Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed?
Hate crimes are not about WHO, they're about WHY.
If you're a white man, and you kill a black guy because he was cheating with your wife, then it's not a hate crime.
If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife for insurance money, then that's not a hate crime.
If you record your wife because you suspect she's hiding money from you, then that's not a hate crime.
If you're a white man and you kill a black guy, BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, that is a hate crime.
If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE, then that is a hate crime.
If you record your wife because you suspect that she's secretly practicing Jewish traditions, then that is a hate crime.
Do you get how this works? It's not "minority victims are better", it's that committing crimes against people solely due to a trait that you couldn't discriminate against them in a job, then not only have you committed your primary criminal action, you've also committed an act of discrimination.
Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.
... So you're argument is that this was clearly an invasion of privacy to prove that the guy was gay, and that if the guy were not suspected of being homosexual, that Ravi would not have had any motivation to film him.
So, it's a crime that is based on a perceived sexual orientation of the victim.
And you don't understand how this is a hate crime?
Funny, the German wikipedia disagrees with you. To be clear, they don't say all software is patentable, but they do explain how computer-timed ignitions are patentable software.
Well, wasn't the knight in the temple 'immortal' because he could and, for the sake of the plot, apparently did keep drinking from the Grail. His brothers, who also drank from the Grail, lived to extreme old age too; just not as long as the one who stayed behind to guard the Grail.
Ah, but the Grail couldn't be removed from the Temple, so in that case, the immortality only lasts as long as you're in the temple. Once you leave, you begin slowly dying again.
I think Indiana Jones was only immortal while he was in that temple.
Indeed, as the Grail Knight specifically says that the immortality the cup grants lasts only within the temple. And further if you examine the... OMG, I'm such a dork, too.
Dude, you're coming across as a fucking idiot, and you appear to be armchair lawyering, and doing a miserable job of it.
Defamation doesn't need to be credible in general, the falsehood just has to be acted upon. Namely, ONLY ONE PERSON has to believe it, and have it color their actions with regard to the person subject to the defamation, in such a way that it causes them injury.
In many states, suggesting that a single woman is unchaste, or that a married woman has had an affair is defamation per se, in that you don't even have to prove damages, credibility, or anything like that. "Did you say it?" and "Is it true?" are really the only two relevant questions at that point.
In fact, a google search for "defamation credible" and "defamation credibility" turn up nothing suggesting that the falsehood has to be credible. Because again, you cannot normally sue for defamation until you have suffered harm, at that point, any doubt about "credibility" is worthless, because someone HAS ALREADY ACTED UPON THE DEFAMATION, thus proving the credibility per se. Naturally if you cannot prove harm, then you would have to be able to prove that the claim was, is, or will be likely to be acted upon, which is perhaps where you're getting this "credibility" crap.
And this notion that a vague statement can get you out of a defamation suit is also completely bogus. "Criminal fraud" is a specific claim, and can be proved sufficiently false, or true. If I were to claim that you were a burglar, or a felon, it would clearly impart a defamatory opinion about you to a third party. It doesn't matter what the felony involved in the burglary was, or what the even more generic felony was for, it doesn't matter that it is vague. It's fucking bad enough to make a 3rd party take a harmful action towards you. Specifically, Alice is applying for a job with Bob. Charlie tells Bob that Alice is a felon, despite Alice never having committed a felony. Bob then declines to hire Alice, due to a belief that she is a felon. Voila, textbook defamation. No need to prove "credibility" because the information was already acted upon, and despite being a ridiculously vague assertion of facts, Charlie still clearly committed defamation. (Unless Alice is a public figure, in which can she would have to prove that Charlie knew the information to be false, or recklessly failed to verify the assertion.)
Lastly, you can't use villains in movies for what they say, because movies commonly fuck up ALL jargon and terms, legal jargon and terms being no exception. This is especially true because the average person has no fucking clue about the technicalities of legal jargon and terms themselves. Your argument is tantamount to using Swordfish as evidence about a specific feature of computer hacking/cracking.
The one good point that you have is that I should have said that good-faith accusations are protected from defamation. This is primarily because claims made in the process of litigation and criminal trials are privileged from defamation claims. (However, they are not immune to perjury claims, but then those are actually even harder to prove than defamation anyways.)
The govt has absolutely no business telling any employer that it has to provide contraception but it certainly can't tell religious organizations that it must.
The government has mandated that preventative medicine must be covered, and must be covered in full by insurance companies. This ensures that prostate exams, mammograms, and various other "maintenance" healthcare are provided for free of charge, to ensure that more of the population actually does them. If a person is struggling to make it through every month, and are already making a choice between medication and food, why would they spend more money to go have preventative healthcare?
Of course, since they ignore their preventative healthcare, they get sick more often, and become a healthcare burden, when all we had to do to prevent this, was get them preventative care.
Now, family planning is well established already as an important preventative care, and the experts widely agree on this matter. As such, it fits the bar for all secular work forces provide it, and at no cost. As such catholic institutions are taking government money to provide a secular service, are required to conform to all secular laws, and provide all preventative healthcare and for free.
You want a big mindblow? In New Mexico state, if you're poor, and do not have health insurance, you are guaranteed entrance in the New Mexico state medicaid family planning coverage, which will cover a yearly examination, and contraception. Why? Because if NM state does not provide these services for free, then when the person gets pregnant, they will then become eligible for the full Medicaid in a "think of the children" requirement that children without healthcare should be guaranteed healthcare. So, it works out to be more economic for the state's budget to provide PREVENTATIVE CARE, than deal with the issue when it manifests itself.
And all of this is really just moot anyways, because this already has strong support in the courts that if a religious organization is operating as a secular employer, that they must follow secular laws, exactly the same as a Christian Scientist employer cannot refuse to provide healthcare for his employees if he is over a certain size, despite his personal religious beliefs on the matter. The church should not get some special exemption to enforce its religious policies on its employees that an individual could not enforce as well.
This all comes down to: these are secular employments, and as such should not be exempt from providing what every other secular employer has to provide.
There are a number of ways that a hospital could work it so that they could hire only believers of their faith, as they are religious organizations. Unfortunately, when you start taking government funds, you have to be operating a secular institution.
You can run an entirely private hospital that only serves persons of your faith, and only hires persons of your faith, which would fall under all legal protections for religious organizations, but again... you would have to deny and refuse all government money funds and grants. This would make it extremely difficult to operate a hospital, and so most hospitals decline to do so.
Now that they are serving a secular mission, they are required to conform to secular law.
"The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics"
How are Catholics supposed to hire -only- other Catholics when doing so is a clear violation of the law?
Seriously you libtards are just complete and utter assholes.
The Church itself is staffed solely by individuals that share their faith. How are they able to do so when it is a clear violation of the law? Because it's not a violation of the law, because they are a religious organization, and thus exempt from a number of hiring laws. For instance, the Catholic Church can legally deny certain positions to women, such as priesthood.
While you might claim that "libtards" are complete and utter assholes, perhaps in this case, the person is not talking out of their ass, but is talking from a well supported legal position, and it is just your misunderstanding of the law that is driving you to think me insane.
"Ad hominem" does not mean insulting or attacking the person themselves. It means dismissing or accepting their argument based solely on the character of the arguer themselves.
"Well, she said that lava can fly in the air, and since she's totally hawt, she must be right." Is an ad hominem.
"Well, he said that lava doesn't fly in the air, and since he looks like a jock, he must be wrong." Is also an ad hominem.
"Well, she said that lava is purple, which it is not, so she's an idiot." Is not an ad hominem fallacy...
How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.
The original set of rules were already in place in California, and the Catholic Church attempted to fight a legal battle over it. They got all the way to the Federal District Appeals, and were shot down. The Supreme Court denied them a writ to hear the case.
The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics, who do not service predominantly other Catholics, and a few other reasonable conditions to cover birth control for their employees. This means, that if a Catholic organization, goes out and hires atheists, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and Wiccans, that they would have been forced (just like every other public employer) to provide birth control for those individuals.
