[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Whatever her contract specifies has to be consistent with the constitution, but her contract covers a lot more than that. It's not like she can look through the constitution to find her PTO policy.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They aren't reasonable possibilities, because Medicare covers everyone over 65 regardless of their medical history and ACA health insurance plans are required to enroll all applicants regardless of age or medical history.

The latter can raise your premium if you smoke tobacco. That's literally the only power of "coercion" they have available. All your other choices are off-limits.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In the US, you can't be denied health insurance based on your medical history. Thanks, Obama! No really, thank you.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Making something publicly available does not automatically give everyone unrestricted rights to it.

For example, you do not have permission to make copies of articles in the NYT even when they are available to the public. In fact, a main purpose of IP law is to define certain rights over a work even after it is seen by the public.

In the case of AI, if training requires making a local copy of a protected work then that may be copyright infringement even if the local copy is later deleted. It's no different than torrenting a Disney movie and deleting your copy after you watched it.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If some library decided to infringe copyright then it could most certainly be sued for compensation under the Takings Clause.

Government has a Constitutional obligation to pay for any private property it takes, whether it's land for a new building or intellectual property.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.

So I don't see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.

And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That's why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Her diary said that she enjoyed watching parents suffer and that she knew she was evil.

What other factors would be relevant?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

She murdered seven infants. What more information would you need in this case?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Would you punish her or sentence her at all? If so, how?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What do you plan to do with murderers and rapists?

Exile is no longer an option, because no other country will allow them in. And everyone has already been told from a young age that murder and rape are unacceptable.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Let's split the difference. "Twit" fits.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

FlowVoid

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago