainant's bylaws which have been referred to. Their effect is that <em>publication by each member must be deemed not by any means an abandonment of the news to the world for any and all purposes, but a publication for limited purposes; for the benefit of the readers of the bulletin or the newspaper as such; not for the purpose of making merchandise of it as news, with the result of depriving complainant's other members of their reasonable opportunity to obtain just returns for their expenditures</em>.&quot;</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "germany" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94294, "body": "<p>Clicking on the &quot;?&quot; symbol at your link reveals:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/XeqJX.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/XeqJX.jpg\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... A version of a provision is prospective either:</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>where the provision (Part, Chapter or section) has never come into force or;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>where the text of the provision is subject to change, but no date has yet been appointed by the appropriate person or body for those changes to come into force.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Section 14 was never brought into force. See <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2317/article/2/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1</a>, <a href=\"https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeqact/117/11702.htm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2</a>, <a href=\"https://5essexcourt.co.uk/resources/blogs-view/menopause-and-the-workplace-a-future-protected-characteristic-under-the-equality-act-2010\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">3</a>, <a href=\"https://www.frettens.co.uk/site/blog/employment-blog/equality-act-2010-provisions-coming-into-force-in-october\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">4</a>.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94309, "body": "<p><strong>What makes it so?</strong></p>\n<p>According to <a href=\"https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/109975/html/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">written evidence</a>, submitted by the Discrimination Law Association (DLA) in July 2022 to Parliament's Woman and Equalities Committee, the government said in their letter to the DLA on 25 May 2022 that its introduction would create...</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>...<strong>unwelcome regulatory complexity and place new costly burdens on business and the public sector</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Note that despite the DLA evidence concluding with:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"9\">\n<li><p>It is understood that the s14 amendment to the Equality Act Bill was introduced late in the day and as a consequence there was little parliamentary scrutiny. The DLA consider this should be given further consideration and with time for further Parliamentary scrutiny, it may be that the Government wish to consider not simply enacting s14, but expanding it beyond simply direct discrimination to include indirect and harassment as well as discrimination on the grounds of more than 2 characteristics.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>In summary, the DLA disagree that the administrative or regulatory burden is sufficiently substantial to justify not enacting s14. Furthermore, the DLA consider that as part of its review of enacting s14, the Government should take the time to consider expanding this to include harassment and indirect discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of more than 2 characteristics.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There does not appear to be any subsequent developments, intent or moves by the government to introduce section 14.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "legislation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94254, "body": "<h2>No, they are not exempt</h2>\n<p>Consumer protection laws (in general) apply to anyone doing business with consumers in that jurisdiction.</p>\n<p>You need to follow that law and apply to the company for a refund in compliance with the law. If they refuse, you can report them to the German regulator who may, or may not, take action against them.</p>\n<p>If you paid with a credit card, PayPal etc., once the company has broken the law, you can apply to them for a reversal of the charge. Similarly, most online platforms like eBay or Amazon will reverse the charge if you used them.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94307, "body": "<p>The EU has pretty clear rules on this in form of the <em>Rome I</em> regulation (reg 593/2008). In general, it allows the contractual parties to choose the law governing the contract. By default, the seller's law will apply.</p>\n<p>However, there are more restrictions for <em>consumer contracts</em>. If the buyer is a consumer in the context of this contract, and the seller &quot;by any means, directs such activities to that country or to several countries including that country&quot;, then the consumer's law applies. The parties can choose another law, but this cannot deprive the buyer from essential consumer protections in their own country's laws.</p>\n<p>The question is then what it means to &quot;direct activities to that country&quot;. Here, cases like C-144/09 (<em>Hotel Alpenhof</em>) provide clarity.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mere availability of a website does not by itself demonstrate any intent to target a particular country.</li>\n<li>However, other factors might be evidence of an intention to target customers in that country:\n<ul>\n<li>mentioning that country by name, e.g. &quot;free shipping to Germany&quot;</li>\n<li>running online ad campaigns that target people in that country</li>\n<li>not targeting that country specifically, but targeting an international clientele</li>\n<li>using the language or the currency of the targeted country (e.g. accepting payment in EUR rather than CNY)</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>This means your hunch here is 100% correct, as far as European rules on consumer contracts are concerned:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>I was under the impression (but I might be mixing it up with GDPR) that if an online seller advertises their products to customers in Germany, those laws would apply, even if the seller is outside the EU.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Having rights is different from being able to enforce them, though. For easier enforcement, it makes sense to prefer contracting with sellers that</p>\n<ul>\n<li>are established within the EU, and/or</li>\n<li>sell via a platform that provides a non-judicial enforcement mechanism.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>You mentioned the GDPR. There is a direct connection here in that the GDPR applies to non-EU data controllers if they offer goods or services to people who are in Europe. The EDPB interprets this territorial scope to be aligned with the Rome I and Alpenhof criteria.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "internet", "european-union", "germany" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94304, "body": "<p>Disposal of premises is explained by the interpretation of Part 4 at <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/38?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 38</a> which includes:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(3) A reference to disposing of premises includes, in the case of premises subject to a tenancy, a reference to—</p>\n<p>(a)assigning the premises,</p>\n<p>(b)sub-letting them, or</p>\n<p>(c)parting with possession of them.</p>\n<p>(4) A reference to disposing of premises also includes a reference to granting a right to occupy them</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The supporting <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/4/7\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Notes</a> include this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>This section explains what is meant by terms used in this Part. In particular it sets out the kinds of property transactions meant by “disposing of premises” in the case of premises which are subject to a tenancy...</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "definition", "interpretation", "equality-act-2010" ]

[ { "answer_id": 87949, "body": "<p>A business has the right to refuse service, except in the case of unlawful discrimination. &quot;Sued us&quot; is not a protected characteristic.</p>\n<p>Unless part of the settlement was that the business must serve that customer in future, there is no way this could be considered contempt.</p>\n", "score": 28 }, { "answer_id": 87999, "body": "<p><strong>It depends</strong>. I think it would turn sharply on a couple of things.</p>\n<h2>The underlying reason for the suit</h2>\n<p>Let us suppose that the business is a lumberyard that sells the customer roof trusses. The insurer has a problem with the trusses for complex engineering reasons: the store says the customer misapplied perfectly good product. Yes, that lumberyard can be expected to &quot;86&quot; that customer (at least, as regards to selling them engineered products LOL.)</p>\n<p>However. If the suit is &quot;you refused to sell trusses to me <strong>because I am Irish</strong>&quot;, that is a horse of a different color and should rapidly result in a ruling that &quot;you can't refuse service for that reason&quot;. If the shop could simply change the reason to &quot;you sued me&quot;, that would utterly defeat the ruling <em>and civil-protection law generally</em> - so yeah, that would be a &quot;contempt of court&quot; scenario.</p>\n<h2>Alternative sources for that thing</h2>\n<p>This was also trotted out in the <a href=\"https://abcnews.go.com/Business/indiana-pizza-restaurant-cater-gay-wedding-supports-religious/story?id=30045085\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Memories Pizza affair</a>. &quot;We're not the only pizzeria in town&quot;. (well there's ONE other in town; all others are at least a 25 minute drive).</p>\n<p>The argument is the customer has a variety of alternative sources so they don't need <em>this one</em>. Versus the customer saying &quot;No, I really don't&quot;.</p>\n<p>But again, this turns on the facts and circumstances. If you're in a protected class, the business really can't turn you away on that basis. (imagine if businesses in the US rural south were able to turn away minorities on the basis of &quot;you have many other choices. In reality, if every business does that, you'd have no choice and it would be a lie.)</p>\n<p>I could also see this appearing in Right to Repair litigation. Manufacturers are often the only source for repair parts (e.g. because the are a vertical manufacturer or it contains propriety embedded software)... if a manufacturer litigated to stop a 3rd party repair shop from servicing their equipment, <em>and lost</em>, courts would take a dim view of the company then refusin to sell repair parts to the shop, since that would simply be another attempt to do what the court already said was impermissible.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "business", "discrimination", "civil-claims" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93596, "body": "<h2><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Arbitration</a></h2>\n<p>Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method where the p[arties voluntarily submit to the binding decision (award) of the arbitrator(s). It gets its legal effectiveness by being legislated in the relevant jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions have different laws for international, domestic commercial, and other (e.g. family law) arbitrations. Notwithstanding, there is a great deal of commonality across types and jurisdictions.</p>\n<h2>Extension of time for making submissions</h2>\n<p>How an arbitration is conducted is by the agreement of the parties, or, if the parties can't agree, at the discretion of the arbitrator(s). Often, the parties will agree on rules that will be followed in their arbitration clause.</p>\n<p>So, if you are asking if a party can be given an extension of time to make a submission, then yes - if all parties agree, the rules allow it, or the arbitrator(s) agree.</p>\n<h2>Enforcement</h2>\n<p>In most cases, arbitral awards are voluntarily complied with. It is estimated that in international arbitrations, only 11% of awards are not voluntarily complied with, and most of those stem from an inability to pay rather than an unwillingness to pay.</p>\n<p>Failing to honour an arbitral award is a breach of contract, and the successful party can sue for recovery like any other breach. The law of arbitration is that an award is binding, and the courts will simply enforce the award as a judgement debt. Like any breach, there may be a statute of limitations beyond which action can no longer be taken without the court agreeing to waive those limits.</p>\n<h2>Challanging an award</h2>\n<p>There are very limited grounds and strict timeframes for challenging an arbitral award. While courts have the discretion to extend those timeframes (because they're courts), they very rarely (approaching never) do so for arbitral awards.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "arbitration" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94280, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Working a mobile car cleaner now, my manager asked me to take some\npictures before cleaning and after clearing, privacy issue of the car\nowner</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>California law creates an expectation of consent for taking photographs of people for purposes of commercial distribution of the image to the public. <a href=\"https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344.html?/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">California Civil Code § 3344</a>.</p>\n<p>But, absent copyright or design patent issues (which would only very rarely come up since most people don't own the copyrights or patents to the designs of their cars, and the owner of the copyrights generally grants an implied license for the owners of the cars to display the copyrighted or patented designs), there is no parallel requirement of consent for taking photographs of things.</p>\n<p>Furthermore there is no common law expectation of privacy in anything that someone you do business with must necessarily see with their own eyes.</p>\n<p>So, if you must see the car to clean it, then taking photographs before and after the work is done does not violate any expectation of privacy to which the customer has not implicitly consented and does not violate any California or federal statute.</p>\n<p>Better practice would be for the business to explicitly have the customers consent in writing to the photographs, to remove all doubt. But the implied consent to having someone see your car when they are cleaning it would be unreasonable to deny in almost all circumstances.</p>\n<p>A company might voluntarily have an agreement to keep any photographs taken confidential and to have its employees sign non-disclosure agreements not to reveal what they see while working. If it did, this would create a legally enforceable expectation of privacy for the customer. For some VIP clients, this contractually enforceable discretion might be something that would induce them to pay a higher price for the same services. But those kind of protections are not the default standards of law that apply in the absence of an agreement. And, even then, taking photographs for purposes of internal use only would probably not violate an agreement of this kind. The work still requires that people inside the business, including remote supervisors, be able to see the cars to do their work.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "united-states", "privacy", "california", "photography" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94261, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Given that, can the owner(s) of Series B accept a low-ball buyout\noffer (might be even with discount to the market value) - even\ntheoretically $1? is that legal? what protects the interest of series\nA stockholders?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The Class A shareholders don't have to accept offers to buy their shares of stock unless they believe the amount offered is sufficient.</p>\n<p>The Class B shareholders with a majority of the vote don't control when particular Class A shareholders do or do not sell their shares.</p>\n<p>Historically, a tender offer to buy shares of stock of a public company has taken a premium over the current market value to induce the shareholders subject to the offer to sell their shares.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "finance", "sec" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94265, "body": "<p>Here's the relevant statute for Virginia, <a href=\"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-920/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">46.2-920</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A. The driver of any emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is being used in the performance of public services, and when such vehicle is operated under emergency conditions, may, without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>Disregard speed limits, while having due regard for safety of persons and property;</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>B. The exemptions granted to emergency vehicles by subsection A in subdivisions A1, A3, A4, A5, and A6 shall apply only when the operator of such vehicle displays a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light or lights as provided in §§ 46.2-1022 and 46.2-1023 and sounds a siren, exhaust whistle, or air horn designed to give automatically intermittent signals, as may be reasonably necessary.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Such exemptions shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vehicle from criminal prosecution for conduct constituting reckless disregard of the safety of persons and property. Nothing in this section shall release the operator of any such vehicle from civil liability for failure to use reasonable care in such operation.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the law does not impose any specific speed limit. Department policy may still impose speed limits on its own officers in this situation, but violating department policy is not a violation of the law <em>per se</em>, if the violation of policy is not reckless. Of course, the million dollar question is what constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property.</p>\n", "score": 19 }, { "answer_id": 94264, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>As fast as is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, as long as it is for &quot;police purposes&quot; which includes pursuing a car that fails to stop.</p>\n<p>Properly trained and qualified officers have an exemption to the posted speed limit under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/87?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 87</a> Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For awareness, they also have statutory exemptions to observing keep left/right signs, and complying with red traffic lights. The latter are to be treated as a &quot;give way&quot; (aka yield in certain countries).</p>\n<p>_{Although tagged <a href=\"/questions/tagged/virginia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;virginia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;virginia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-virginia-tooltip-container\">virginia</a>, I have answered in line with the <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic\">LawSE Help Centre</a>: &quot;<em>we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]</em>&quot;}</p>\n", "score": 15 }, { "answer_id": 94275, "body": "<h2>The speed limit for the road OR if it is reasonable in the circumstances that the speed limit should not apply, as fast as the driver, acting reasonably, determines</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>The relevant provisions are detailed in each state or territories’ road rules. Most have adopted a modified form of the <a href=\"https://pcc.gov.au/uniform/Australian-Road-Rules-19March2018.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Australian Road Rules</a>.</p>\n<p>These make it an offence to exceed the posted speed limit or, if there isn’t one, 50km/h in a built-up area (one with street lights) or 100km/h in a rural area. Police are bound to follow the road rules just like everybody else.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://pcc.gov.au/uniform/Australian-Road-Rules-19March2018.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s305</a> provides an exemption for drivers of police vehicles if, in the circumstances, the police driver is taking reasonable care and it's reasonable that a provision of the road rules should not apply.</p>\n<p>Every police force in Australia has <a href=\"https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/PDF/IPS/National%20Guideline%20on%20Urgent%20Duty%20Driving%20and%20Pursuits.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">guidelines</a> on pursuit and an officer who follows those guidelines will almost certainly be found by a court to have been acting reasonably. Operating beyond the guidelines may also be reasonable in the circumstances.</p>\n<p>Again, in every Australian police force, a pursuit, like the discharge of a firearm or taser, is a critical incident and will be subject to automatic investigation by a police integrity unit. Depending on the state, this may be part of the police force or an independent body.</p>\n<p>If the pursuit results in a death, there will be a coronial inquest which will examine the lawfulness of the pursuit. Anyone harmed by a pursuit may seek compensation which will also examine the lawfulness of the pursuit.</p>\n", "score": 9 } ]

