habitual drunk driving does not mean you don't stop after the first offense. driving under the influence is still driving under the influence even if you make it home safe without getting stopped by the police...
hell, i'd imagine in that scenario someone would be selling a great deal of replica guillotines for the kiddies too, they'd celebrate guillotine day every year. also, the french revolution.
yeah, no. if these rights exist, they exist only in so much as we've agreed that they should.
morality is a human construct unless you believe in divinity. ultimately, the universe doesn't care what one bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules.
there are bridges on the brink of collapse. roads don't last forever.
also, lets take your argument to its absurd conclusion. One guy in America controls all of america's wealth, everyone else lives in abject poverty. what do you think happens? oh wait, what happens involves a great deal of guillotines. Enough of us agree that respecting property rights is a good thing, even protecting really terrible people and their rights. Without us all agreeing that laws have value and money has value, the laws are meaningless and money valueless.
(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
this does not touch on truth at all. it is simply delineating one requirement for defamation.
Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
this is widely held that if a statement is true it is not defamatory. except in Massachusetts apparently.
everywhere else, legally speaking, a defamatory statement is one that is not true and damages reputation.
please source your definition of defamation. all i'm finding is false statements.
if journalists had to worry about defending every article in court, journalism would be dead. One example was lance armstrong and the sunday times. they settled for a million pounds out of court due to the libel law when the court decided they had to prove he was cheating. They'd already watered down their story to only claim "there was reasonable ground to believe he was cheating" and were afraid to publish because of the libel laws.
You want whistleblowing stories of any kind? newspapers can't be afraid they'll have to prove their claims to be iron-clad before a jury.
because newspapers with distribution in the UK were already muzzling themselves because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to defend a libel suit. the UK was the libel capital of the world:)
defamation is explicitly a false statement. and proving a statement true is the common defense in most jurisdictions against libel. it's just who needs to prove the statement true or false that we have a difference between the US and UK. in the US the plaintiff must make the case that the statement is false. in the UK the defendant must make the case that the statement is true, and the defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to divulge a shred of anything.
slander needs to be false... you were stopped, you were arrested, and you were suspected of driving under the influence. They have not yet said anything false.
well, a habit is more than once right? and the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers have most likely done so more than once. so "usually" habitual follows just like "most non-negative integers" are greater than 1.
someone who would stop at just once, would more likely have stopped at just none.
... don't they already have solutions that use filtration... don't cost an enormous amount... and don't require electronics to function? if you're talking about haiti, this is literally reinventing the wheel... poorly.
... aereo was exploiting a loophole in the law to get around paying content producers for their content. Which you know, is clever, but was in no reality ever going to fly unchallenged. They lost because it was pretty obvious that they designed their entire operation around exploiting a loophole.
considering Uber is as morally bankrupt a company as they come. They should be using it only so much as their pocketbooks trump their espoused values. they're trying to make their bones flaunting established laws, undermining competition that would make a 1900s oil magnate blush, and effectively generating profit off exploiting the hell out of their workforce.
yeah, but that's that, and not necessarily this. our memories are wierd things, and dreams are too. that doesn't mean every system needs to make use of it.
Slashdot Mirror
fruit vs poultry. I will eat the loser.
:), yeah, there it is.
habitual drunk driving does not mean you don't stop after the first offense. driving under the influence is still driving under the influence even if you make it home safe without getting stopped by the police...
hell, i'd imagine in that scenario someone would be selling a great deal of replica guillotines for the kiddies too, they'd celebrate guillotine day every year. also, the french revolution.
yeah, no. if these rights exist, they exist only in so much as we've agreed that they should.
morality is a human construct unless you believe in divinity. ultimately, the universe doesn't care what one bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules.
sounds like a payday loan though. this kind of loan seems too small for a bank loan.
what was the interest rate on those loans?
where do these rights you speak of come from? by what right do you speak freely? and what is the guarantor?
there are bridges on the brink of collapse. roads don't last forever.
also, lets take your argument to its absurd conclusion. One guy in America controls all of america's wealth, everyone else lives in abject poverty.
what do you think happens? oh wait, what happens involves a great deal of guillotines. Enough of us agree that respecting property rights is a good thing, even protecting really terrible people and their rights. Without us all agreeing that laws have value and money has value, the laws are meaningless and money valueless.
Serious harm
(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
this does not touch on truth at all. it is simply delineating one requirement for defamation.
Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
this is widely held that if a statement is true it is not defamatory. except in Massachusetts apparently.
everywhere else, legally speaking, a defamatory statement is one that is not true and damages reputation.
please source your definition of defamation. all i'm finding is false statements.
if journalists had to worry about defending every article in court, journalism would be dead. One example was lance armstrong and the sunday times. they settled for a million pounds out of court due to the libel law when the court decided they had to prove he was cheating. They'd already watered down their story to only claim "there was reasonable ground to believe he was cheating" and were afraid to publish because of the libel laws.
You want whistleblowing stories of any kind? newspapers can't be afraid they'll have to prove their claims to be iron-clad before a jury.
because newspapers with distribution in the UK were already muzzling themselves because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to defend a libel suit. the UK was the libel capital of the world :)
... you're talking about re-offending, how many times did they do it before they were caught?
defamation is explicitly a false statement. and proving a statement true is the common defense in most jurisdictions against libel. it's just who needs to prove the statement true or false that we have a difference between the US and UK. in the US the plaintiff must make the case that the statement is false. in the UK the defendant must make the case that the statement is true, and the defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to divulge a shred of anything.
the US is a lot more journalist friendly.
i've heard tell that libel in the UK is a joke. and you basically have to prove that you're innocent if accused of defamation.
yay, libel. apparently when you go shopping for places to sue people, you hope they have a presence in the UK.
slander needs to be false... you were stopped, you were arrested, and you were suspected of driving under the influence. They have not yet said anything false.
well, a habit is more than once right? and the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers have most likely done so more than once. so "usually" habitual follows just like "most non-negative integers" are greater than 1.
someone who would stop at just once, would more likely have stopped at just none.
they got what. a day when they projected years?
this is the type of situation where you go... if you land in a shadow is your mission over? if yes, please try again.
... in the sun.
you should rectify that ketchup shortage. ketchup is delicious
wasn't this a european mission... if so, Nader had quite a reach to export fear so effectively across the pond.
... don't they already have solutions that use filtration... don't cost an enormous amount... and don't require electronics to function? if you're talking about haiti, this is literally reinventing the wheel... poorly.
... aereo was exploiting a loophole in the law to get around paying content producers for their content. Which you know, is clever, but was in no reality ever going to fly unchallenged. They lost because it was pretty obvious that they designed their entire operation around exploiting a loophole.
considering Uber is as morally bankrupt a company as they come. They should be using it only so much as their pocketbooks trump their espoused values.
they're trying to make their bones flaunting established laws, undermining competition that would make a 1900s oil magnate blush, and effectively generating profit off exploiting the hell out of their workforce.
yeah, but that's that, and not necessarily this. our memories are wierd things, and dreams are too. that doesn't mean every system needs to make use of it.