These Catholic organizations, which would have been required to provide birth control, do not feel that sharing their faith is necessary to be employed by them, so they should be treated just like any other employer. I don't care if your organization is "based on religious ideas", if you're practicing secular employment, then you cannot bring up your religious ideas to justify discrimination of those employees. You yourself have already chosen to eschew your religious employment grounds.
No, if we're going for a car analogy, it would be a license plate that has been taken out, folded, and then unfolded without breaking it, which is then reinstalled on the car.
they provide conclusive proof that the Heartland Institute promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and effectively engaged in treasonous activity.
This is a statement of fact. That it is prefixed with "My read on the documents is that..." does not magically turn that statement of fact into opinion.
So you have to actually accuse Heartland of 'systematic criminal fraud'....
You're confused... in fact, actually, you have to not accuse someone of a criminal act, as an accusation is protected, rather you have to state that Heartland committed an illegal act as a fact.
And seriously, you don't think his statement is credible? If a newspaper prints, "Person XY entered the house and raped the 47-year-old victim at 12:00", then it can be sued for libel. Until Person XY is convicted, you cannot make assertions of fact like that.
Your initial assertion has no libelous substance whatsoever. I suspect that you are aware of that, which is why you are making bold-sounding statements which are, in fact, perfectly safe. All this does is make you look like a coward.
If you want to get on this then, "Heartland Institute has promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and engaged in activities that are detrimental to the public good, and these papers prove it."
Fine, there. Happy now? OOooooo... I can paraphrase another person's statements of fact into a clearer statement of fact. (Note, I don't think they've committed treasonous activities, because it does not fit the Constitutional definition of treason... and besides, who's going to get two people confessing to treason in the same act?)
It doesn't mean anything anymore and has to be dropped. It leads either to confusion if used right or grammar peeves if used wrong. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
You're just trying to restrict my freedom of speech. CHILLING EFFECT!
The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, though, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.
Indeed, even more so, because as a "public figure", the HI is at a disadvantage for proving libel or any other form of defamation. As such, they could only have a chance of winning if the defendant had "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Early comment on the documents is going to probably be fine, and measured evaluation of the purportedly faked document (i.e. here's what it says, here's the grain of salt) would still remain entirely valid.
However, if it was in a documentary and it were false, then you can be sure that Monsanto lawyers would be all over it.
Do you know of any evidence that the figures were independently obtained?
Legally speaking, either the figures were unchallenged, or a jury came to a finding of fact that they were trustworthy.
The guy even admitted that after finding the plants to be roundup ready, that he specifically set aside the seed and used it to plant a 1000 acre section of field.
His defense was that he never used roundup on the field, so there shouldn't be a finding of infringement. The courts rejected that defense...
but you know, keep digging up bullshit that the farmer didn't even argue, as if that would change reality...
Drill down to the link on the right, and you see that it's expanded to other models.
Still only talks about replacing struts and hinges... nothing about welding...
That's what I said. They don't say what they replace it with, cause that's outside the scope of the d.o.t. But you are welcome to try to open the rear window on my 2000 Mountaineer - I haven't been able to since 2004, when they fixed it as part of a recall, and was told that yup, that was the fix.
Sounds like the people "fixing" the problem decided to weld it shut rather than properly replace the parts, since the former is cheaper than the later. This still doesn't support your argument:
Actual recall by Ford for certain Ford and Mercury models. Some people dropped the rear window on their head, and sued. Ford's response was to weld it shut as a recommended safety recall.
While it does sound like this was a real recall, it seems more likely however that the specific dealership that you took it to decided to weld it shut, not Ford the company itself. The recall notice also talks about the hinge FRACTURING, not "people dropping the rear window on their head". If the hinge was fracturing due to a manufacturer fault, then it would be proper that people should sue and a recall issued to resolve the problem. The recall notice also specifically mentions "... THE DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HINGES AND LIFTGATE STRUT BRACKET. ON VEHICLES BUILT FROM MARCH 3, 2002 THROUGH JUNE 23, 2003, THE DEALERS WILL ONLY REPLACE THE HINGES." This makes it clear that FORD intended for the dealers to effect a repair by replacing parts, while your dealership decided "fuck that, that costs us money" and welded shit shut, rather than doing their damn job.