[ "police", "virginia", "law-enforcement", "car" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94279, "body": "<p>The law varies greatly among U.S. states, most of which treat this as a common law tort action rather than having a statute on point.</p>\n<p>But, the question tags California, and under California law, the relevant statute, which is called the &quot;Right of Publicity Law&quot; is <a href=\"https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344.html?/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">California Civil Code § 3344</a> (rights of publicity after you are dead are governed by parallel California Civil Code § 3344.1).</p>\n<p>This statute, under the relevant circumstances, gives the person whose photos were used commercially without their consent the right to economic damages (but not less than statutory damages of $750), disgorgement of profits from the commercial use of the image, attorney fees, and sometimes punitive damages. In the case in the question, the economic damages are unlikely to exceed the $750 amount unless the employer is a massive chain of restaurants.</p>\n<p>There are arguments that could be made against liability in this case, so it wouldn't be a sure recovery, but it would have a decedent chance of success.</p>\n<p>The goal of the statute in this context is to have the employer separately pay a small fee, perhaps a few hundred bucks, to employees who serve as models for advertisements in addition to being employees doing their ordinary work. Of course, if your occupation is to be a promotional model (my wife's line of work for many years), your consent is inferred from the circumstances.</p>\n<p>The statute states, in the pertinent part:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name . . . photograph, or\nlikeness, in any manner, . . . for purposes of advertising or selling,\nor soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,\nwithout such person's prior consent, . . . shall be liable for any\ndamages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result\nthereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the\nperson who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party\nor parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty\ndollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a\nresult of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized\nuse that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in\ncomputing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the\ninjured party or parties are required to present proof only of the\ngross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated\nthis section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.\nPunitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.\nThe prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be\nentitled to attorney's fees and costs.</p>\n<p>(b) As used in this section, “photograph” means any photograph or\nphotographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live\ntelevision transmission, of any person, <strong>such that the person is</strong>\n<strong>readily identifiable.</strong></p>\n<p>(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a\nphotograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can\nreasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the\nsame person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.</p>\n<p>(2) I<strong>f the photograph includes more than one person so\nidentifiable,then the person or persons complaining of the use shall\nbe represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a\ndefinable group represented in the photograph.</strong> A definable group\nincludes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at\nany sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the\naudience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a\nbaseball team.</p>\n<p>(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as\nmembers of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph\nsolely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was\ntaken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner.</p>\n<p>(c) <strong>Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person\nusing the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or\nother publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only\nincidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in\nwhich it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting\nthe burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the\nconsent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's\nphotograph or likeness.</strong></p>\n<p>(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, . . . photograph,\nor likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports\nbroadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute\na use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).</p>\n<p>(e) The use of a name, . . . photograph, or likeness in a commercial\nmedium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under\nsubdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is\ncommercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall\nbe a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, . .\n. photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the\ncommercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a\nuse for which consent is required under subdivision (a).</p>\n<p>(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees of\nany medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to,\nnewspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations,\ncable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any\nadvertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is\npublished or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners\nor employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's\nname, . . . photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this\nsection.</p>\n<p>(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall\nbe in addition to any others provided for by law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The most relevant language to this question is in bold.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "california", "workplace" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94231, "body": "<p>Typical in any of the several <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></p>\n<p>No, this fails to meet two of the core elements of libel. The statement must be</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adverse (fails)</li>\n<li>Stated by one party</li>\n<li>To a second party</li>\n<li>About a third party (fails)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The case you're thinking of, where a company brags excessively about their company or products, are covered by a variety of securities and trade laws, such as false advertising. Many of these are applicable in the Federal domain, i.e. are Federal rather than state laws.</p>\n<p>Edit: Now I see you've changed the question a bit to claiming to be first. Yes, the injured party can sue for that, but they are more claiming false advertising than libel. Accusing someone of not being first-to-market is not a particularly powerful or damning claim. Oreo didn't invent the sandwich cookie nor did Apple invent the computer. So <strong>such a claim is really a lot more about the publicity</strong> than actual, provable damages; so the controversy is more likely to be aired <em>outside</em> the court system, or in the courts but mainly for the publicity. (an example of the latter being the &quot;Taco Tuesday&quot; trademark-busting action; IIRC Taco Bell even paid the other party's legal fees, despite prevailing.)</p>\n", "score": 22 }, { "answer_id": 94224, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>In contrast to <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/94223/46948\">Trish's answer</a> (I don't know what jurisdiction that applies in), the law in Canada leaves open the possibility that the circumstance you describe could make out a successful defamation claim.</p>\n<p>The elements of defamation are (<em>Grant v. Torstar Corp.</em>, <a href=\"https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index.do\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2009 SCC 61</a>, para. 28):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But, <strong>whether the impugned words were defamatory</strong> and <strong>whether the words in fact referred to the plaintiff</strong> can only be determined <strong>in context</strong> by a finder of fact. Whether a person to which the statement was published would reasonably understand the statement to be a defamatory statement about another company is judged based on the full context of the statement. <strong>Defamation need not be literal; it can be inferential or based on inuendo.</strong></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Where a claim is based on the inferential meaning of words, the question is one of impression: what would the ordinary person infer from the words in the context in which they were used? Both literal and inferential defamatory meaning reside within the words, as part of their natural and ordinary meaning. In contrast, <strong>where legal innuendo is pleaded the impugned words take on defamatory meaning from outside circumstances beyond general knowledge, but known to the recipient</strong>.</p>\n<p><em>Weaver v. Corcoran</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/h398d#par72\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2017 BCCA 160 at para 72</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>See also R.E. Brown, <em>The Law of Defamation in Canada</em>, 2nd ed. (1999), quoted in <em>S.G. v. J.C.</em> (2001), <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii3041/2001canlii3041.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">56 O.R. (3d) 215</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Therefore, in order to recover, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he or she is the one to whom the defamatory statement refers, that is, it must be shown to have been published 'of and concerning' the plaintiff. The defamatory publication 'must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff.' It must refer to or concern him personally. <strong>The test in every case is whether the ordinary sensible person to whom the words were published would understand them as referring to the plaintiff</strong>.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary that the plaintiff be identified by his or her proper name, or even mentioned at all, if it is otherwise shown that the words would be reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff. He or she may be referred to in the guise of some fictional or historical character or by a play on words. It may be clear from other evidence that he was the one alluded to, but he must satisfy the court in that regard. This may be done by introducing evidence, apart from the publication, connecting the plaintiff with the defamatory publication. <strong>The question in such a case is whether or not the words used are such as to lead an ordinary sensible person, or reasonable persons, who pay reasonable attention to the contents of the communication, to understand that it was the plaintiff to whom the defendant referred</strong>.</p>\n<p>The test of whether words that do not specifically name the plaintiff refer to him or not is this: Are they such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to? That does not assume that those persons who read the words know all the circumstances or all the relevant facts. But although the plaintiff is not named in words, he may, nevertheless, be described so as to be recognized; and whether that description takes the form of a word-picture of an individual or the form of a reference to a class of persons of which he is or is believed to be a member, or any other form, <strong>if in the circumstances the description is such that a person hearing or reading the alleged libel would reasonably believe that the plaintiff was referred to, that is a sufficient reference to him</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 13 }, { "answer_id": 94223, "body": "<h2>No in the <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></h2>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Libel</a> is written <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">defamation</a>, its sibling is slander. That is not simply stating something wrong, libel is stating <em>something</em> that is disparaging a different person in the eye of the public and which does not have the defense of truth or being an opinion.</p>\n<p>In general, the test if something is Defamation has four factors, which were outlined above:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li><p>a <strong>false statement purporting to be fact</strong> [about a second person];</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>publication</strong> or communication <strong>of that statement</strong> to a third person;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>fault</strong> amounting to at least negligence; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>damages, or some\n<strong>harm caused to the reputation</strong> of the person or entity who is the\nsubject of the statement.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If Alice says &quot;Bob won a medal&quot;, that would not be disparaging about Bob, as that is not causing harm to Bob's reputation.</p>\n<p>If Alice says &quot;I won a medal&quot; that is not a statement about a different person than yourself.</p>\n<p>If Alice says &quot;I won a medal, Bob didn't&quot;, now <em>that</em> could be causing harm to the reputation of Bob - if the statement is patently wrong and Alice knows or should have known the truth.</p>\n<p>Where the line is between the second and third statement is very much dependent on the exact state law: if implication can qualify is generally in statutes.</p>\n<h2>Different laws apply to ads</h2>\n<p>If anything, claiming that your company achieved something and if that claim is more than <em><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/puffing\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">puffery</a></em>, then the statement might be <strong>false or misleading advertisement</strong> - which are usually violations of state law.</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 94277, "body": "<p>An interesting case of something like this is an ongoing (as of 2023) lawsuit by Nona Gaprindashvili, against Netflix, for claiming in its show <em>The Queen’s Gambit</em> that its main character is making history in an episode set in 1968 because, “There's Nona Gaprindashvili, but she's the female world champion and has never faced men.”</p>\n<p>in fact, Gaprindashvili had played against nearly 60 men by the time the episode is set. In its early filings, Netflix defended itself by saying the show was a work of fiction set in an alternative timeline. This alleges defamation, not fraud. That is, it alleges that viewers will believe the show’s historically-inaccurate claims denigrating Gaprindashvili’s accomplishments, not that the audience will think the show is a documentary about a real person.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "libel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94274, "body": "<h2>Not for normal correspondence</h2>\n<p>There are laws that require a specified channel of communication for specific purposes such as a physical address for the service of legal notices, but there is no general requirement.</p>\n<p>How, or if, a company communicates with its customers about complaints will either be specified in the contract or up to the company to determine and advertise. For example, <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#provisions\">this</a> site specifies “ will be deemed to have been duly given when received, if personally delivered or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested; when receipt is electronically confirmed, if transmitted by facsimile or e-mail; or the day after it is sent, if sent for next day delivery by recognized overnight delivery service” - any other method of delivery (Whatsapp, Facebook, even their own chatrooms etc.) is not a valid method of service, if you use those methods, then legally, you have not communicated.</p>\n<p>So, if the company requires complaints to deal with by online chat, they can safely ignore any letter or email you might send them.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94262, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/british-columbia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-british-columbia-tooltip-container\">british-columbia</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Is there anything in the laws meaning that they must have a more standardised means of communication available such as an address for service of legal communications?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes, service of legal documents can be by way of delivery to a corporation's registered office in the corporate register.</p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules 4-3(2)(b)(iv)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Unless the court otherwise orders, personal service of a document is to be effected as follows: ... on a corporation, ... in the manner provided by the <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02057_01#section9\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Business Corporations Act</em></a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02057_01#section9\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Business Corporations Act</em>, s. 9(a)</a> says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... a record may be served on a company ... by delivering the record to the delivery address, or by mailing it by registered mail to the mailing address, shown for the registered office of the company in the corporate register</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The &quot;corporate register&quot; is &quot;the information filed with or recorded by the registrar under [the <em>Business Corporations Act</em>] or a former Companies Act, and includes any corrections made to that information by the registrar under [the <em>Business Corporations Act</em>] or a former Companies Act.&quot;</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "consumer-protection", "any-jurisdiction", "customer-service" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94269, "body": "<p>If we subtract the public domain aspect of the situation, <a href=\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode\" rel=\"noreferrer\">CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 means</a> that you may not &quot;Share&quot; any &quot;Adapted Materials&quot;. Share means what you think it means: you can adapt materials for yourself, you cannot share (redistribute) that adaptation. &quot;Adapted materials&quot; is material &quot;translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor&quot;. No you may not, if you are talking about material protected by copyright.</p>\n<p>Material that is simply digitized does not gain copyright protection from being digitized, see <a href=\"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/36/191/2413183/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Bridgeman v. Corel</a>. So if a work was un-creatively digitized and was in the public domain, then it does not become re-protected by the act of scanning. However, if the work was creatively digitized, even minimally, then that new work <em>is</em> protected by copyright.</p>\n", "score": 9 } ]

[ "copyright", "derivative-work" ]

[ { "answer_id": 73179, "body": "<p>It's difficult to tell: it's possible that you could be hired, or that you can't be hired. The easy part, the third question, is that this is not a ban based on ethnicity or citizenship, it is based no residence, so it you are not in Iran, you're not a target of the ban.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-560\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The sanctions</a> prohibit the importation of certain services of Iranian origin (e.g. employment), and also §560.419 says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The prohibitions in §560.201 make it unlawful to hire an Iranian\nnational ordinarily resident in Iran to come to the United States\nsolely or for the principal purpose of engaging in employment on\nbehalf of an entity in Iran or as the employee of a U.S. person,\nunless authorized pursuant to § 560.505. See also § 560.418 with\nrespect to the release of technology and software.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But you are not coming to the US (or The Netherlands). Nevertheless, HR of the employing firm may have misinterpreted the regulation.</p>\n<p>There is a good chance that you would not be subject to the importation of services regulation, §560.201:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and\nnotwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit\ngranted prior to May 7, 1995, the importation into the United States\nof any goods or services of Iranian origin or owned or controlled by\nthe Government of Iran, other than information and informational\nmaterials within the meaning of section 203(b)(3) of the International\nEmergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)), is prohibited.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>First, is there a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances where your services are imported into the US? Second, is the hiring company a subsidiary of a US firm and is controlled by the US firm (if not, the US sanctions do not apply to a foreign employer). Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syrian Human Rights Act §218, that would be</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) one that is more than 50% owned by the U.S. parent; (2) one in\nwhich the parent firm holds a majority on the Board of Directors of\nthe subsidiary; or (3) one in which the parent firm directs the\noperations of the subsidiary.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The nature of the services imported also matters: information services can be imported, likewise sports-related services. Importation of oil and gas related services is prohibited. So all told, it's difficult to say what is allowed in this circumstance.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "contract-law", "immigration", "netherlands", "sanctions" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93914, "body": "<p><strong>Update:</strong> I've filed a complaint with the CA Attorney General. They automatically forwarded the complaint to Comcast and sent me a notice in the mail.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If you have filed a complaint against a business, we will forward your complaint to that business and request that it contact you promptly to resolve the issues you raised. Please note that we cannot represent you, advocate for you with the business, or force the business to satisfy individual requests for relief. Please contact the business directly to discuss your complaint.</p>\n<p>While we cannot provide specific legal advice, please see the information below, which may help address your concern. For more information about the CCPA, please see <a href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa</a> and <a href=\"https://cppa.ca.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://cppa.ca.gov/</a>.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>If a business has violated the CCPA, you may notify the Office of the Attorney General by filing a consumer complaint. While we cannot file an action on behalf of an individual consumer over an individual violation, consumer complaints are an important source of information for the office. We will review consumer complaints to identify patterns of misconduct and to determine what law enforcement actions to take.</p>\n<p>You can sue a business under the CCPA only if your unencrypted and un-redacted personal information was stolen in a data breach as a result of the business's failure to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect it. You must generally give the business written notice of its violations and 30 days to fix the violations before you can sue. For more information about when you can sue for a CCPA violation, visit <a href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa</a></p>\n<p>If you want to consult an attorney, you can obtain a referral to a certified lawyer referral service through the State Bar at (866) 442-2529 (toll-free in California) or (415) 538-2250 (from outside California), or online at <a href=\"https://www.calbar.ca.gov\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.calbar.ca.gov</a>. If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, contact your local legal aid office to see if you qualify for free or reduced-rate legal assistance. For a referral to local legal aid offices, visit <a href=\"https://lawhelpca.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://lawhelpca.org/</a> and click on the Search for Legal Help tab.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Comcast responded immediately to the forwarded complaint and appears to have deactivated my login, but nearly a month later have still not confirmed whether any personal information has been deleted.</p>\n<p>I'd strongly recommend anyone in a similar situation to <a href=\"https://cppa.ca.gov/webapplications/complaint\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">file a complaint</a> as well. There's no guarantee the Attorney General or California Privacy Protection Agency will act on it, but it can increase the civil penalty to the company by <a href=\"https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_act.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">$5,000 per complaint</a> (see section 1798.155) and makes it more likely they will comply. Don't waste your time with any unnecessary calls from the business or obfuscating information yourself as a commenter here mentioned. Just submit your CCPA request in writing, complete the identity verification, wait the 45 days as allowed by the law (or 90 if an extension is requested, see section 1798.130), and file a complaint if it's not completed.</p>\n<p><strong>Update 2:</strong> I received a forwarded letter from Comcast to the Attorney General in response to my complaint. They lied and backdated their alleged completion date of the deletion request to fall within the 45 day deadline, despite emails I sent past their claimed date repeating the request as I was still able to login. Before filing a complaint, <strong>make sure to take screenshots showing you logged into the account and email it to the business</strong> in order to document it.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "internet", "privacy", "personal-information", "ccpa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94255, "body": "<h2>The witness can go outside and ask questions of the witness’ lawyers</h2>\n<p>So if, for example, Mr Trump chooses to testify to the grand jury he goes in alone - no lawyers. If he wants to consult his lawyers he needs to ask to do, leave the room and consult them. If I were Mr Trump’s lawyer I would be worried that he wouldn’t know when he should do that.</p>\n", "score": 21 } ]

