"We don’t know how many people would choose to pay to see a film in theaters when they could legally download it at home for free.”

How will you download it if you don't have the file? I'd be surprised if any movie theater would choose to share it, especially because they will surely have further agreements that prohibits them from doing so. Basically "I will not share this file or pay a huge contract violation fine".

So the only way to watch it would be through cam recordings that suck. And I believe YouTube and other video platforms could make agreements with A24 to take them down for a while.

But if the easier route results in more uncertainty than the difficult route, and people keep choosing it, people are at the very least preferring uncertainty over difficulty, aren't they?

Sure, but even if EU governments turn fully to fascism that would be at worst as terrible as the current status quo with social media in fascist billionaire's control.

No one likes uncertainty

I'd say most people love uncertainty.

It's why a whole lot of people do not go to the doctor when they have some ailment because uncertainty is preferred over negative outlooks.

It's why many people avoid looking at the news despite knowing what's being said will affect them sooner or later.

It's why neither partner wants to confront the reality the relationship is failing, instead choosing to go on as usual until it crashes and burns.

And it's why people don't ask others out, as keeping the illusion you had a chance is preferred over knowing you never even had one. Ignorance is bliss after all.

Well, we are in c/Europe community so that's not really a government I'm thinking of.

But besides: There's hardly any difference between US government controlled and US billionaire controlled social media. And frankly, both are orders of magnitudes worse than EU government controlled social media.

How is the government controlling social media worse than Zuckerberg or Musk doing so?

Proof in what exact way you were afraid, confused or frightened. Did you fear bodily harm? What made you think that? Did the intruder move to attack you? Did they notice you?

The law is written such that you need to prove innocence, that is, the existence of these effects. If you cannot prove you felt this way you are guilty.

as any reasonable person in this situation would

That is not sufficient. It is always scary to be put into a situation where the need to self defence arises. You must prove your terror was exceptional.

According to law student material of a university:

The asthenic affect [confusion, fear fright] must be of such severity that the perpetrator is able to process the events only to a significantly reduced extent.

https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/strafrecht/entschuldigungsgruende/notwehrexzess-33-stgb

You're absolutely right, liberation is when queer people are criminalized at the wishes of other neocolonial power rather than established neocolonial power.

The workers are finally free to get rid of the bourgeoisie degenerates that were invented by the West to destabilize the nation.

Niger is literally the very first country in the world to criminalize asexuality. It couldn't have been normally ignored at any prior point in history.

Besides, this is more about Niger tightening relations with Russia. Part of their military agreement is aligning society with "Russian values".

No country on this planet is interested in regular colonialism anymore by the way. It's all neocolonialism which in this specific case is fairly obvious Russian neocolonialism. Western neocolonialism occurs in other African countries.

In Germany it's literally illegal to sleep with a gun under your pillow as you are violating gun storage laws. This already makes your claim to self defense very murky. Because why are you breaking the law in the first place?

It could be argued you intended in advance to shoot whoever entered your home which would then constitute murder.

§ 34 StGB Justifiable Emergency.

Anyone who, in the face of an imminent and unavoidable danger to life, physical integrity, liberty, honor, property, or another legally protected interest, commits an act to avert the danger from themselves or another person does not act unlawfully if, upon weighing the conflicting interests—namely, the legally protected interests involved and the degree of danger threatening them—the protected interest substantially outweighs the interest that is impaired. This applies, however, only to the extent that the act is a reasonable means of averting the danger.

The right to personal property never substantially outweighs the interest of another person to stay alive. You must be (about to be) attacked to be able to resort to a gun.

Moment:

Letztes Jahr:

• Farbwalzen vom Laserdrucker nicht anfassen
• Keine Pappe in den Drucker reinmachen

Dieses Jahr:

• Digitales Gruppenbuch
• Linux

Nächstes Jahr:

• Beitritt des Kindergartens zum CCC (?)

Zumindest extrapolier ich mal so, würde zum Fortschritt passen.

Verlangt die Bahn dann eigentlich Entschädigung? Also nicht für die kaputte Lok, das muss die KFZ-Versicherug vermutlich blechen, aber für den Schaden durch verspätete, nachfolgende Züge?