[ "lawyer", "criminal-procedure", "grand-jury", "indictment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94245, "body": "<p>The standard answer to a question about fair use is to recite the fair use defense, with a heavy does of &quot;it depends on whether...&quot;. There are non-legal questions which are outside of the scope of Law SE (the exact technology for extracting text summaries from a small database and how one might tweak the numbers in a huge database given an analysis of a small set of texts). The sample extract-texts are highly-probable word sequences when writing about the particular topic, therefore not demonstrably derived from any particular source.</p>\n<p>The required processing that SE does is in order to create this database is within the scope of the <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing\">license</a> granted to the network, so SE creating the summary is allowed. The summary texts are sufficiently associated with protected source text.\nIf the content in question is &quot;created by SE&quot;, then it cannot be copied without permission. However, protection only applies to human-created content which is protected by copyright. The fruits of bot-labor are not protected by copyright, therefore SE cannot sue users for copying text that they created with an AI. In other words, the generated text is outside the scope of copyright law and licensing requirements.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 94247, "body": "<h2>It’s unlikely the <a href=\"https://librarycopyright.net/forum/view/94\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">summary</a> is an infringement</h2>\n<p>First, it can’t be a derivative or an original work because it has no human author.</p>\n<p>If it did have a human author, it would most likely be an original work, not a derivative. A summary of a copyrighted work is an original work of creation, not a derivative of the summarised work. Unless it’s a copy.</p>\n<p>The test for whether it’s a copy is if a substantial portion of the subject matter has been copied - a qualitative test. This is why I say it’s unlikely rather than being certain - some summaries will cross the line into being copies, but most won’t.</p>\n<p>As you observe, the CC-BY-SA gives SE the right to make copies anyway, so long as they give attribution, which they have.</p>\n<p>Because these summaries are machine generated, there is no copyright in them, so there is no need for a licence for anyone to use them. If they are infringing copies, then they are copies of the original work(s) that have already been licensed by the original authors.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "creative-commons", "artificial-intelligence" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94199, "body": "<p><strong>UPDATE</strong></p>\n<p>On 24/07/2023, Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police Service (the &quot;Met&quot;), released a <a href=\"https://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-in-response-to-video-of-fare-evasion-incident-in-croydon-470067\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">statement</a> giving the police's account of the incident and the &quot;legal basis for her arrest&quot; as requested by the OP.</p>\n<p>It is quite lengthy but I have resisted editing or redacting it to ensure the whole statement is available to those users (like me) that would rather not follow anonymous links. I have also resisted emboldening any of the text to allow users to make up their own minds without any unconscious bias on my part.</p>\n<p>Finally, I have left my original answer as is for posterity.</p>\n<p>The statement in full reads as follows (with the description of what caused the arrest bolded):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>“It is clear from the video that has been shared online that this incident was distressing for the woman involved and particularly for her child. We understand why it has prompted significant public concern and we want to be transparent about our position and the role of our officers.</p>\n<p>“Officers from the Met’s Roads and Transport Policing Command were supporting TfL ticket inspectors on a pre-planned operation in Whitehorse Road, Croydon on Friday, 21 July. As buses pulled into the stop, TfL inspectors would check the tickets of those onboard and also those getting off.</p>\n<p>“Anyone without a valid ticket is required to provide their details to a TfL inspector so a penalty fare can be issued. This is not a policing matter. <strong>Officers only become involved where details are not provided or where someone tries to leave when challenged.</strong></p>\n<p><strong>“The woman involved in this incident was asked to provide her ticket as she got off the bus, but did not do so. She was spoken to by a TfL inspector, then by a PCSO and finally by a police officer. She continued to try to walk away and did not provide her ticket for inspection.</strong></p>\n<p><strong>“She was arrested on suspicion of fare evasion and was handcuffed. When officers were able to take her ticket from her so that the TfL inspectors could check it, they were able to confirm it was valid. She was immediately de-arrested and her handcuffs were removed.</strong></p>\n<p>“Throughout the incident, the child was comforted by a PCSO who immediately recognised his distress. Anyone seeing how upset he was would be moved by this, and we regret any impact it may have on him.</p>\n<p>“We recognise that the use of handcuffs can be a cause of concern, particularly given the context of this incident and the type of offence involved, but when a person is trying to physically leave an incident it is an option officers can consider. All uses of force must be proportionate and necessary in the circumstances.</p>\n<p>“Ticket inspection operations of this nature are difficult. They place police officers in direct confrontation with frustrated members of the public and could escalate what would otherwise be civil matters to a different level.</p>\n<p>“This incident raises questions about the extent to which officers are having to intervene in this way when supporting TfL in their operations. We will now work with TfL to ensure that the balance is right between officers tackling the most serious crime on the transport network and supporting their own operations to ensure revenue protection.</p>\n<p>“An initial review of the officers’ actions did not identify any conduct matters but we will reflect on it carefully, in discussion with communities locally, to urgently identify any opportunities to do things differently.</p>\n<p>“Given the level of community concern generated we believe it is in the public interest to voluntarily refer the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct to review.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p><strong>ORIGINAL ANSWER</strong></p>\n<p><strong>YES</strong></p>\n<p>A breach of the Regulations is a summary offence. As such, a suspect may be arrested if all the relevant conditions at <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 24</a> Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are met.</p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/14/section/67?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 67</a> Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Penalty for breach of regulations.</p>\n<p>Subject to section 68(1) of this Act [<em>i.e. reasonable excuse</em>], if a person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act and contravention thereof, or failure to comply therewith, is not made an offence under any other provision of this Act, <strong>he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>And see <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/regulation/7?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Paragraph 7</a> Public Service Vehicles\n(Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(2) ... every passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall–</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a)declare, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, the journey which he intends to take, is taking or has taken in the vehicle;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b)where the vehicle is being operated by the driver without a conductor–</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i)save as provided in (ii) below, immediately on boarding the vehicle, pay the fare for the journey he intends to take to the driver or, where appropriate, by inserting in any fare-collection equipment provided on the vehicle the money or token required to pay that fare; or</p>\n<p>(ii)if otherwise directed by the driver, an inspector or a notice displayed on the vehicle, shall pay the fare for his journey in accordance with the direction;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(c)<strong>where the vehicle is being operated by the driver with a conductor, pay the fare for the journey which he intends to take</strong>, is taking, or has taken in the vehicle to the conductor immediately on being requested to do so by the conductor or an inspector;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(d)accept and retain for the rest of his journey any ticket which is provided on payment of a fare in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) or (c);</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(e)<strong>produce during his journey any ticket which has been issued to him either under sub-paragraph (d) or before he started his journey for inspection by the driver, inspector or conductor on being requested to do so by the driver, inspector or conductor</strong>; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(f)as soon as he has completed the journey for which he has a ticket, either–</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i)leave the vehicle; or</p>\n<p>(ii)pay the fare for any further journey which he intends to take on the vehicle.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</blockquote>\n<p>_{Paragraph 7 covers numerous alternative scenarios and as I have not seen the video, nor know the surrounding circumstances, I have emboldened the more likely alleged breach(es). I will review this if/when more details become available.}</p>\n", "score": 13 }, { "answer_id": 94202, "body": "<p><em>Remember the topic here is how you get arrested for fare evasion. Don't presume the fare evader is cooperating or producing ID on demand</em>.</p>\n<p>This is shocking in certain countries where people predominantly drive cars, and are not familiar with high-density transit (even though their city has a new light rail system lol**). But it actually makes sense.</p>\n<p>There has been a change in transit fare collection in the last 25 years. Historically, you paid the driver or conductor, who visited every passenger to collect fares. Non-payment meant you didn't board (or on trains with roving conductors, were put off the train at the very next stop, and the <em>schadenfreude</em> of disrupting your journey satisfied the railroad).</p>\n<p>However, to save labor costs, they have switched to a model called &quot;Proof of Payment&quot;, which the rider must obtain before boarding*. There is a small chance that a Fare Inspector may come through the vehicle. That reduces labor costs because the inspector need only visit occasionally: their existence motivates people to self-pay.</p>\n<p>When caught, a fare evader is guilty of much worse than evading one fare. It is likely they are a repeat offender, having successfully evaded 10-20 fares prior to this, depending on how often the fare inspectors come around. <strong>As such, the consequences must be more severe</strong>.</p>\n<p>Generally, a costly citation is issued of 20-100 <em>times</em> the absent fare. However, some people simply do not pay these citations. They become familiar to fare inspectors... <strong>and yes, the next step on the consequence chain is arrest</strong>. That may also be an outcome if the person refuses to identify themselves so a ticket could be issued, or refuse to present proof of payment.</p>\n<p>So it's not like &quot;OMG someone forgot to validate, call MI5&quot; - that is a false representation of what happened there.</p>\n<p>Or it could be exactly that, <em>except the forgetter had an arrest warrant from another agency</em>. Transit police do a disproportionate amount of gathering up fugitives.</p>\n<hr />\n<hr />\n<p>* This is done by a variety of methods: a ticket machine at the station where you buy the ticket immediately before boarding is the simplest, but is a flow constraint and maintenance headache. Sale of no-time-limit paper tickets, which can be carried indefinitely but must be time-stamped at a validation machine before boarding; valid for 2 hours after stamping. (They tried putting ticket and validation machines on the vehicle, but people congregate around them and validate only when they see an inspector.) Monthly passes, transit &quot;credit cards&quot; like Oyster that can be loaded with monthly passes or validations, or all sorts of things with phones and apps.</p>\n<p>** And that gets extra super fun when they get a bit enlightened, and decide to give the Light Rail system an honest try. PoP is anything but intuitive, and not well explained, so they botch it... so where a normal company <em>who wants their business</em> might give them a gift basket or some swag, they get a $300 citation. <em>That's it. You will never pry them out of the automobile for the rest of their lives</em>.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 94219, "body": "<p>When you are caught in the UK without a ticket, someone will ask for your identification. Give them your id, you will be sent off and receive a small fine in the mail.</p>\n<p>You don’t have to carry id. And you can refuse to show them an id, and refuse to pay. That will get you arrested. If you don’t want to get arrested in front of your children then you should do nothing to get you arrested. Obviously the presence of your children won’t stop an arrest.</p>\n<p>Around London you most likely have an Oyster card or you have registered your debit card or just your phone. You tap in when you go through the gates at your train station and tap out when you leave, so your fare is calculated at the end of the day. Sometimes a tap is missed, so you are seen as entering but not leaving or the other way and your fare is estimated. Once a month you can fix such an estimate on the website.</p>\n<p>London busses you tap in once and then can stay on the bus forever or get on other buses for 60 minutes. The current record is someone getting on 26 different buses in that time.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "police", "arrest", "fare-evasion" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94246, "body": "<p>A limited partnership is a entity with one or more unlimited liability partners and one or more limited liability partners. This form of organization was popular, especially in the 1970s and 1980s in the oil and gas industry and in the real estate development industry, before it was possible to have partnership taxation with a fully limited liability entity (which became possible in the 1990s).</p>\n<p>The limited partnership form of organization allowed limited liability investors to receive passthrough taxation, because there were other unlimited liability investors. Unlike limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and limited liability limited partnerships (LLLPs), some partners in a limited partnership (LP) have unlimited liability.</p>\n<p>These days true limited partnerships that are not limited liability limited partnerships are used mostly in estate planning, and residually by not very up to date lawyers in the oil and gas industry and real estate development industries where they used to be the preferred form of organization. One of the main reasons that they are used now is that state law typically decrees that limited partners have no voting or management rights, which is attractive to many promoters and family business owners who want to bring in additional investment or transfer economic ownership rights without ceding control.</p>\n<p>Historically, limited partnership organizational documents had to be filed in the real property records of the counties where the limited partnership owned real estate, because they were used predominantly for real estate investments and because unlimited liability general partnerships usually don't have to file organizational documents with the state because they are the default form of organization.</p>\n<p>Most states have since changed their laws so that limited partnership have to file organizational documents with the state level Secretary of State (see, e.g., <a href=\"https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/business/helpFiles/CERT_LP_HELP.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Colorado</a>, <a href=\"https://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/business-entities/starting-business/types#:%7E:text=To%20form%20an%20LP%20in,prompts%20to%20complete%20and%20submit\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">California</a>, <a href=\"https://dos.ny.gov/certificate-limited-partnership-domestic-limited-partnership-0\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">New York</a>, and <a href=\"https://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/forms/207_boc.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Texas</a>) rather than in county real property records. But a few states, by virtue of inertia, have not changed their laws and retained the historical requirement. Both the historic registration requirement in real property records and the modern requirement of Secretary of State filings flowed from the language of widely adopted model statutes for limited partnerships.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "limited-liability-company", "partnership" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94174, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Now, my understanding (if correct) is that this LLC is not a C-Corp,\nbut only being taxed as one, and it will receive an EIN.</p>\n<p>If that previous sentence is correct, does becoming an actual C-Corp\nlater (f.e. the owner decides to raise funds) require getting a new\nEIN?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Not quite right.</p>\n<p>The LLC is a C-Corp for tax purposes now and remains one after the change of state law form of organization.</p>\n<p>The LLC is not a corporation for state law purposes, however. C-corporation is a purely tax law term. An LLC is also not a corporation for the federal tax purposes of issuance of 1099s to it by third-parties.</p>\n<p>A new EIN is not required or allowed.</p>\n<p>It is necessary for the EIN to remain the same for tax characteristics of the original entity like amortization of formation costs, earnings and profits, inside basis of assets, outside basis of ownership interests, loss carry forwards, and the like to continue to the reorganized entity as part of the IRS tracking of those tax characteristics associated with the entity.</p>\n<p>The conversion from being an LLC to a corporation under state law is considered a tax free reorganization of the existing corporation under 26 U.S.C. § 368(a)(1)(F), otherwise known as an &quot;F reorganization&quot; which is &quot;a mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation, however effected&quot;. This form of entity conversion is tax free pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 351. But, for tax purposes, there is continuity of entity in an F reorganization.</p>\n<p>This F reorganization would probably be noted on the corporation's annual IRS Form 1120 (which has to be filed every year even for shell corporations that aren't funded), with a supplemental disclosure if there is no box to check for it and no separate form for it (I haven't done an F reorganization in eons and let the CPAs handle the forms involved).</p>\n<p>There are a few reasons to convert an LLC already taxed as a C-corporation to an actual state law corporation.</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>As a general rule with narrow exceptions (e.g. for lawyers), third-parties do not have to issue at IRS Form 1099 information return to state law corporations that they make payments to for goods or services. Ultimately, this is just a rule, but it flows logically from the fact that either an S-corporation or a C-corporation must file IRS Form 1120 every year even if it has no activity, while a partnership must file IRS Form 1065 only in years when it has taxable activity. This rule was created before LLCs taxable as C-corporations existed and the relevant statute has not been amended to reflect the possibility of an LLC taxed as a C-corporation since doing so would not increase revenues and it impacts few taxpayers and is easily circumvented with an F reorganization by any taxpayer that cares.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>State law corporations have more default rules of law regarding governance and usually more case law regarding governance as well. There are slightly more formalities to follow, but the burden involved is pretty trivial.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The default rule for state law corporations is that the shares are transferrable property so long as a public offering of the shares is not made when they are transferred. In contrast, the default rule in an LLC is that voting rights are not transferrable without the other members admitting the transferee as a member of the company, often by a unanimous vote. This makes it much easier to handle shareholder level transactions without a lawyer's involvement.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Members of an LLC will usually assume that it is taxed under Subchapter K and will therefore expect to receive an annual Schedule K-1 to IRS Form 1065 (a partnership tax return), until they learn that it is taxed as a C-corporation. Making the state law entity match the tax law rule prevents this confusion.d</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>One downside of the conversion is that it is easier for creditors to seize shares of a state law corporation than to seize membership interests in an LLC which is difficult or impossible (a &quot;<a href=\"https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/charging-order.asp\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">charging order</a>&quot;) is the usual remedy for a creditor of an LLC membership interest.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>UPDATE:</p>\n<p>The quoted material in the question is saying that if you have an LLC taxes as a partnership or sole proprietorship and it elected to be taxed as a C-corporation (while remaining an LLC) that it needs a new EIN, which is correct.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "corporate-law", "incorporation", "corporate-tax-laws", "income-tax" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94242, "body": "<p>Pursuant to <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/103/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Georgia v. Randolph</a>,\nPossibility 1 diverges significantly from the linked description in an important way, in that according to the report continued to deny permission and stood in the way of officers until they got menacing. If resident 1 accedes to the permission granted by resident 2, there is consent and the search is legal. The court held that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>a disputed invitation, without more, gives an officer no better claim\nto reasonableness in entering than the officer would have absent any\nconsent. Disputed permission is no match for the Fourth Amendment\ncentral value of “respect for the privacy of the home”</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Until permission is explicitly (unequivocally) withdrawn, permission to enter entails permission to walk around and see. Since the contraband was in plain sight, there was no need for additional consent to see the drugs in resident 1's room. Note that the 4th Amendment frames the matter in terms of searches, not &quot;entries or searches&quot; suggesting that you could consent to one but not to the other.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "evidence", "search-and-seizure", "fourth-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94130, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Upon my death how do I physically write the actual release of debt\nwithout an attorney, so my children are not held responsible for my\ndebts.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You should hire an attorney for a few hundred dollars, so the job is done right.</p>\n<p>Even if you do nothing and your children do nothing, your children are not obligated to pay your debts out of anything other than your own assets at death, unless they have personally guaranteed those debts. And, if they have personally guaranteed those debts, you can't release them, only the creditor can do that.</p>\n<p>If your children owe debts to you, you can release them from those debts. But, you should hire an attorney to do so in order to avoid ambiguity. The biggest question would normally be whether or not the discharge of debts owed by your children to you should count in the process of dividing up the assets you have left after the debts you owe to third-parties at death, or not.</p>\n", "score": 39 }, { "answer_id": 94135, "body": "<h2>Not possible in <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></h2>\n<p>To not inherit a debt in Germany, the <strong>heir</strong> has to declare to the state that they don't want to inherit this inheritance. This also excludes them from inheriting anything else though.</p>\n", "score": 24 }, { "answer_id": 94187, "body": "<p>In the <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a> this happens automatically.</p>\n<p>Heirs are not responsible for the &quot;debts of the father&quot;, unless they willingly co-signed or something really weird is going on. They just aren't. You don't need to do anything special here.</p>\n<p>However -- when a person dies, it forms an <strong>estate</strong> which contains the assets <strong>and debts</strong> of the person who died. That estate is a legal entity, is treated by the law much like a person, <strong>and it still owes the debt</strong>. Get it? The estate still owes the debt.</p>\n<p>Someone would be assigned as an &quot;executor&quot; of the estate, and they would be responsible for continuing to manage the estate's assets - e.g. cancel cable TV at the deceased's home, make sure the electric and heating bill continues to be paid so the pipes don't freeze (to preserve value in that home), and part of that duty is to settle that debt. The executor should be making a searching inventory of the estate's assets, using probate or (if trust documents were prepared in advance) those trust documents to get control of assets, figuring out the value of those assets and liquidating (selling) them or making other arrangements.</p>\n<p>The executor does not need to use &quot;their own money&quot; to do any of those things, but I could see an executor lending the estate money short-term while the executor gets access to bank accounts etc.</p>\n<p><strong>The debts must be paid by the estate</strong> and the executor must see to that. If the estate has cash lying around, they should simply contact the lender and offer to settle the debts using the estate's money. (not their own). Otherwise, the executor will need to liquidate (sell off) assets to raise money to pay off the debts.</p>\n<p>It would be wise to be sensible about this; if a descendant absolutely has their heart set on a Hummel vase, and the will grants them that vase, the executor make every effort to satisfy the debts by selling <em>other stuff than that</em> - and likewise for anything an heir very much wants or is of sentimental value. That's just &quot;being a decent human being&quot; (and is independent from the question of whether the heir is; don't sink to their level).</p>\n<p>Note that the executor is responsible for keeping the estate from being looted via self-service from heirs. If someone takes home the deceased's new $1000 iPhone that should be sold/returned to settled debts, that's on the executor to retrieve it.</p>\n<p>And this is where the weird can happen. Anyone who &quot;self-help collects&quot; assets like that phone or that vase before the estate is settled - they are stepping in front of another creditor &quot;out of turn&quot;, and they become personally liable for the estate's debts, at least up to the value of what they improperly took (and the legal fees of going after them). The more they take, e.g. if they choose to move into and live in a house with a mortgage, the weirder it gets. They can easily find &quot;their&quot; car repo'd and stuck with a bunch of costs. Etc.</p>\n<p>With that warning given, it is certainly possible for the estate to sell any sentimental item to an heir <em>at bona-fide market value</em> as established in a manner likely to be acceptable to a judge (i.e. such that a creditor will give up and say &quot;yeah, that's pretty close to market value&quot;. For instance, eBay &quot;completed items&quot; might be a valid way; a reasonably advertised auction would be; an &quot;auction&quot; that was advertised to no one but family would not.</p>\n", "score": 12 }, { "answer_id": 94166, "body": "<p>The heirs must use the proper way in <a href=\"/questions/tagged/spain\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;spain&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;spain&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-spain-tooltip-container\">spain</a>.</p>\n<p>As in (almost?) everywhere else, debts are part of the estate and your heirs cannot accept your assets without accepting your debts.</p>\n<p>But they can accept the inheritance &quot;a beneficio de inventario&quot;(*). This means that if there are debts, they are liable only to the extent of the assets received.</p>\n<p>For example, you leave them a $100,000 bank account. If they accept &quot;a beneficio de inventario&quot; and then someone claims your $1,000,000 debt, they will be forced to pay your creditor $100,000.</p>\n<p>If they accept the inheritance without using that formula, they might be forced to pay the full debt.</p>\n<p>And of course, heirs may refuse the inheritance. Which, even with this formula, makes sense if they are sure that there will be no surplus (if you know that the $100,000 assets come with $1,000,000 debt, there is nothing for the heir by accepting the state other than the work of dealing with the debtors, paperwork...).</p>\n<p>(*) The literal translation of the expression does make not sense, I would translate it as &quot;for what is worth&quot;.</p>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 94156, "body": "<p>There is an easy way to do this - get yourself life insurance for the amount you owe. When you die it is used to pay off your debt.</p>\n<p>This does not work if the OP is likely to die as the premiums would be excessive.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 94216, "body": "<p>In Japan, the heirs get the debts along with the assets, but they can opt out of getting both if they want.</p>\n<p>Once the choice is made, it cannot be changed later even if new assets or debts are discovered.</p>\n<p>Details may be found in the Japanese Civil Code, <a href=\"https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/2058/en#je_pt2ch4\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Chapter IV - Acceptance and Renunciation of Inheritance</a></p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94218, "body": "<p>You need to specify your country.</p>\n<p>I doubt there is any place in the world where <em>you</em> can get rid of the debt on your death other than by buying life insurance.</p>\n<p>Your potential heirs will either inherit everything, including the debt, or in most countries they can refuse to take your inheritance and get nothing.</p>\n<p>If you give a country, someone will likely tell you what your kids need to do to refuse your inheritance. And of course if you have more property than debt then they will take the inheritance and have to pay off your debt. Say you have a house worth a million and owe 100,000 to the bank, there is no way for me to get the house without having to pay back the 100,000.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94193, "body": "<p>I think you are getting confused with your estate. When you die, your estate inherits the debts, not your children. And you cant sign yourself out of that. The trustee then has the responsibility of paying off the debts if they are able to.</p>\n<p>In India, traditionally, the eldest son inherits the debt of their father. But this is not legal, its in the ethical, cultural and religious sense now.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "family-law", "wills", "debt", "probate" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94239, "body": "<h2>It depends on the contracts</h2>\n<p><strong>The &quot;merger&quot;</strong></p>\n<p>Partner A has no contract with Company B, only with Company A. Therefore, Company B has no rights or obligations towards Partner A unless they are part of the merger or acquisition of Company A. So, there are two contracts that need to be considered, the original one between Partner A and Company A and the merger contract between Company B and Company A.</p>\n<p>If the merger contract does not assign or novate the original contract from Company A to Company B, then Company B has no contract with Partner A. They can safely ignore Partner A.</p>\n<p>If the original contract is <a href=\"https://feldman.law/news/what-happens-to-contracts-after-business-is-sold/#:%7E:text=When%20a%20transaction%20closes%2C%20the,process%20for%20each%20existing%20agreement.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">assignable</a> (the default position) and the merger contract makes that assignment (either with reference to the particular contract or in general with all ongoing contracts), then Company B has assumed the rights and obligations of the contract with Person A as a successor-in-interest. At the same time, Company A remains liable for the obligations under the contract if Company B defaults. That is, if Person A is wronged under the contract, they can sue Company A or Company B, or both.</p>\n<p>If the contract is not assignable, it must be novated. this substitutes Company B for Company A as if they had always been a party to the contract. However, Person A has to agree to the novation. Such an agreement may already be in the original contract.</p>\n<p>There are some contracts, notably personal services contracts, that are neither assignable nor novatable. In this case, a new contract would need to be negotiated.</p>\n<p>Whatever happens, the merger will not end the contract - Person A will still have a contract with Company A <em>or</em> Company B. If it is an actual merger rather than an acquisition, there will be a new Company C that might hold the contract. Notwithstanding, there is still a contract between someone and Person A.</p>\n<p><strong>The original contract</strong></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Question - what happens to the revenue share agreement with Partner A - does Partner A have the right to continue to invoice Company B for its revenue share... given that Product A was discontinued?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Depends on what the contract says about discontinuing Product A.</p>\n<p>While the contract, as described, is indefinite, I doubt very much if it is perpetual. Hopefully, the people who drafted the original contract dealt with the very realistic contingency that Company A (or whoever now holds the contract) might want to stop selling Product A. After all, no product keeps being sold forever. If so, then do what the contract says.</p>\n<p>If it doesn't, then Company A (or whoever) is probably under no obligation to a) continue to sell Product A and b) pay Person A if they aren't.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93995, "body": "<h3>Short Answer</h3>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Is it illegal for US citizens to travel to North Korea?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes (but see the &quot;fine print&quot; below).</p>\n<h3>Long Answer</h3>\n<p><a href=\"https://digitalemigre.com/relocation/countries-americans-cant-travel-to/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">There is</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>a US travel ban to North Korea for American citizens, as of July 2017.</p>\n<p>Now, Americans wishing to travel to North Korea must obtain a Special\nValidation Passport from the US Department of State, only issued under\nvery specific circumstances, such as for journalists covering the\nregion or for humanitarian aid workers.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The Biden administration <a href=\"https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2021/09/01/travel-ban-extended-us-passport-north-korea/5685081001/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">extended the ban</a>, initially established by the Trump administration, on traveling to North Korea on a U.S. passport absent special approval:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The ban makes it illegal to use a U.S. passport for travel to, from or\nthrough North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of\nKorea, or the DPRK, unless the document has been specially validated.\nSuch validations are granted by the State Department only in the case\nof compelling national interest.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The U.S. State Department <a href=\"https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/north-korea-travel-advisory.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">confirms that this ban is still in place</a>. It <a href=\"https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/how-apply/passport-for-travel-to-north-korea.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">states that</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Travel to, in, or through North Korea <strong>on a U.S. passport</strong> without this\nspecial validation may justify revocation of your passport for misuse\nunder 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(3) and may subject you to felony\nprosecution under <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1544\" rel=\"noreferrer\">18 U.S.C. § 1544</a> or other applicable laws.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The maximum criminal penalty if you use a U.S. passport to go to North Korea and then return and a charged with a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1544 are quite serious. You could be sent to prison for up to ten years for a first or second offense, or up to fifteen years if you have two prior convictions under this statute, and/or fined, even if you weren't a terrorist or drug dealer, although the actual sentence would probably be milder, if you were charged with a crime at all.</p>\n<p>The criminal statute reads as follows (with the pertinent parts in bold):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Whoever willfully and knowingly uses, or attempts to use, any passport\nissued or designed for the use of another; or</p>\n<p><strong>Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use any passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions therein contained, or\nof the rules prescribed pursuant to the laws regulating the issuance\nof passports; or</strong></p>\n<p>Whoever willfully and knowingly furnishes, disposes of, or delivers a\npassport to any person, for use by another than the person for whose\nuse it was originally issued and designed—</p>\n<p><strong>Shall be fined under this title</strong>, <strong>imprisoned not more than</strong> 25 years (if\nthe offense was committed to facilitate an act of international\nterrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if\nthe offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as\ndefined in section 929(a) of this title)), <strong>10 years (in the case of\nthe first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to\nfacilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug\ntrafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or\nboth.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There are also <a href=\"https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/north-korea-sanctions\" rel=\"noreferrer\">many other North Korean sanctions</a> (and keep in mind that North Korea is legally an &quot;enemy&quot; of the United States with which the U.S. is officially still at war and does not have diplomatic relations). The most recent of those, <a href=\"https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/7676/download?inline\" rel=\"noreferrer\">from 2017</a>, prohibits ships and aircraft owned by a &quot;foreign person&quot; which have been in North Korean in the last 180 days from entering the United States.</p>\n<p>The ban does not prohibit a dual citizen from traveling to North Korea on a passport from the person's other country of citizenship, nor does it prohibit U.S. citizens from entering North Korea without using a passport (although entering North Korea without a passport or visa probably violates North Korean law).</p>\n<p>Of course, North Korea also regulates entry of people into North Korea under North Korean immigration laws. I do not know whether or not it is legal under North Korean law for people to enter it with a U.S. passport. But, given that the only U.S. citizen to enter North Korea without a special U.S. visa authorizing the trip in the last seven years was <a href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66233797\" rel=\"noreferrer\">arrested immediately after crossing into North Korea this week</a>, it would appear that this is illegal under North Korean law as well.</p>\n", "score": 23 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "immigration", "north-korea" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94237, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>How can one appeal if the basis of the conviction is unknown, with only suggested or possible reasons presented in multiple choice format?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You just appeal by rebutting <em>all</em> those possible reasons, and concluding that there was no reason for the conviction whatsoever.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "traffic", "oregon" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94113, "body": "<p>It depends on the <a href=\"https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-strike-and-picket\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">nature of the strike</a>. If a strike is &quot;protected&quot; (allowed under the NLRA), you cannot be fired but if the strike is illegal, you can be. If the strike is legal and was at least in part over an unfair labor practice, you must be immediately reinstated after the strike ends. If the strike is over economic issues, you might have been replaced with a permanent employee so you are placed on a preferential hiring list. However this right to reinstatement can be lost if you engage in serious misconduct in connection with the strike or picketing.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94150, "body": "<p>A business cannot unilaterally terminate a collective bargaining agreement (the &quot;Contract&quot;), nor terminate a union's representation of its members.</p>\n<p>A business may hire non-union employees to work during a work stoppage (&quot;strike&quot;), or may have exempt (management) employees perform the duties of the striking employees. The union employees must be re-hired after a legal strike is over. Caterpillar famously employed these tactics during a 17 month strike in the 1990s that was disastrous to the striking workers, who were forced to agree to significant concessions to end the strike.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "labor-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 87849, "body": "<p>No, one cannot safely assume that because some people have done a thing without being sued, that it is OK to do a similar thing and no suit is possible.</p>\n<p>It is possible that people who upload a video, or a section of it, have permission. It is perhaps more likely that the copyright owner does not choose to sue, for whatever reason. But a different owner of a different video might make a different choice.</p>\n<p>Uploading a video, or even a section of a video, without permission, will be copyright infringement, unless an <em><strong>exception to copyright</strong></em> such as <em><strong>fair use</strong></em> or <em><strong>fair dealing</strong></em> applies. Such an infringement gives the copyright owner valid grounds to bring a suit. But the owner can choose whether or not to sue. An owner can sue in one case of infringement but not in another, for any reason or none.</p>\n<p>If the expected damages are small, it many not be worth the time, trouble, and costs to sue. In the US, one must register a copyright before bringing suit for infringement of that copyright, and there is a fee for registration. Some owners feel strongly about the use of their work, and will sue on any pretext. Some may prefer to tacitly support uses that they approve of by not bringing suit. One cannot tell the attitude of a particular owner unless that owner has stated what his or her view is.</p>\n<p>Short films are just as protected as full-length feature films, and suit can be filed for infringing the copyright on a short film. But the more expensive a film was to make, and the more money the owner expects it to earn, the more likely it is that the owner will choose to sue.</p>\n<p>Many people infringe by uploading short films or videos, gambling that the copyright owners will never learn of this, or will not trouble to sue. Sometimes such infringers are correct, and sometimes they get sued.</p>\n<p>I do not understand what the OP means by the part of the question that reads &quot;<em>There should be more detail and complex lines over here</em>&quot; What additional detail is wanted? Who does the OP expect to provide it? What sort of &quot;lines&quot; does this refer to?</p>\n", "score": 19 } ]

[ "copyright", "youtube" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94225, "body": "<h2>Is your picture of the bus stop or the poster?</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>It is not a breach of copyright to <em>incidentally</em> capture copyright material in a photograph. It is a breach to substantially reproduce that copyrighted material.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94217, "body": "<p><strong>Details of copyright law depend on the country.</strong></p>\n<p>Imagine Alice goes to a museum and takes a photo of a work of art. In many countries, she could not use that photo without the permission of the artist and/or the museum.</p>\n<p>Alice now goes outside the museum and takes a photo of the building. Possibly the same here, the architecture is protected just like the artwork inside.</p>\n<p>Now Bob visits the same country. Bob takes a selfie in front of the skyline of the city, showing the museum and other parts of the scenery. In some countries, it would be recognized that Bob's main intent is to take a picture of himself, with the architecture in the background. So that is different from Alice's case.</p>\n<p>Charlie takes the picture at the bus stop you mention. There are now two or three things to consider:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Who holds the copyright of the poster? Possibly a photographer or an advertising agency.</li>\n<li>Does the sports star have any rights regarding his likeness? Here the rules depend on the country. It might matter how much the star is a public figure, and if the image does constitute a 'legitimate' news event.<br />\n<strong>Possibly the star has signed a 'model release' for a very specific scope and payment. This release could not be circumvented by taking a picture of the picture.</strong></li>\n<li>Could Charlie's picture be called a <em>reproduction</em> of the original poster, or is the poster clearly in the background.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 94220, "body": "<h2>An advertisement on the street is part of Panoramafreiheit in <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></h2>\n<p>German courts had to decide, if the decor of a ship, which moves around, is an exception to copyright - and that even ads on a bus fall under this. As a result, ads on a bus stop <em>also</em> qualify for the exception. <a href=\"http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&amp;Art=en&amp;Datum=Aktuell&amp;nr=78115&amp;linked=pm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">In the judgment of the 27. April 2017 &quot;I ZR 247/15 - AIDA Kussmund&quot; the highest german court decided:</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Der u.a. für das Urheberrecht zuständige I. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs hat heute entschieden, dass sich die sogenannte Panoramafreiheit auf Kunstwerke erstreckt, die nicht ortsfest sind.</p>\n<p>Ein Werk befindet sich im Sinne dieser Vorschrift [<a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__59.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">§ 59 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG</a>] an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen, wenn es von Orten aus, die unter freiem Himmel liegen und für jedermann frei zugänglich sind, wahrgenommen werden kann. Diese Voraussetzung ist auch dann erfüllt, wenn ein Werk nicht ortsfest ist und sich nacheinander an verschiedenen öffentlichen Orten befindet. <strong>Ein Werk befindet sich bleibend an solchen Orten, wenn es aus Sicht der Allgemeinheit dazu bestimmt ist, für längere Dauer dort zu sein.</strong></p>\n<p>Die Panoramafreiheit erfasst daher beispielsweise Werke an Fahrzeugen, die bestimmungsgemäß im öffentlichen Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden. Dabei kann es sich etwa um Werbung auf Omnibussen oder Straßenbahnen handeln, die den Anforderungen an Werke der angewandten Kunst genügt. Das Fotografieren und Filmen im öffentlichen Raum würde zu weitgehend eingeschränkt, wenn die Aufnahme solcher Fahrzeuge urheberrechtliche Ansprüche auslösen könnte. Künstler, die Werke für einen solchen Verwendungszweck schaffen, müssen es daher hinnehmen, dass ihre Werke an diesen öffentlichen Orten ohne ihre Einwilligung fotografiert oder gefilmt werden.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The I. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible for copyright law, has today ruled that the so-called freedom of panorama extends to works of art that are not fixed in place.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>According to [the relevant] provision, a work is considered to be located in public paths, streets, or squares if it can be perceived from places that are outdoors and freely accessible to everyone. This condition is also fulfilled if a work is not fixed in place and is located successively in different public locations. <strong>A work is considered to be permanently located at such places if, from the perspective of the public, it is intended to be there for an extended period.</strong></p>\n<p>Therefore, the freedom of panorama also applies to works, for example, on vehicles that are intended for use in public road traffic. This could include advertisements on buses or trams that meet the requirements of works of applied art. If the photographing and filming of such vehicles could trigger copyright claims, it would overly restrict photography and filming in public spaces. Artists who create works for such purposes must, therefore, accept that their works may be photographed or filmed at these public places without their consent.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The ship's exterior was deemed to be under Panoramafreiheit, and thus an exception to copyright, just as much as any other building facade, the decor of vehicles and rolling as well as standing pieces of advertisement.</p>\n<p>under German law, you can have exploitation and copyrights in <strong>your</strong> picture, but you do not gain any in the underlying work that you depicted in your picture.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 88841, "body": "<p>There is no law in the US that mandates hiring preference for US citizens over others. Such a preference would be <a href=\"https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">&quot;national origin discrimination&quot;</a>, which</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because\nthey are from a particular country or part of the world, because of\nethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic\nbackground (even if they are not).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Preferring US citizens entails dispreferring others, such as some of those who come from another country. The <a href=\"https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1200/text\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986</a> makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status.</p>\n<p>An employer is however allowed, indeed required, to obey any overriding federal law, for example they can refuse to hire a person who has no legal right be being employed because their visa does not allow employment.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "employment", "immigration", "visa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94211, "body": "<p>It will depend a lot on how you endorsed the check. You should have signed the check over to your ex, and put &quot;For Deposit Only&quot; in ex's account. I bet you didn't do anything like that, because that's fairly obscure banking stuff they don't teach in school anymore.</p>\n<p>But yes, taking money out of an account not yours, without permission and without replacing that money, will put you in legal jeopardy <strong>because you did not promptly replace the money</strong> /cover it / make it good. The substance of the crime is in not replacing the money promptly.</p>\n<p>I mean it's technically a crime if you do replace the money, but there is no <em>mens rea</em> or &quot;guilty mind&quot;, which is an essential element of a crime. For instance, I one pumped gas and drove off. I got a phone call from a police detective, and I immediately high-tailed it back to the gas station and paid my bill with a hearty apology. <em>Nothing more was made of it</em>.</p>\n<p>Since your boyfriend now seems to be hostile, I would advise re-paying your boyfriend using a payment method which is tracked and leaves a paper trail - like a cashier's check from a bank where you have a relationship. If you pay the boyfriend cash, nothing proves you paid it!</p>\n<p>You might even consider opening your own account at the bank involved in this crisis. Then you can say &quot;look, that wasn't a fraudulent check at all, I just used bad judgment sharing an ATM, and I'd like to deposit that check into my own account here&quot;. The banker may be able to do that relatively efficiently, since they will have the check (or a Check21 compliant certified copy). Expect that money to have a long hold on it.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "criminal-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94207, "body": "<p>An entity is usually required to have a foreign corporation registration in as state when it &quot;does business&quot; in the state, although ultimately, this is mostly a matter of state law.</p>\n<p>The place where the work is done by its officers, employees, and agents would be one place where the company &quot;does business&quot;, in this case California. California is the state which is the single most likely to aggressively enforce that requirement because it ties into its Franchise Tax Board tax collection agency's functions.</p>\n<p>Usually, it would be optional to register in a state where one sends goods or data via third-party instrumentalities of interstate commerce (e.g. telephones, the Internet, U.S. mail, FedEx), without having an office or employee or agent for the conduct of business there (following the now overruled standard of <em>International Shoe</em> related to general jurisdiction over corporations or other non-residents of a state and the now overruled <em>Quill</em> case regarding sales taxing jurisdiction). This is probably still good law in most cases, although the inquiry would be fact specific and would also depend upon the requirements of state law.</p>\n<p>The nature of the services provided over the Internet would also matter.</p>\n<p>For example, if you provided advice on Iowa law as a lawyer, from an office in California, to Iowa clients with no connection to California, you would probably be &quot;doing business&quot; in Iowa. But, if you simply allowed people to access your non-Iowa specific data base from Iowa that was maintained in California, you are probably not doing business in Iowa, even if you charge a fee for doing so.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "corporate-law", "incorporation", "corporate-tax-laws" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94214, "body": "<h2><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">First Sale Doctrine</a></h2>\n<p>One of the rights a copyright holder has is an exclusive right &quot;to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending&quot;. 17 U.S.C. 106(3). This is distinct from the reproduction right they have to make copies or derivative works.</p>\n<p>So, absent a licence, you can neither make the model nor distribute the model.</p>\n<p>If you are operating under a licence, that is a legally binding contract between you and the copyright holder. If it says that you cannot give away models, then doing so is a breach of that contract and a breach of copyright for which you could be sued.</p>\n<p>However, if you did sell or give away the model to a third party, that would be a lawful transfer of title in the object itself, even though it is a breach of contract. An innocent third party (i.e. one who has no knowledge of the breach) would be a lawful owner and could do what they liked with the object and, under the first-sale doctrine, is not bound by the licence.</p>\n<p>If you were to die, the executor or administrator of your estate would be bound by the terms of the licence (whether they knew about them or not), and if they breached them, they would be liable for that breach. If done in good faith, they could seek indemnity from the estate, but if the estate has insufficient funds or has been finalised, they would be personally liable. This is largely theoretical as the copyright owner would have to pursue their claim so promptly that unless they were actively monitoring the death notices for anyone who ever downloaded their model, they would miss their chance.</p>\n<p>A third party who received the physical model from the estate, either by buying it or being given it as a beneficiary, would own it and have first-sale doctrine rights.</p>\n<p>Although originally a US concept (<em>Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus</em> 1908), it is my understanding that the first-sale doctrine has since spread to all common-law countries. The last was Australia in <em>Calidad v Seiko Epson</em> [2020] HCA 41.</p>\n<h2>... the public ...</h2>\n<p>The above analysis presumes that the people you are gifting the models to are &quot;the public&quot;. This may not be the case where the models are distributed to a small circle of people like family and friends.</p>\n<p>In that case, there is no general right of distribution, and the copyright owner would need to rely on their right of reproduction. That is, in <em>making</em> the copy in order to give the object away, you breached the licence. This becomes problematic when your decision to give away the object happens later, possibly years later, possibly after you're dead.</p>\n<p>So, it might not be a problem for the executor or administrator to distribute the object to a beneficiary, but it might be a problem to sell it at a deceased-estate auction. The former is not distribution to &quot;the public&quot;; the latter is.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94139, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>Damages for libel have been awarded based on publication to a single individual.</p>\n<p>The elements of defamation are (<em>Grant v. Torstar Corp.</em>, <a href=\"https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index.do\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2009 SCC 61</a>, para. 28):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were <strong>communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For an example, see <em>Faryna v. Chorny</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/gc4lv\" rel=\"noreferrer\">[1952] 2 D.L.R. 354</a> (B.C.C.A). A letter &quot;imputing unchastity&quot; of a housekeeper was sent to a single individual.</p>\n", "score": 24 }, { "answer_id": 94147, "body": "<h2>1</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To be defamatory, the material has to be published (communicated by any means, including written, orally, pictorially) <strong>to at least one person</strong> other than the person making the claim.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/defamation-law/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Arts Law Information Sheet</a></p>\n<p>Whether disclosure to one person can cause real harm depends on what is told and to whom. A lie to a (prospective) employer, University admissions officer, or security service vetting agent could be very damaging.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 94208, "body": "<p>Consider the case of Oscar Wilde v the Marquess of Queensbury, which has become a text-book example.</p>\n<p>Queensbury handed to a porter at Wilde's club a calling card on which he'd written something like 'To Oscar Wilde posing as a somdomite [sic].(accounts vary, but not relevantly.)</p>\n<p>The people actually seeing the comment on the card might have included only the porter but a potentially much larger audience was undoubted.</p>\n<p>The law being more stringent back in 1895, Queensbury was apparently arrested and criminally charged with libel.</p>\n<p>As it happens, Wilde lost his case on the grounds that Queensbury's remark was not defamatory but rather, true but even that is not relevant.</p>\n<p>What matters is that the card was left lying around the club and might have been seen by anyone picking it up and turning it over - or simply by the porter to whom it was actually given.</p>\n<p>That is to say, the audience need be no larger than 'perhaps one or more'.</p>\n<p>Of course if it was established that the audience was in fact no more than one, damages would be correspondingly small and but the degree of defamation is not the point: libel did or dit not occur.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "defamation", "libel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94206, "body": "<p>In Ontario, you can apply for a <a href=\"https://www.skilledtradesontario.ca/experienced-workers/trade-equivalency-assessment/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Trade Equivalency Assessment.</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Skilled Trades Ontario’s Trade Equivalency Assessment is the first step towards obtaining a Certificate of Qualification for experienced workers who have not completed an Ontario apprenticeship but who have equivalent skills and experience. The Trade Equivalency Assessment determines whether you can challenge the certifying exam for a trade. If successful in the exam, you would pay a fee to be issued a Certificate of Qualification in that trade.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In other words, this is a certification that you've gained practical skills and have enough work experience (which I would expect to be about <a href=\"https://www.skilledtradesontario.ca/trade-information/automotive-service-technician/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">four years</a>, since that's what's required for people starting from scratch via the Ontario apprenticeship system.) You then also have to take a certifying exam.</p>\n<p>In Alberta, you can apply for the <a href=\"https://tradesecrets.alberta.ca/become-certified/qualify-based-on-work-experience/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Trades Qualifier - Work Experience</a> program. For an <a href=\"https://tradesecrets.alberta.ca/trades-in-alberta/profiles/009/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Automotive Service Technician,</a> this requires:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>A minimum of 72 months AND 9,360 hours of work experience.</li>\n<li>A successful theory exam.</li>\n<li>A Trades Competency Verification (TCV) <em>[a practical exam — ed.]</em></li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "licensing", "ontario", "car", "alberta", "automotive" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93992, "body": "<p>It is an unquestioned pre-American axiom, expressed in Latin as <em>actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea</em> (&quot;the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty&quot;) which has been part of the Anglo-American legal system since at least the 17th century. It is thus presupposed in all criminal proceedings. It's not that a person only commits a crime with free will, it's that it is not deemed to be a crime if there is no free will. A person can be held at gunpoint and required to commit a criminal act: the person does indeed have free will to choose to be killed rather than commit the act, but the act is legally excused since dying is never held to be the only acceptable alternative to committing an otherwise-criminal act.</p>\n", "score": 32 }, { "answer_id": 93991, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>Conduct that is involuntary (in the sense of having no conscious control or awareness of one's actions) &quot;cannot be criminal&quot; (<em>R. v. Brown</em>, <a href=\"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19389/index.do\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2022 SCC 18</a>):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To deprive a person of their liberty for that involuntary conduct committed in a state akin to automatism — conduct that cannot be criminal — violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 94005, "body": "<p>I don't see how any legal system, US,or otherwise, could work without the assumption of free will.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Defendant: I don't have free will, so I can't be held responsible for my actions.</li>\n<li>Judge: I don't have free will either, so I'm going to have to sentence you.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 94001, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/wisconsin\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;wisconsin&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;wisconsin&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-wisconsin-tooltip-container\">wisconsin</a></p>\n<p>I found the following in <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6114749198337627541&amp;q=56%20Wis.%202d%20808&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,50&amp;as_vis=1\" rel=\"noreferrer\">State v. Vinson</a>, 269 Wis. 305 - Wis: Supreme Court 1955:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The instruction of which appellant complains does no more than inform the jury of the well-known rule that <strong>one is presumed to intend the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts but that the presumption may be rebutted.</strong><br />\n&quot;... there are certain presumptions which react against accused, such as the presumption of sanity, considered below in sec. 584, of knowledge of the law, see infra sec. 586, and that a person intends the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts, ...&quot; 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, p. 893, sec. 579.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I don't know that it's possible to intend to do something without free will, so I think these presumptions also imply a presumption of free will.</p>\n<p>The citation to a law encyclopedia would seem to indicate that these presumptions come from common law, and not from any particular statute (if the presumptions came from statute, they'd cite the statute instead.)</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 94020, "body": "<p>I may be wrong, but it sounds like the question is flawed in that it makes inaccurate assumptions... namely; our legal system specifically addresses free will. It does not.</p>\n<p>To operate effectively we assume a person cannot be found guilty of committing a crime unless they did so with the ability to make a choice.</p>\n<p>From a recent ruling:</p>\n<h2>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KAHLER v. KANSAS CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 18–6135. Argued October 7, 2019—Decided March 23, 2020</h2>\n<p><em>from page 3, paragraph 1</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Defining the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness requires balancing complex considerations, among them the workings of the brain, the purposes of criminal law, and the ideas of free will and responsibility. This balance should remain open to revision as new medical knowledge emerges and societal norms evolve.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Seems pretty clear they address the question you ask here?</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94014, "body": "<p>Even if we were like machines or primitive animals, just reacting to the input we get in a deterministic fashion, the justice system still makes sense.</p>\n<p>It is clear that punishment has effect, and that people like to avoid punishment, no matter whether this a free choice or just wired into our brain.</p>\n<p>So I see no reason why Free Will is a necessary assumption.</p>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 94203, "body": "<p>After some reflection, I have theorized that where it is &quot;officially&quot; stated that the American criminal justice system presumes that defendants commit crimes with free will is found in the U.S. Constitution: To clarify, a necessary component of something being a crime (in the U.S.) is that the alleged crime was done with free will. More specifically, the official stating of such is found in the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.</p>\n<p>My reasoning for this is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause:</p>\n<p>&quot;This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&quot;</p>\n<p>As such, if there is something to be learned about how the American legal system works, it should be able to be derived from the U.S. Constitution. Although the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not explicitly detail how free will is presumed to exist within those who have committed a crime in the land of the U.S., case law [such as United States v. Grayson 438 U.S. 41 (1978)] explicates this matter. Furthermore, common law tradition of free will being a component of a crime having been committed is codified in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rather than explicitly argued.</p>\n<p>So, two things:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>As part of guaranteeing due process, it's required that for something to qualify as a crime, it must have been committed via free will. (It's not fair to consider otherwise)</li>\n<li>As part of due process, it is presumed that all persons have free will.</li>\n</ol>\n<p><strong>Answer: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.</strong></p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "theory-of-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 91802, "body": "<p>The San Jose version of the ordinance is presumably <a href=\"https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PUPEMOWE_CH10.50SPPRSTRAREDREX_10.50.020SPPRSTRAREDREX\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this</a>. The term &quot;spectator&quot; is defined as:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>any person who is present at a Street Race or Reckless Driving\nExhibition, or the site of the Preparations for either of these\nactivities, for the purpose of viewing, observing, watching, or\nwitnessing the event as it progresses. A &quot;Spectator&quot; includes any\nperson at the location of the event without regard to the means by\nwhich the person arrived</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>which rules out a person why &quot;just happens to be there&quot;, and it does include a person who was driving by and decided to watch.</p>\n<p>It is specifically limited to &quot;a Street Race conducted on a public street or highway&quot; or &quot;a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility&quot;. These terms are also defined – it does for example not include watching a street mime. The events being watch are violations of the state vehicle code (speeding, reckless driving). All of this would pass muster if constitutionally challenged – it is a narrowly-tailored restriction on the right to assembly that is necessary for a compelling government interest.</p>\n<p>§10.50.025 also makes it</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>unlawful for any person to knowingly encourage, promote, instigate,\nassist, facilitate, aid, or abet</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>said activities. The internet claims that this means you can't Tweet about one of these events, and this may be the ordinance you have in mind. This ordinance could easily be found to be unconstitutionally vague, because it may well be interpreted to mean &quot;comment on it on Twitter&quot;, which is a protected expression.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 91794, "body": "<p>No right is absolute, and all are held in balance with each other as well as the interests of the government (public order, public health and safety, etc.).</p>\n<p>To make it short: rights to assembly and speech can usually be abridged in the interests of resolving an immediate public safety issue or other illegal act. Which the events you describe certainly are on both counts—they endanger participants, spectators, bystanders, and public and private property alike, as well as creating a public nuisance (such as via noise ordinances) etc.—and spectating and recording them only contributes to and encourages the issue.</p>\n<p>The exact legal standards for when a right can be abridged depends on the right. For free speech issues it's usually &quot;narrowly tailored to suit a compelling government interest&quot; (but note &quot;narrowly tailored&quot; is more permissive than you might think), and there are <a href=\"https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">time, place, and manner restrictions</a> the government can avail itself of. The behavior you indicate seems to fall well within these exceptions, and it's arguable in what sense there's meaningful &quot;speech&quot; going on here in the first place. For right to assembly, in addition to time, place, and manner exceptions <a href=\"https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">there's another, usually less restrictive (on the government), set of standards</a>, which includes threats to public health and safety. And street races and stunts are clear examples thereof, as the drivers can easily lose control or the cars otherwise veer into spectators and/or property (plus the damage they are likely inflicting to the public roadways themselves, above and beyond normal permitted use). Furthermore, cities in California (and presumably elsewhere) have been dealing with this issue for years, and simply focusing on just the stunt performers and drivers has proven inadequate to address a compelling public safety issue.</p>\n<p>I had some initial difficulties finding explicit references to fines of spectators other than your own brief article. <a href=\"https://www.greghillassociates.com/street-race-spectator-l-a-mc-47-15-reduced-to-infraction.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">But here's a whole case synopsis from LA</a>, specifically as an infraction of <a href=\"https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-133112\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">LA MC 47.15</a>. Notably, at no point is there any mention of trying to contest the validity of the law; only if the particular requirements (intent to spectate and proximity) were met and the difficulty in the ticketing officer to remember those things without it being easy for the defense to undercut this. They negotiated a plea deal, ultimately, to avoid jail time. Now not everyone is willing and able to contest things all the way up the appellate chain; even those that contest and appeal sometimes stop before reaching SCOTUS, for any number of reasons. But this seems suggestive nevertheless: a law office is putting forth a &quot;we negotiated this down&quot; rather than a &quot;we contested it's validity wholesale&quot; as an example of the kind of service and results you can get through them on this sort of issue.</p>\n<p>Combined, I would conclude that there is little reason to think a court would find the law unconstitutional.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "california", "freedom-of-speech", "first-amendment", "recording" ]

[ { "answer_id": 65175, "body": "<p>The State Department has what I believe are deliberately awful FOIA processing guidelines, which categorize virtually every request as complex, unless all the requested documents are &quot;<a href=\"https://foia.state.gov/Learn/Reports/Officer/2020.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">readily available for release</a>.&quot; Exactly what that means, I don't know, but I think it's safe to assume that they would not consider a 30-year-old document readily available.</p>\n<p>Nonetheless, that designation does not, as I understand it, have any effect on the statutory deadline to respond to the request, which is 20 days, regardless of whether it's been designated standard or complex. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i)</a>.</p>\n<p>Of course, all of this could vary somewhat depending on exactly what you've requested. If you've requested a press release from 1992, they should adhere to the 20-day deadline. But if you've requested a compendium of classified diplomatic cables, and they've decided to actually consider declassifying them, that might constitute the kind of &quot;unusual circumstances&quot; where the statute permits more than 20 days. Even then, though, the statute requires them to give you written notice of the circumstances, and the extension usually should not be more than another 10 days.</p>\n<p>At this point, you have the option of continuing to wait, calling the FOIA office for some polite sabre-rattling, going through the <a href=\"https://www.archives.gov/ogis/mediation-program\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">OGIS dispute-resolution program</a>, or treating the delay as a denial and filing an appeal. You cannot go into court until you have gone through the full administrative appeal process.</p>\n", "score": 9 } ]

[ "united-states", "foia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94152, "body": "<p>Although Alice will mostly have achieved her aim in ending the tenancy early, there is one significant consequence of being evicted under section 8: a county court judgement (CCJ) against her.</p>\n<p>A CCJ check is a standard part of the referencing check done by landlords when someone applies to be a tenant. Having a CCJ on record means that Alice may find it much harder to find somewhere to rent in the future.</p>\n<p>So even if she's not out of pocket due to ending her tenancy early, she may end up with nowhere to live...or perhaps renting from a landlord who doesn't bother with CCJ checks, which may not be a good thing...</p>\n<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> as pointed out in a comment, it looks like a CCJ would only apply if the tenant leaves while owing rent or other costs. If no money is due, then there will be no CCJ, even if the tenant is evicted under one of the other grounds of Section 8 (e.g. breach of contract).</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Realistically, there are up to three flaws with this scenario:</p>\n<p>Achieving a section 8 eviction can take many, many months, so it's entirely possible that Alice's fixed term will have ended anyway by the time the case comes to court, making much of this moot.</p>\n<p>My understanding is that eviction proceedings aren't cheap, so I'd be amazed if the costs only came to 35% of the deposit.</p>\n<p>Having a subtenant creates further complications, as the subtenant has certain rights even if their tenancy is invalid. But that's out of scope for this question.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "england-and-wales", "tenancy-rules" ]

[]

[ "united-kingdom", "legal-terms", "incorporation", "city-of-london" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94196, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p>There isn't a law that defines '<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting\" rel=\"noreferrer\">gaslighting</a>' as an offence.</p>\n<p><em>Generally</em> it isn't unlawful to mislead, deceive or lie - of course, there are exceptions such as <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents\" rel=\"noreferrer\">fraud</a>, <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/regulations-that-affect-advertising\" rel=\"noreferrer\">misleading advertising</a>, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6\" rel=\"noreferrer\">perjury</a> and so on.</p>\n<p>So the answer to your question must depend on what is meant by 'gaslighting' and the circumstances in which it has been said to have occurred. It seems to me that people understand and use the word differently - for me it pertains to intimate or family relationships (as in its alleged origin, the film <em>Gaslight</em>), some people seem to use it for different serious behaviour and other people use it for relatively trivial behaviour.</p>\n<p>In the intimate or family relationship context, gaslighting might be part or all of the behaviour alleged to be the controlling or coercive behaviour contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s76 Serious Crime Act 2015</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>76 Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family\nrelationship</p>\n<p>(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—</p>\n<p>(a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another\nperson (B) that is controlling or coercive,</p>\n<p>(b)at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,</p>\n<p>(c)the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and</p>\n<p>(d)A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious\neffect on B.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Here is the Crown Prosecution Service guidance for prosecuting s76 Serious Crime Act 2015</a>.</p>\n<p>Simply lying about one's job or income to have a one-night stand would not constitute the s76 offence.</p>\n<p>Behaviour that causes psychological injury that amounts to recognisable psychiatric illness could be assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) contrary to s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (<a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard\" rel=\"noreferrer\">see CPS Guidance for ABH</a>).</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "criminal-procedure", "mental-health", "stalking" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94127, "body": "<p>Any duty that exists is not legally enforceable in the courts in the U.S. (there are one or two cases in Canada imposing a similar duty in extraordinary rendition cases).</p>\n<p>Also, the arguably legal duty to provide diplomatic assistance to one's citizens doesn't apply in countries like North Korea where the U.S. has no diplomats.</p>\n<p>In practice, the U.S. government will do everything reasonably within its power to secure the release of a U.S. citizen held by a hostile foreign power (even a U.S. citizen who has behaved badly), because that's in the DNA of how the U.S. State Department always acts. But, at this point, short of an extreme Special Operations mission to abduct a prisoner that voluntarily defected from the U.S. while stationed in South Korea, there really isn't anything that the U.S. could do even if ordered to do so.</p>\n", "score": 13 }, { "answer_id": 94126, "body": "<p>There is no duty rescue, except if a party negligently places another in harm (this is a general principle of law, probably not imposed on a government). A duty to negotiate is even less likely. POTUS can decide to negotiate, but Congress has not mandated any duty to negotiate so the courts will not order POTUS to negotiate if he decides not to. POTUS has the exclusive power to negotiate treaties, and the Senate has the exclusive power to approve them, so there is no constitutional basis for a law forcing a president to negotiate especially with a nation that we have no diplomatic relations with.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 94134, "body": "<p>The <strong>Vienna Convention Consular Relations (1963-04-24)</strong> Article 5 (e) give a country the right to <em>help and assist</em> their nationals, either directly through their consulate (or through another consulate that represents their interests¹).</p>\n<p>This is more of a moral obligation to assist their citizens even if a crime has been committed by them (by assisting them the country does not admit/claim that the action of their citizen was right).</p>\n<hr />\n<p>¹ Article 27 (1)(c) <em>the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State</em>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Sweden,_Pyongyang\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Embassy of Sweden, Pyongyang - Wikipedia</a>:</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Swedish embassy serves as the protecting power for the United States and as consular representation for Australia, Canada, Italy, Finland, and Iceland.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/resourcesold/csi/us-embassies/north-korea.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">U.S. Department of State - Swedish Embassy (U.S. Protecting Power)</a></li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 94195, "body": "<p>There is a statutory duty imposed on the president by <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/1732\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">22 USC 1732</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This obviously does not apply to people who are detained for good reason, so it arguably does not apply to someone detained for entering a country contrary to law until the detention becomes excessive. Furthermore, because the duty is to &quot;demand the release&quot; of the detainee and to &quot;use such means ... as he may think necessary and proper,&quot; it doesn't necessarily require negotiation.</p>\n<p>There is a similar statutory duty imposed on the secretary of state by <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/chapter-23/subchapter-II\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">22 USC chapter 23, subchapter II (sections 1741 and following)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) Review</p>\n<p>The Secretary of State shall review, as expeditiously as possible, the cases of United States nationals detained abroad to determine if there is credible information that they are being detained unlawfully or wrongfully, based on criteria which may include whether—</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>(b) Referrals to Special Envoy; notification to Congress</p>\n<p>(1) In general</p>\n<p>Upon a determination by the Secretary of State, based on the totality of the circumstances, that there is credible information that the detention of a United States national abroad is unlawful or wrongful, and regardless of whether the detention is by a foreign government or a nongovernmental actor, the Secretary shall—\n(A)expeditiously transfer responsibility for such case from the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State to the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs; and ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This subchapter is a bit more vague, though, with requirements such as</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell shall (1) coordinate efforts by participating agencies to ensure that all relevant information, expertise, and resources are brought to bear to secure the safe recovery of United States nationals held hostage abroad; ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is not clear from a brief reading whether any of this imposes a duty to negotiate anyone's release under any circumstances.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 94178, "body": "<p>No. It doesn't. While the US does generally try, it has no obligation to do so.</p>\n<p>Here's a State Department web page discussing...</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/emergencies/arrest-detention.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/emergencies/arrest-detention.html</a></p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "north-korea" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94141, "body": "<p>As a starting point, and because it is a common occurrence, we can conclude that the government <em>can</em> give a benefit to someone without having to give the same benefit to everyone. It is a political matter that a divorced spouse is entitled to Social Security benefits based on a marriage that lasted at least 10 years, and not 9 years. More such restrictions on benefits are listed <a href=\"https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>. Equal protection does not &quot;everybody gets the benefit&quot;.</p>\n<p>Second, the government can give benefits to people whom it has harmed, again a point that hopefully does not require extensive justification. Third, and this leads to a concrete example, under the Japanese-American Evacuation Claims Act of 1948, $37 million was paid by the federal government to 26,000 who were sent to the Japanese-American concentration camps during WWII, so there is an &quot;effects-based&quot; racial discrimination that this benefit was only given to a specific racial group, because the underlying wrong was also racially-based, and likewise Aleut residents of the Aleutian Islands and the Pribilof islands were likewise compensated for harm done to them by the government. A person is not barred from compensation by wrongful government action just because the persons and others who are compensated for governmental wrong were the victims of a racially discriminatory wrong (therefore there is a racal correlate to the class of victims).</p>\n<p>Victims of government harm can be conceptually divided into two groups: direct victims, and indirect victims. There is no controversy over the legality of the government compensating individuals for its wrongful actions. The only plausible point of legal objection would be over compensating people who descended from victims of government harm. There is a legal difference between lineage-based discrimination and race-based discrimination, simply because lineage-based discrimination is <em>not</em> racial discrimination, which is forbidden. There is a greater chance that lineage-based reparations could pass strict scrutiny, in that it more narrowly tailors the benefit to exactly reach the compelling government interest, as opposed to a policy that broadly gives a compensatory benefit to anyone who self-identifies as being of a particular race.</p>\n<p>Finally, the question might be asked whether a program of government compensation for wrongful acts can be selective, in which victims it identifies for compensation. Yes, it can, for example the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Radiation Exposure Compensation Act</a> for specific classes of persons harmed by government in connection with atmospheric A-bomb tests and uranium mining – it does not compensate <em>all</em> individuals who were harmed by government action. The question of which victims are compensated (by act of Congress) is not justiciable, it is a political question.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 94189, "body": "<p>Regardless of anything else, it is certainly possible for a city who feels a particular party might have the basis for a lawsuit against them, to reach out to that party <em>prior to lawsuit</em> and &quot;settle&quot; the matter.</p>\n<p>While this might seem like a giveaway, it's not quite. It is a fair exchange of a <em>known, fixed, small</em> amount of money, <strong>plus certainty</strong>, in exchange for <strong>uncertainty</strong> and a costly litigation involving a much larger amount of money.</p>\n<p>The <strong>plaintiff is now barred from suing on that matter</strong>, so the city enjoys the certainty that no million dollar judgment is hanging over their head. That reduces their insurance premiums.</p>\n<p>I cannot speculate about which developments in facts or law would lead Evanston to think they might have such legal exposure.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "fourteenth-amendment", "civil-right-act" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94183, "body": "<h2>The TENANT is both of you</h2>\n<p>The TENANT (i.e. both of you) have to give 30 days notice. And the TENANT (again, both of you) must “ vacate the premises upon termination of the Agreement, unless …”.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94181, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>does this mean I don't have to give 30 days notice?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You and your roommate are renting the premises jointly. You cannot terminate the agreement unilaterally. You need the agreement of the other parties to modify the lease.</p>\n<p>As far as the landlord is concerned, the two of you are jointly and severally liable for the rent through the end of the month in which he regains possession of the apartment, or the first month end that falls 30 days or more after he learns of your intention to relinquish possession, whichever is later. So no, you don't have to give 30 days notice. The 30 days notice of your roommate's departure is sufficient.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Does the mention of 30 days here negate the other sentence?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The other sentence doesn't specify a number of days, so this sentence isn't in conflict with it. If the other sentence specified a different number of days, there would be a conflict.</p>\n<p>If the lease didn't specify a number of days anywhere then the statutory notice period applying to month to month tenancies would apply, which is, if I recall correctly, 30 days.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "tenant", "residential-lease", "lease", "tenancy-rules", "breaking-the-lease" ]

[ { "answer_id": 80701, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">germany</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0034\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]</a></p>\n<p>(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.</p>\n<p>(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.</p>\n<p>(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p><strong>Sources</strong>:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany</a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0023\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Article 2 [Personal freedoms]</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0034\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]</a></li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 18 }, { "answer_id": 80688, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">england-and-wales</a> and <a href=\"/questions/tagged/northern-ireland\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;northern-ireland&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">northern-ireland</a></p>\n<p>It's called the <em>Article 10 Right to Freedom of Expression</em> and can be found at <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Schedule 1, Part 1</a> of the Human Rights Act 1998:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.</p>\n<p>2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Note that paragraph 2 makes this a <em>qualified right</em>. These are rights:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>...that permit interferences subject to various conditions. For example, the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8 of the ECHR) and the right to freedom of expression (Art. 10 of the ECHR) allow interference, but such interferences must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic state for the requirements of public order, public health or morals, national security or public safety. <a href=\"https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/pages/glossary/fundamental-rights_en\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Source</em></a></p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 17 }, { "answer_id": 80691, "body": "<p>For example, the <a href=\"/questions/tagged/eritrea\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;eritrea&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">eritrea</a> <a href=\"https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Eritrea_1997.pdf?lang=en\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Eritrean constitution, Art. 19</a> guarantees</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief.</li>\n<li>Every person shall have the freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and other media.</li>\n<li>Every citizen shall have the right of access to information.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and 6 other rights. As long as you have a license to publish and get prior approval from the government for your publication, you are alright.</p>\n<p>Article 67 of the <a href=\"/questions/tagged/dprk\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;dprk&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">dprk</a> <a href=\"http://www.naenara.com.kp/index.php/Main/index/en/politics?arg_val=constitution\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Democratic People's Republic of Korea</a> says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly,\ndemonstration and association. The State shall guarantee the\nconditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and\nsocial organizations</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/sweden\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sweden&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">sweden</a> has a <a href=\"https://www.riksdagen.se/globalassets/07.-dokument--lagar/the-fundamental-law-on-freedom-of-expression-2015.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">&quot;Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression&quot;</a>, which is quite lengthy and specific. It is, however, a crime to publicly express disrespect for an group regarding race, color, national / ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. In Norway, <a href=\"https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Norway_2014#s300\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Art. 100</a> of the constitution says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received\ninformation, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in\nrelation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the\nseeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's\nfreedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by\nlaw.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(etc.), and likewise criminalizes hate speech.</p>\n<p>Libel, fraud and death threats are communicative acts that are universally banned, and child pornography is almost universally illegal, so no country is anarchic in terms of expression. Every nation has limits on expression, which are generally taken to be implicitly justified exceptions to existing guarantees of freedom of expression. In some countries, the exceptions are named in detail in the constitution, in some (North Korea, Eritrea) the constitution is simply ignored.</p>\n", "score": 13 }, { "answer_id": 80694, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">australia</a></p>\n<h2>Yes and No</h2>\n<p><strong>Comprehensive rights protections</strong></p>\n<p>Australia is unique among liberal western democracies in that it does not have an enumerated Bill of Rights; neither in its Constitution nor as an enacted piece of legislation. With the exception of the ACT and Victoria, the states and territories don't have one either.</p>\n<p>Before Federation, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected (19 votes to 23) including protections similar to those in the US Constitution. It failed largely because it was feared that due process protections would interfere with the racially discriminatory policies against aboriginal Australians and people of Chinese descent which all the colonies enthusiastically pursued. Australia in the late nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth centuries was breathtakingly and unashamedly racist. Today, racism is largely personal rather than institutionalised.</p>\n<p>Proposals for a Constitutional Bill of Rights were considered in 1929 and 1959 but neither progressed to a referendum. In 1942, a referendum was held on expanding Federal powers over post-war construction counterbalanced by Constitutional limitation on Parliament regulating freedom of expression and extending freedom of religion to the states: it was rejected at the referendum. A charter of human rights went to referendum in 1988: it was overwhelmingly rejected with no state reaching 30% approval.</p>\n<p>Several attempts to legislate a comprehensive Bill of Rights have also failed to go anywhere. However, individual pieces of legislation have created rights in specific areas.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Reference</a></p>\n<p><strong>Constitutional rights</strong></p>\n<p>That said, the Constitution gives the following express rights:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>freedom of religion</li>\n<li>freedom against discrimination between the states</li>\n<li>the right ofAustralian Citizens to trial by jury. That said, all judicial systems treat non-citizens the same as citizens but Parliament could legislate to change this.</li>\n<li>the right of free trade among the states</li>\n<li>The right to acquire and hold property</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The courts have also found implied rights that are necessary to give effect to the democracy spelled out in the constitution:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the right to vote, and</li>\n<li>the right of freedom of political communication.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The High Court has also indicated that the classes of implied rights are not necessarily closed.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.australianconstitutioncentre.org.au/rights.html#:%7E:text=%E2%80%8BThe%20Constitution%20defines%20and,and%20the%20acquisition%20of%20property.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Reference</a></p>\n<p><strong>Non-constitutional rights</strong></p>\n<p>Australia inherited the common law rights of England and, subject to subsequent statutory and judicial amendments, these are still in force. This means that freedom of expression is the default assumption baring any specific laws proscribing it.</p>\n<p>Australia is also a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is contained in articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Also relevant are articles 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), articles 12 and 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).</p>\n<p>In addition, specific legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act provide both rights and restrictions on free speech within their particular sphere. Most such legislation is replicated at a state and territory level.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Reference</a></p>\n<p><strong>Permissable restrictions</strong></p>\n<p><em>Derogation</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression 'in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed'.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>Limitation</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>[U]nder article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation necessary to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Reference</a></p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 80703, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/france\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">france</a></p>\n<h3>Yes, but</h3>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/constitution-of-4-october-1958\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Constitution du 4 octobre 1958</em></a> doesn't enumerate such rights, it describes how the Fifth Republic functions, powers, or checks and balances, and although it has been amended 24 times, there is no mention of freedom of speech in the text.</p>\n<p>The preamble of the Constitution outlines something important for this question however:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(<em>The preamble was amended to include the Charter for the Environment of 2004, the <a href=\"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIARTI000006527446/1958-10-05/#LEGIARTI000006527446\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">original 1958 preamble</a> obviously doesn't mention it, thus it has been left out here.</em>)</p>\n<p>A 1971 decision of the <em>Conseil Constitutionnel</em> struck down a law as anticonstitutional arguing the 1789 <a href=\"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/declaration-of-human-and-civic-rights-of-26-august-1789\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen</em></a> had full constitutional force because it is mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution. The <em>Déclaration</em> is thus part of the <em>bloc de constitutionnalité</em>.</p>\n<p>The <em>Déclaration</em> has one article relevant to freedom of speech, and two about limits to freedoms:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Article 11 - The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Article 4 - Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Article 5 - The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>Freedom of speech is a constitutional one</strong>, however it also <em><strong>can be limited by law</strong></em>, if the law aims to protect society from harm or protect other people's rights. The Constitutional Council has the power and responsibility to strike down laws that overreach and needlessly restrict freedom of speech, or any other freedom (as outlined in articles 61, 61-1, 62 of the Constitution).</p>\n<p>As for forms of speech restricted by law, they include defamation and copyright infringement (or perhaps more accurately authors' rights infringement), this much is common to the United States.</p>\n<p>A difference however is that hate speech, Holocaust-denial, or the use of Nazi symbols for their political value is considered harmful to society or infringes on other citizens' freedoms, as the law does explicitly forbid such forms of expression.</p>\n<p>Similarly to defamation, what constitutes hate speech is ultimately to be adjudicated by the courts.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 80732, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is an explicit right, as described in Section 2 of the <a href=\"https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<h3>Fundamental Freedoms</h3>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:</li>\n</ol>\n<p>(a) freedom of conscience and religion;</p>\n<p>(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;</p>\n<p>(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and</p>\n<p>(d) freedom of association.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>However, Section 1 of the Charter also notes that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In other wise, limits on free speech may be imposed if they can be &quot;demonstrably justified.&quot;</p>\n<p>Whether the government can justify a law that infringes upon a Charter right is currently determined by the <a href=\"https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/oakes-test/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Oakes test</a>, which requires that when a law is challenged on Charter grounds, the government must establish:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>that the law in question has a &quot;pressing and substantial&quot; purpose;</li>\n<li>that the provision in question is &quot;rationally connected&quot; to the law's purpose;</li>\n<li>that the provision &quot;minimally impairs&quot; the Charter right in question (i.e., it's not broader than it needs to be); and</li>\n<li>that the law's restriction of Charter rights is not disproportionate large compared to the positive effects of the law.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Under this test, the Supreme Court of Canada has found that Section 1 allows for limits on various types of speech:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>speech that promotes hatred (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Keegstra</a> and <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Andrews</a>)</li>\n<li>speech that is libelous (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v_Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</a> and <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Lucas\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Lucas</a>)</li>\n<li>speech that is obscene (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Butler\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Butler</a> but also <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Glad_Day_Bookshops_Inc\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Glad Day Bookshops</a>)</li>\n<li>solicitation of prostitution (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Skinner\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Skinner</a>)</li>\n<li>publication of election results before polls close (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Bryan\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Bryan</a>)</li>\n<li>publication of news about ongoing criminal trials, in certain cases (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenais_v_Canadian_Broadcasting_Corp\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Dagenais v CBC</a> and <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Mentuck\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Mentuck</a> but also <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Journal_v_Alberta_(AG)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG)</a>)</li>\n<li>advertising directed at children (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Toy_Ltd_v_Quebec_(AG)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Irwin Toy v Quebec (AG)</a>)</li>\n<li>noise pollution (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al_(City_of)_v_2952-1366_Qu%C3%A9bec_Inc\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Montréal v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc.</a>)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Finally, in the context of comparing Canada's speech laws with those of other countries, it is also important to note <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Zundel\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R v Zündel</a>, a 1992 decision concerning a Holocaust denier. Zündel was prosecuted under a broad law against knowingly publishing false statements; but the Supreme Court found that the particular law did not have a pressing purpose, nor were its impairments of charter rights minimal, and so it struck down the law. More recently, in June 2022 <a href=\"https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Canada enacted an antisemitism law</a> prohibiting Holocaust denial. The constitutionality of this law has, to the best of my knowledge, not yet been tested.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 80716, "body": "<p>The <a href=\"https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_(1977)/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_07.10.1977\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1977 Constitution</a> of the USSR (in force until 1991) states:</p>\n<p>Article 50:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>В соответствии с интересами народа и в целях укрепления и развития социалистического строя гражданам СССР гарантируются свободы: слова, печати, собраний, митингов, уличных шествий и демонстраций.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Осуществление этих политических свобод обеспечивается предоставлением трудящимся и их организациям общественных зданий, улиц и площадей, широким распространением информации, возможностью использования печати, телевидения и радио.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>( DeepL translation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In accordance with the interests of the people and with a view to strengthening and developing the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the freedoms of: speech, the press, meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by the provision of public buildings, streets and squares for workers and their organisations, by the wide dissemination of information, and by the possibility of using the press, television and radio.\n)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Article 57:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Уважение личности, охрана прав и свобод граждан — обязанность всех государственных органов, общественных организаций и должностных лиц.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(DeepL translation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Respect for the individual and the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the responsibility of all state bodies, public organisations and officials.\n)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is pretty much explicit. <em>However</em>, Article 59 also says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Осуществление прав и свобод неотделимо от исполнения гражданином своих обязанностей. Гражданин СССР обязан соблюдать Конституцию СССР и советские законы, уважать правила социалистического общежития, с достоинством нести высокое звание гражданина СССР.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(DeepL translation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The exercise of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the fulfilment of a citizen's duties. A citizen of the USSR must observe the USSR Constitution and Soviet laws, respect the rules of socialist society, and carry with dignity the high title of a citizen of the USSR. )</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the freedom of speech <em>was</em> conditional, the state was supposed to guarantee the constitutional rights, but the citizens were supposed to abide by the Constitution. I guess this makes it a bit less &quot;free&quot; than the USA variant (and note that &quot;suppose&quot; is the key word here).</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 80727, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/netherlands\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;netherlands&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">netherlands</a></p>\n<p>Freedom of speech in the Netherlands is guaranteed by article 7 of the <a href=\"https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2018-12-21\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands</a>: <em>Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden</em> or <em>grondwet</em> (ground/base law) for short. The article is comprised of the following four clauses:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>Niemand heeft voorafgaand verlof nodig om door de drukpers gedachten of gevoelens te openbaren, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.</li>\n<li>De wet stelt regels omtrent radio en televisie. Er is geen voorafgaand toezicht op de inhoud van een radio- of televisieuitzending.</li>\n<li>Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet. De wet kan het geven van vertoningen toegankelijk voor personen jonger dan zestien jaar regelen ter bescherming van de goede zeden.</li>\n<li>De voorgaande leden zijn niet van toepassing op het maken van handelsreclame.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This can be translated as</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>Nobody needs prior permission to publish in print thoughts or feelings, under condition of everyone's responsibility by law.</li>\n<li>The law sets rules for radio and television. No prior supervision is performed on the contents of a radio or television broadcast.</li>\n<li>To publish thoughts or feelings through means other than those mentioned in the previous clauses, nobody needs prior permission for the contents thereof, under condition of everyone's responsibility by law. The law may regulate viewings accessible to persons younger than sixteen years to protect decency.</li>\n<li>The prior clauses are not applicable to trade advertisements.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>While this law is somewhat archaically formulated, in practice it appears largely applied in spirit, meaning that its application is not limited to the specific media mentioned in the law.</p>\n<p>Additionally there is the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">European Convention on Human Rights</a> which also guarantees free speech, and which the European Union requires all members and candidate members to be signatories of.</p>\n<p>Another thing of interest may be to learn that the USA is built on common law (focus on precedent), whereas the Netherlands, and in fact the majority of Europe is built on civil law (focus on written law), which may impact through which (combination of) means a country protects certain rights.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 80775, "body": "<p>The Danish constitution article 77 says</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Grundloven § 77</p>\n<p>§ 77 Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde påny indføres.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This can be translated as</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The constitution § 77</p>\n<p>§77 Everyone is entitled to in print, in writing and speech, to publish their thoughts, under penalty of the courts. Censorhip and other preventative measures and rules cannot be reintroduced.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This article is being violated by hate-speech laws (being a preventative measure) and was nearly totally abolished when a law nearly passed that would force &quot;social media&quot; companies to unrank dissenting views. Fortunately, the EU stopped it, because it wanted to introduce the same law itself.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "constitutional-law", "freedom-of-speech", "first-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94170, "body": "<p>Most criminals aren't rich...</p>\n<p>Suing someone who has nothing, won't get you anything... Sure they can be held liable for millions of dollars. But that doesn't make the money magically appear.</p>\n<p>A million dollars from someone who has no money and a dollar will get you a soda.</p>\n<p>TLDR: Suing the perpetrator of a crime is a waste of time/money if they don't have any.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 94175, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>It also seems to add a &quot;double jeopardy&quot; element for the defendant,\neven if the second jeopardy is just reputational damage and having to\npay money rather than jail time.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It doesn't. Double jeopardy only applies to two criminal prosecutions for the same conduct by the same sovereign. Civil lawsuits don't constitute double jeopardy.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>So my question is, why don't victims do this all the time? Obviously\nwe can't look into the minds of every victim to understand the\nreasons, but are there other challenges that make this impractical\ndespite it looking like a fairly obvious option available to them to\nget restitution / justice?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>First</strong> Restitution is routinely awarded as part of the sentence following a criminal conviction.</p>\n<p>Restitution doesn't compensate everything that a civil judgment does. For example, it doesn't cover non-economic damages for pain and suffering or some more remote economic losses. But often, it covers the core economic losses from a crime.</p>\n<p><strong>Second</strong> The vast majority of convicted criminals are indigent and judgment proof or can only pay a little in excess of restitution.</p>\n<p>Even <a href=\"https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/criminal-restitution-debt-victims/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">an ability to pay restitution is rare</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Judges ordered 15 percent of federal offenders to pay restitution.\nOffenses for which courts ordered restitution most often were fraud,\nembezzlement, arson, auto theft, tax-related crimes, robbery, burglary\nand larceny. Thirty percent of offenders convicted of murder were\nordered to compensate victims. The amount of restitution ordered\nbetween 2014 and 2016 totaled $33.9 billion.</p>\n<p>Between 2014 and 2016, U.S. Attorney’s Offices collected a total of\n$2.95 billion. Half of that came from debts imposed between fiscal\nyears 1988 and 2014.</p>\n<p>As of the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in restitution debt\nwas outstanding. The federal government has deemed $100 billion of\nthat to be “uncollectible” based on the offender’s ability to pay.\n<strong>Almost all — 95 percent — of offenders ordered to pay restitution received a waiver allowing them to forgo payment because they had no\nability to pay.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>State offenders have less of an ability to pay restitution, on average, than federal ones, who are often white collar criminals or immigration offenders.</p>\n<p>All criminal defendants with public defenders are by definition indigent. And <a href=\"https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">according to the U.S. Department of Justice</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>approximately 66% of felony Federal defendants and 82% of felony\ndefendants in large State courts were represented by public defenders.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Going to jail or prison deprives criminal defendants of a meaningful income while incarcerated and dramatically reduces their ability to earn income when they are released, again reducing their ability to pay a civil judgment.</p>\n<p>Even when a defendant does have assets and some actual ability to pay, those assets may be protected from civil lawsuit judgments, for example, by a homestead exemption for an owned personal residence, or an exemption from creditors for pensions and IRAs. Also assets of a criminal defendant that aren't exempt from creditors are often seized by creditors of the criminal defendant due to inability to pay monthly payments during a criminal prosecution due to loss of income and employment, or collapse of a self-employed business, or use of available funds to pay a private criminal defense lawyer.</p>\n<p><strong>Third</strong> Lawyers won't file a civil suit against a criminal defendant, even knowing that liability is basically automatic and effortless in the case of a criminal conviction where all appeals have been exhausted, unless there is a realistic possibility of recovering enough from the defendant in the civil suit beyond any restitution award to justify the legal work involved within a reasonable time.</p>\n<p><strong>Fourth</strong> If a criminal defendant is acquitted at trial or the prosecutor declines to press charges, while this doesn't legally prevent a victim from bringing a civil lawsuit, as the O.J. Simpson case illustrated, it make it much less attractive for a lawyer in a civil case to take on and the risk that there will be no judgment or favorable settlement reached is great. It will probably be expensive to prove the case and the case will be hard fought.</p>\n<p><strong>Fifth</strong> The statute of limitations for a civil lawsuit in tort for damages associated with a crime often runs before the criminal proceeding is concluded if there is not a plea bargain, this makes the legal work in the civil lawsuit more expensive and often crime victims don't think about the possibility of a civil suit until the dust has settled in the criminal case and they realize that the restitution award received does not fully compensate them for their losses.</p>\n<p>Keep in mind that crime victims usually don't hire lawyers because the prosecution is handled by state and local government paid lawyers, but victims aren't the clients of prosecutors and prosecutors usually don't advise victims on the possibility of bringing a civil lawsuit.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94161, "body": "<h2>A trademark must be used</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>Use is inherent in the <a href=\"https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademark/1.-what-if-a-trade-mark-is-not-used-\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">definition</a> of a trademark: “the owner intends, and does, use the trade mark to distinguish its goods or services from goods or services dealt with or provided by others.”</p>\n<p>Anyone can apply to have a disused trademark deregistered. The application can be opposed by the owner who bears the onus of proving it is still in use.</p>\n<p>An owner who made a public announcement that they would no longer use it would have a hard time proving they still were. Also, they might be estopped from opposing the application at all.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 94159, "body": "<p>Well, a registered trademark is a <em>registered</em> trademark because it's <em>registered</em>. So to make it available again, that registration would need to be deleted. A simple announcement that it will no longer be used is not sufficient. Of course, the company could refrain from suing anybody for using the trademark, but that's a bit a risky path for anyone to rely on.</p>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/switzerland\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;switzerland&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;switzerland&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-switzerland-tooltip-container\">switzerland</a> (and probably many European countries)</p>\n<p>There's a rule that a trademark is only valid as long as it's in use. If, for more than 5 years, the registered owner appears to be no longer using it, anyone can request its deletion for a small fee and some evidence that the trademark is not being used. If the trademark belongs to a company that no longer exists, that is a strong indication that it is no longer used. <a href=\"https://blumgrob.ch/update/neues-verfahren-zur-loeschung-von-nicht-gebrauchten-marken-ab-1-januar-2017/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source</a></p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94176, "body": "<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></p>\n<p>In the U.S., a registered trademark has to be periodically renewed with a statement stating that it continues to be used in interstate or international commerce, and if this ceases to happen, it lapses by operation of law.</p>\n<p>In the fact pattern of the question, announcing it will no longer be used would probably be a good defense to a trademark infringement suit from the registered trademark owner, at a minimum, as a common law estoppel or waiver, and as a defense to the affirmative case on the ground that there are no damages and that there is no possibility of confusion.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, it someone tried to mislead the public into thinking the the no longer used trademark that they were now using was still being used by a successor to the original owner, that could be grounds for a suit to enjoin the use to defraud the public if it harmed the registered owner of the trademark that had not yet lapsed by operation of law.</p>\n<p>It is possible to file a form with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) prospectively cancelling a registered trademark. Often this would be done as part of a settlement of a litigation dispute involving the trademark.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "intellectual-property", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93988, "body": "<p>Not at the level of the state, but businesses subject to King County (WA) jurisdiction will, effective Jan. 1 2025, have to accept cash (within limits: not larger than $20 bill, not more that $200) for in-person transactions. Ad hoc exemptions are allowed in case of significant theft history, business operated at home, or with only one on-site employee.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 94171, "body": "<p>Yes. In <a href=\"/questions/tagged/massachusetts\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;massachusetts&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;massachusetts&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-massachusetts-tooltip-container\">massachusetts</a>, the <a href=\"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleIV/Chapter255D/Section10A\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">General Law, chapter 255D, section 10A</a> outlaws discrimination against cash buyers by retail (as opposed to wholesale) businesses. The section reads, in full:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Section 10A. No retail establishment offering goods and services for sale shall discriminate against a cash buyer by requiring the use of credit by a buyer in order to purchase such goods and services. All such retail establishments must accept legal tender when offered as payment by the buyer.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "business", "currency", "payment", "us-states" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93239, "body": "<h2>ISPs and VPNs have “safe harbour” protections</h2>\n<p>Just like the Post Office, FedEx and other “common carriers” who might be transporting illegal material.</p>\n<p>Basically the way it works is that if they don’t know, and stop when they are told about it, they can’t be held liable.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 94168, "body": "<p>The concept of a “financial interest” affecting <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">vicarious liability</a> for copyright infringement is derived from United States case law. In <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">545 U.S. 913</a> (2005), the Supreme Court described it in these terms:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and <strong>infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it</strong>.⁹ Although “[t]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another,” these doctrines of secondary liability emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law.</p>\n<p>⁹ We stated in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</em></a> that “the lines between direct infringement, contributory infringement and vicarious liability are not clearly drawn” …</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The words used in the question, “direct financial interest,” come from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro,_Bernstein_and_Co._v._H.L._Green_Co.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Shapiro, Bernstein &amp; Co. v. H. L. Green Co.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/316/304/187299/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">316 F.2d 304</a> (CA2 1963). That case was about whether a department store was liable for the sales of a <a href=\"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concessionaire\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">concessionaire</a> who sold infringing <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">records</a> in the department store, under a profit sharing agreement with the department store. The court held that this relationship resulted in secondary liability:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Section 101(e) of the Copyright Act makes unlawful the “unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale” of phonograph records. Because of the open-ended terminology of the section, and the related section 1(e), courts have had to trace, case by case, a pattern of business relationships which would render one person liable for the infringing conduct of another. It is quite clear, for example, that the normal agency rule of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">respondeat superior</a> applies to copyright infringement by a servant within the scope of his employment.</p>\n<p>Realistically, the courts have not drawn a rigid line between the strict cases of agency, and those of independent contract, license, and lease. Many of the elements which have given rise to the doctrine of respondeat superior, may also be evident in factual settings other than that of a technical employer-employee relationship. <strong>When the right and ability to supervise coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials</strong> — even in the absence of actual knowledge that the copyright monopoly is being impaired — the purposes of copyright law may be best effectuated by the imposition of liability upon the beneficiary of that exploitation …</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The Supreme Court found that such liability did <em>not</em> exist in the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Betamax case</a>, <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">464 U.S. 417</a> (1984). While Sony had a financial interest in selling a product which was used to infringe copyright, it did not have enough control over its customers’ actions to be liable for their infringement:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In [other] cases, as in other situations in which the imposition of vicarious liability is manifestly just, <strong>the “contributory” infringer was in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others</strong> and had authorized the use without permission from the copyright owner. This case, however, plainly does not fall in that category. The only contact between Sony and the users of the Betamax that is disclosed by this record occurred at the moment of sale. The District Court expressly found that “no employee of Sony, Sonam or DDBI had either direct involvement with the allegedly infringing activity or direct contact with purchasers of Betamax who recorded copyrighted works off the air.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">545 U.S. 913</a> (2005), the Supreme Court found Grokster liable for copyright infringement by the users of their peer-to-peer file sharing software. While the software had substantial non-infringing uses, the Supreme Court upheld MGM’s claim on an “inducement theory” because there was evidence that Grokster actively encouraged copyright infringement:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>Sony</em>’s rule limits imputing culpable intent as a matter of law from the characteristics or uses of a distributed product. But nothing in <em>Sony</em> requires courts to ignore evidence of intent if there is such evidence, and the case was never meant to foreclose rules of fault-based liability derived from the common law …</p>\n<p>The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose occurs when one <strong>induces commission of infringement by another, or “entic[es] or persuad[es] another” to infringe, as by advertising</strong>. Thus at common law a copyright or patent defendant who “not only expected but invoked [infringing use] by advertisement” was liable for infringement “on principles recognized in every part of the law” …</p>\n<p>The rule on inducement of infringement as developed in the early cases is no different today. Evidence of “active steps ... taken to encourage direct infringement,” such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law’s reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely\nsells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Whether an internet or VPN provider is liable for its users’ copyright infringement would depend on the specific evidence produced to the court. The court would need to interpret the above principles and consider other relevant case law. Proof of a “direct financial interest” in the infringement would be relevant, but not necessary or sufficient, to establish liability.</p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">DMCA safe harbour provisions</a>, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">17 U.S.C. § 512</a>, may also apply, as compliance with these provisions could exclude any liability which the copyright holder was otherwise able to establish. However, “this is irrelevant unless [the defendant] is contributing to infringement; a noninfringer doesn’t need a safe harbor”: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</em></a>, <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/flava-works-inc-v-gunter\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">689 F.3d 754</a> (CA7 2012).</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "liability" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94167, "body": "<p>Yes</p>\n<p>If you look at the law pertaining to the work week and opting out of the maximum, which is also in The Working Time Regulations 1998 (with my emphasis in bold):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/4/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">4</a>.—(1) Subject to regulation 5, a worker’s working time,\nincluding overtime, in any reference period which is applicable in his\ncase shall not exceed an average of 48 hours for each seven days. ...\n(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5) <strong>and any agreement under\nregulation 23(b)</strong>, the reference periods which apply in the case of a\nworker are ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So if we go to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/regulation/23/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">23(b)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"23\">\n<li>A collective agreement or a workforce agreement may—</li>\n</ol>\n<p>(a)modify or exclude the application of regulations 6(1) to (3) and\n(7), <strong>10(1)</strong>, 11(1) and (2) and 12(1), and</p>\n<p>(b)for objective or technical reasons or reasons concerning the\norganization of work, modify the application of regulation 4(3) and\n(4) by the substitution, for each reference to 17 weeks, of a\ndifferent period, being a period not exceeding 52 weeks, in relation\nto particular workers or groups of workers.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "employment", "employer", "employee" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94163, "body": "<p>There are multiple kinds of joint ownership, centered around the question of survivorship. One possible outcome is that the deceased willed their property to some other person Smith, therefore Smith will not have A's interest in the account. Let's assume that the accounts and house are both joint tenants with right of survivorship. Then the survivor simply is the only person who has the right to access the account. However, the account probably cannot be closed, because as far as the bank knows, the deceased spouse still has an interest in the account, and will require the spouse to sign the paperwork. Therefore the surviving spouse will have to bring in paperwork to establish that the deceased spouse is deceased.</p>\n<p>Similarly, a deceased spouse can remain on the deed, but when it comes time to sell the house, it will be necessary to legally &quot;extinguish&quot; the deceased spouse's interest in the house. It can also complicate mortgage-refinancing or using the house as security for a loan to leave the paperwork unresolved.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "finance", "banking", "death" ]

[ { "answer_id": 84000, "body": "<h2>What does the lease say?</h2>\n<p>The deposit was collected for a reason, what was it?</p>\n<p>Whether it can be used to effect repairs and to what extent should be spelled out in the lease.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 84141, "body": "<blockquote>\n<p>Question: What, if any, bright lines exist regarding whether a repair\nis reasonable after the tenant moves out?</p>\n<p>In particular: repairs to surfaces such as ceilings, floors, walls,\nbathroom fixtures.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Unless the lease specifically says so, no, there are no bright line rules. This said, usually non-residential leases spell out standards related to this issue at considerable length. It would be the rare exception for a lease to be silent on the subject unless the premises were extremely primitive and low in value (e.g. vacant land or a parking lot in a rural area).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Is there a general rule of thumb as to what is / is not reasonable?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The general rule of thumb is that damage in excess of reasonable wear and tear, and substantial changes to the premises that were not authorized by the lease, are damages that the landlord can recover from the tenant and can use as a basis to make deduction from the security deposit.</p>\n<p>This is not a bright line rule and is instead, a general &quot;standard&quot;.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "florida", "deposit" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94048, "body": "<p>You can sue the shop for defective installation, or you can sue the manufacturer for a defective part. You will have to prove that it is the fault of the person that you are suing, so the shop will probably argue that it was a defective part that they couldn't have known about, and the manufacturer will probably argue that it was due to defective installation. If you have competent third-party testimony that proves that the part itself was defective, you may prevail, though if you can get them to write up a technical report that supports your contention, the manufacturer may simplify things by compensating you, if you waive your right to sue for damages. However, this may not be an option unless the shop retained the filter and can point to a specific manufacturing defect.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "california", "property", "civil-damages" ]

[ { "answer_id": 790, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2011/06/13/the-f-bomb-isnt-polite-or-illegal/48/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Denver lawyer David Lane has said</a>, “The First Amendment lives in a rough neighborhood and if you can’t stand the neighborhood move to China … or somewhere the First Amendment does not exist.”</p>\n\n<p>\"One man's vulgarity is another's lyric.\" <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7398433541275578772&amp;q=Cohen%20v.%20Cali&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37#p25\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Cohen v. Cali.</em> 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971)</a></p>\n\n<p>At this point, we need to define illegal as used in your question. For instance, do you mean \"you can face any form of punishment\"? If so, this question is extremely broad and governed by multiple sets of laws. </p>\n\n<p>Additionally, one should note that this is a Federal Question. The First Amendment, through the Due Process clause applies to states as well. Therefore, there will be extremely little discrepancy (if any - first impression issues being the main differences probably) between the States,.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The FCC can limit profanity on air.</a> Additionally, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1464\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464,</a> (Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.\n) prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication. </p>\n\n<p>The <a href=\"http://uspto.gov\" rel=\"noreferrer\">USPTO</a> can <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6965806919388894539&amp;q=702%20F.3d%20633&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">limit Trademarks with \"vulgar\" meaning</a>. (See EDIT below for update.)</p>\n\n<p>In School:\nHigh school student's First Amendment rights were not violated in suspension for uttering obscenity, regardless of whether she was merely repeating and returning words originally directed at her, particularly where words were clearly disruptive as they were heard by 90 students in cafeteria and, in opinion of assistant principal, were “fighting words.” <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6623327496247022767&amp;q=%20928%20F.Supp.%20789&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Heller v. Hodgin, S.D.Ind.1996, 928 F.Supp. 789.</a></p>\n\n<p>Fighting Words: These seem to be words that would invoke, or are likely to invoke a fight.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156615267000448814&amp;q=897%20F.Supp.%20649&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Fighting words claim upheld</a>:\nArrestee's speech when crowd gathered near fallen tree that had blocked traffic constituted unprotected fighting words, so that his arrest under city disorderly conduct ordinance did not violate his First Amendment free speech rights; arrestee's repeated use of the word “bitch,” his accusation of matricide directed toward his sister, his use of the phrase “<a href=\"http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150626213815-rainbow-white-house-exlarge-169.jpg\" rel=\"noreferrer\">fucking queer</a>,” his pushing of third party and his raised voice all tended to show that his conduct, under the circumstances, had tendency to provoke physical altercation.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2219668728892189742&amp;q=332%20F.3d%20199&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Fighting words claim not upheld</a>:\nDetainee's profane words to police officer as officer conducted Terry stop, “son of a bitch,” while unpleasant and insulting, were not “fighting words,” given officer's confirmation of fact that words did not cause anyone to fight or become angry; thus, words could not constitute violation of disorderly conduct statute and in turn could not supply probable cause for disorderly conduct arrest.</p>\n\n<p>In addition to fighting words, true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action are not protected under the First Amendment.</p>\n\n<p>Additionally, the government can regulate free speech in public schools (hence <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Free Speech Zones</a>) and while in their employ (no yelling at your boss if you want to keep your job). </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>It is not part of the main question, but free speech inside the court room. Well, the Judge is pretty much king in a courtroom. What he says goes. (more or less, like nothing toooooo crazy). In a courtroom, if you do something a Judge doesn't like, he can hold you in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court\" rel=\"noreferrer\">contempt of court</a>. (<a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10826199069820673678&amp;q=376%20U.S.%20681&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">You get no jury for contempt cases.</a>)</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>EDIT: Since I wrote this answer, new law came out from the Supreme Court in \n<a href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Matel v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)</a>. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the Federal Circuit that the disparagement clause [is] facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Simon Tam, lead singer of the rock group “The Slants,” chose this moniker in order to “reclaim” the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons. Tam sought federal registration of the mark “THE SLANTS.” The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15\n U. S. C. §1052(a). Tam contested the denial of registration through the administrative appeals process, to no avail. He then took the case to federal court, where the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The decision aptly concludes with: \"If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social “volatility,” free speech would be endangered.\"</p>\n", "score": 21 }, { "answer_id": 3482, "body": "<p>A recent state supreme court case spoke directly to this issue. <em>Ruling date: June 25, 2015.</em></p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<h2>The U.S. Constitution protects your right to curse at the police.</h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/court-first-amendment-protects-profanity-against-police/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The Seattle Times reports here</a> that the <a href=\"http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/886946.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in the case of State of Washington v. E.J.J.</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"<em>First Amendment protects profanity against police</em>\"</p>\n \n <p>A teenage boy convicted of obstruction after yelling and cursing at three Seattle police officers while they were investigating a disturbance at his house had a First Amendment right to behave the way he did, the Washington Supreme Court said in an opinion Thursday.</p>\n \n <p>Citizens who curse at police and call them abusive names while they’re investigating a crime are protected from arrest by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case out of Seattle.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 1656, "body": "<p>Although <a href=\"http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-arrested-yelling-swearing-cop.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">swearing at a police officer in itself is not illegal</a>, the police are very likely to try to find something else to charge you with – along the lines of &quot;<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">contempt of cop</a>.&quot; The law is very nuanced, one cannot say that anything is blanket legal or illegal.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 787, "body": "<p>You're asking about an exception to the right to free speech, and it turns out <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions\" rel=\"nofollow\">there's a good page on that question on Wikipedia</a>. I was amused to discover that, among the exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court, are \"fighting words\" and \"offensive speech,\" which I believe would be the closest proscriptions on \"cursing.\" (\"Threats of violence\" are also generally not protected.)</p>\n\n<p>I expect there is a good deal of variation in how U.S. jurisdictions have chosen to regulate and control unprotected speech. I would also be interested to see examples.</p>\n\n<p>One recent case that directly addresses your question is <em>Washington v. E.J.J.</em>, in which <a href=\"http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/25/first-amendment-protects-profanity-against-police/\" rel=\"nofollow\">the Washington Supreme Court confirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to curse at police</a>.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "freedom-of-speech" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93893, "body": "<p>The site would combine the data in novel ways, which is <em>processing</em> the data. Processing personal data which is publicly available is still processing personal data.</p>\n<p>You would have to take GDPR into account. That does not mean the processing is forbidden, but you need a legal basis for doing it. In many ways, having the informed consent is the easiest legal basis, but there are others. The data subject would have the right to demand information about the data you hold, and to demand the correction of wrong data. There is not <em>necessarily</em> a right to demand deletion, but if consent is withdrawn and you have <em>no other</em> basis for data processing, you have to delete.</p>\n<p>Note also that the consent basis would mean you have to <em>actively</em> contact the people whose consent you seek before the processing starts, and document how you do it. That makes pay-per-request models difficult.</p>\n<p>But consider that the news media can process <em>some</em> data about <em>some</em> people without the consent of the subjects of their activities. They just need to balance privacy and other legitimate interests all the time.</p>\n", "score": 23 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "england-and-wales", "gdpr", "european-union", "data-protection-act" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94053, "body": "<p>If, so far, you only had contact trough phone or internet, it is somewhat understandable that parents are afraid that their son/daughter falls for some internet-rip-off or some pervert with a fake profile.</p>\n<p>It may upset your or his parents, but continued contact is not in itself illegal (illegal as in &quot;you could be sent to jail for it&quot;), just because they say so. The parents could in theory get a restraining order or inform the youth safety agency (or however that is called in your place), but to do that, they would need to provide some rationale as to why they think that you (or your boyfriend) are an impostor.</p>\n<p>I think, this should really be solved on the social level, and your best option would really be to physically meet your boyfriend, maybe even when your or his parents are around.</p>\n<p>After all, Romeo and Julia didn't stop meeting just because they weren't allowed to...</p>\n", "score": 8 } ]

[ "is-x-legal", "minor" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93915, "body": "<p>From the legal perspective, nobody has to do anything until the court orders somebody to do something. The most likely order from a court would be &quot;compensate X for your actions or inactions&quot;. Barring some peculiar circumstance, either you or the HOA would be liable to the downstairs person. You can look at the CCRs to see who is responsible for what, which mainly involves finding boundaries (where is the unit, and where are the common areas?). At some point, someone has to figure out what caused the damage. It is possible that via negligence, you caused damage (maybe the plumber was simply wrong); or maybe this is about rain, the ventilation system, and the common areas where the HOA is responsible. Whatever the case may be, the person below would sue to recover his cost of fixing the problem.</p>\n<p>Property owners often have insurance that insures against damage to their property – it sounds like you have such insurance, and the guy below has insurance. It's also possible that the HOA has insurance. Each insurer has a duty to their client, so the company of the guy below has a duty to him (they protect his interest), your insurer protects your interest, etc.</p>\n<p>The guy below is not required to figure out what the problem is and who to sue, he just has to notify his insurance company of the problem, and start the process of making a claim. That company naturally wants to limit their losses and collect from whoever is ultimately legally liable. You are under no legal obligation to respond to a neighbor's accusation, until the issue is formally escalated (the threat of a lawsuit, directly filed by him or by his insurance company). You don't have to accept or reject his beliefs.</p>\n<p>If there are no insurance companies involved, and if you are certain that this is the responsibility of the HOA, then you would probably not consider taking on unnecessary expenses to diagnose the problem. The guy below would have to shoulder the burden of proving that it is either you or the HOA that is liable.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94012, "body": "<p>In the United States, <a href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-3-1/ALDE_00000858/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">prohibition against double jeopardy is a <em>constitutional</em> protection</a>. As long as one was actually at jeopardy for an offence by a particular sovereign, that sovereign may not subsequently prosecute the accused for the same wrong. In other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., it has <a href=\"https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/abuse-double.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">a less strict form</a>, even though generally, special pleas of <em>autrefois acquit</em> would be available.</p>\n<p>It is also not the case that after an apparent &quot;confession&quot; in public that there is &quot;no doubt&quot; about a person's guilt. No evidence is &quot;certain&quot; in law without being tested in court.</p>\n<p>Also, you propose:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>you were tried for murder and acquitted - then you go out and publicly admit that they were wrong, you did actually murder that person</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This does not put the acquittal into question. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means at law that one is deemed to be not guilty. Your scenario does not show that the trier of fact was &quot;wrong&quot; about the prosecution failing to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not an avenue by which the prosecution can challenge an acquittal. If a properly instructed trier of fact finds that that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, this conclusion is unassailable.</p>\n<p>You ask &quot;where is the justice?&quot; The justice of a system is assessed by its application across the totality of cases. Given that a system of prosecuting and judging that is run through humans will inevitably produce errors, the law has developed to promote a measure of &quot;justice&quot; across the entirety of the cases that are disposed of by the court rather than to futilely attempt to ensure the &quot;correct&quot; result in every particular case.</p>\n<p>The rule against double jeopardy has arisen out of this systemic concern for justice. It does not purport to secure the &quot;correct&quot; result in every case.</p>\n", "score": 33 }, { "answer_id": 94021, "body": "<h2>Just because I believe I’m guilty doesn’t mean I am</h2>\n<p>All crimes contain elements, each of which must be true for someone to be guilty. Yes, I shot the victim, yes, I intended to kill him, yes, he’s now dead, yes, I believe I’m guilty. But if he died in his sleep just before I pulled the trigger, I’m not.</p>\n<h2>Confessions can be lies</h2>\n<p>I know it might shock you, but people are not always telling the truth when they confess to a crime. There are various reasons why someone might do this: mistaken belief, protecting someone else, status etc. Grotesque as it is, in the Emmett Till case, the acquitted men would have received a great deal of status in their community if they had committed the crime - that could be enough incentive for them to falsely confess.</p>\n<h2>Conflicting objects of the legal system</h2>\n<p>Justice is only <em>one</em> of the purposes of our legal system. Others include efficiency and finality.</p>\n<p>Society can have only as much justice as it can afford - in both time and treasure. Yes, it would be more just if every case reached the correct result but it’s just too damn expensive.</p>\n<p>Similarly, the legal process must come to a final and definitive end. It is neither efficient nor just for the process to be never ending.</p>\n<p>Finally, in a criminal matter, compared to any given individual, the state has near limitless resources. It’s important not to allow the justice system to become a tool of persecution. You can’t allow the state to keep feeding coins into the slot machine until they hit the jackpot of a jury that agrees with them.</p>\n<h2>Some jurisdictions do allow retrials in certain situations</h2>\n<p>The rule against double jeopardy in the USA is a constitutional protection and, unless that changes, it is absolutely prohibited.</p>\n<p>Other common law jurisdictions such as the UK and some Australian states allow the rule to be broken for serious crimes (like murder) where there is “fresh and compelling evidence”. An unsworn confession by the accused isn’t very compelling.</p>\n", "score": 26 }, { "answer_id": 94013, "body": "<p>In the U.S., the bar against double jeopardy exists because court cases cost money both to the defendant and the tax payer. Since it is the state that can bring criminal cases and the state that has superior resources in evidence gathering, the law was implemented to prevent the state from ruining an innocent person by repeatedly trying them in court at the tax payer's expense. Additionally, it is to prevent the state, having once failed to convince the jury, to retry with another jury and continue to do so until they get a verdict they like.</p>\n<p>While there are occasions where Double Jeopardy does not attach, these are exceedingly rare (one of the few times it was done without declaring a mistrial was in a case where the judge in a bench trial was bribed to return a not guilty verdict. Because the defendant was never in a legal jeopardy situation, it was ruled he could be tried again for the same criminal event). Additionally, the State and Federal Government are separate sovereigns for the purposes of Double Jeopardy, and while the Federal Government does not normally try someone who is tried by the state regardless of outcome, it is certainly possible for them to do so as the rules preventing them are policy, not law.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 94094, "body": "<p>Another advantage of double jeopardy protection, beyond what has been mentioned already, is that it helps the truth to come out after the trial is over. For example, the murderers of Emmett Till would likely not have freely admitted to the crime had the possibility of criminal penalties still existed. There are several cases where this provides historians information that otherwise would have remained hidden.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "rules-of-court", "double-jeopardy", "prosecution", "immunity" ]

[ { "answer_id": 93813, "body": "<p>The key part of (e) is the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone\" rel=\"noreferrer\">National Radio Quiet Zone</a> that covers parts of east-central West Virginia and west-central Virginia. Because of radio telescopes and military intelligence equipment in the area, there are restrictions (increasingly strict as you get closer) on potential radio interference. A radio source that would be no problem in most of the world can be a major problem when you are trying to pick up a radio signal from a few billion light-years away.</p>\n<p>So if Sally is in the National Radio Quiet Zone, she has to notify the National Radio Astronomy Observatory who will consider the power, location, etc. of the proposed beacon, and determine if it will potentially interfere with the radio telescopes before granting permission. If they grant permission, Sally is fine. Otherwise the FCC will decide what Sally can do.</p>\n<p>If Sally is outside the National Radio Quiet Zone, then (e) doesn't apply.</p>\n<p>So more information is needed before we can know if Sally is legal or not, but as a general rule: Outside the National Radio Quiet Zone, probably ok, inside it, will have to ask for permission.</p>\n", "score": 12 }, { "answer_id": 93826, "body": "<p>Looking at another paragraph in <a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">47 CFR Part 97</a> we find <a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97/subpart-B/section-97.101\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">§ 97.101</a> which states</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur\nstation must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good\namateur practice.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The principal organization for US amateurs is the American Radio Relay League, and they publish a <a href=\"http://www.arrl.org/band-plan\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">band plan</a> which calls for beacons in the 10 meter band be in the range 28.200-28.300 MHz, which is not the &quot;middle&quot; of the 10 meter band. If Alice were to establish a beacon in a way not in accord with the band plan, it's possible that the FCC Regional Director might exercise the authority under 97.203 (f) and order Alice to cease operating the beacon.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 93835, "body": "<p>97.203(d) works together with 97.109(b) through (d):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this part may be automatically controlled.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If Sally is operating a beacon outside of the frequencies designated in 97.203(d), 97.203(d) doesn't authorize automatic control.</p>\n<p>Given that none of the other provisions for automatic control apply (97.201(d), 97.205(d), and 97.221 don't seem like they apply in your scenario), the station must be locally or remotely controlled. Sally (or another licensed operator designated by Sally) needs to be present and monitoring the station while it transmits. Walking out of the room and leaving the radio alone would be a violation.</p>\n<p>Given that a control operator <em>is</em> present then it would seem that this section is satisfied even while beaconing outside of the beacon subbands, however 97.101(a) and 97.101(b) could certainly be an issue <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93826/3379\">as pointed out by Gerard Ashton</a>.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "radio", "amateur-radio" ]

[ { "answer_id": 94038, "body": "<p>If your statement is true, it is not libel. But if it is false, it is libel. It does not matter if you directly name him, what matters is if he can be specifically identified by others. Not <em>all</em> others, but at least <em>some</em> others.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "libel" ]