If we analogize this back to the doctors, this would be like medical experts suggesting surgery to remove the gall bladder for some ailment X, and your doctor deciding that it would take up too much of his time and money to actually do properly, so he just hands you antibiotics and says, "there, fixed."
Don't blame Ford for this, when they issued perfectly reasonable instructions for Dealerships to resolve the problem, and the Dealership decided to be fucking idiots. BTW, go find a better place to service your vehicle, the guys you used seemed to be dirty rat bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed?
Hate crimes are not about WHO, they're about WHY.
If you're a white man, and you kill a black guy because he was cheating with your wife, then it's not a hate crime.
If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife for insurance money, then that's not a hate crime.
If you record your wife because you suspect she's hiding money from you, then that's not a hate crime.
If you're a white man and you kill a black guy, BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, that is a hate crime.
If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE, then that is a hate crime.
If you record your wife because you suspect that she's secretly practicing Jewish traditions, then that is a hate crime.
Do you get how this works? It's not "minority victims are better", it's that committing crimes against people solely due to a trait that you couldn't discriminate against them in a job, then not only have you committed your primary criminal action, you've also committed an act of discrimination.
Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.
... So you're argument is that this was clearly an invasion of privacy to prove that the guy was gay, and that if the guy were not suspected of being homosexual, that Ravi would not have had any motivation to film him.
So, it's a crime that is based on a perceived sexual orientation of the victim.
And you don't understand how this is a hate crime?
I bet the monkey that patented eating bugs off a stick made a fortune!
Indeed, he had all the bugs he could eat...
Funny, the German wikipedia disagrees with you. To be clear, they don't say all software is patentable, but they do explain how computer-timed ignitions are patentable software.
"What is the airspeed of an unladen neutrino?"
"What do you mean? Electron or muon?"
"What? I don't kno- WHAAAAAH!"
Well, wasn't the knight in the temple 'immortal' because he could and, for the sake of the plot, apparently did keep drinking from the Grail. His brothers, who also drank from the Grail, lived to extreme old age too; just not as long as the one who stayed behind to guard the Grail.
Ah, but the Grail couldn't be removed from the Temple, so in that case, the immortality only lasts as long as you're in the temple. Once you leave, you begin slowly dying again.
The obligatory.
I think Indiana Jones was only immortal while he was in that temple.
Indeed, as the Grail Knight specifically says that the immortality the cup grants lasts only within the temple. And further if you examine the... OMG, I'm such a dork, too.
Indeed, this covenant not to sue smells an awful lot like a dismissal with prejudice to me...
Sacrifice Astrolabe: Add two mana of any one color to your mana pool. Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.
I'd tap that.
What are you using? Icy Manipulator? Clearly you can't tap the card without at least a twiddle or something...
#toomuchmtg
Dude, you're coming across as a fucking idiot, and you appear to be armchair lawyering, and doing a miserable job of it.
Defamation doesn't need to be credible in general, the falsehood just has to be acted upon. Namely, ONLY ONE PERSON has to believe it, and have it color their actions with regard to the person subject to the defamation, in such a way that it causes them injury.
In many states, suggesting that a single woman is unchaste, or that a married woman has had an affair is defamation per se, in that you don't even have to prove damages, credibility, or anything like that. "Did you say it?" and "Is it true?" are really the only two relevant questions at that point.
In fact, a google search for "defamation credible" and "defamation credibility" turn up nothing suggesting that the falsehood has to be credible. Because again, you cannot normally sue for defamation until you have suffered harm, at that point, any doubt about "credibility" is worthless, because someone HAS ALREADY ACTED UPON THE DEFAMATION, thus proving the credibility per se. Naturally if you cannot prove harm, then you would have to be able to prove that the claim was, is, or will be likely to be acted upon, which is perhaps where you're getting this "credibility" crap.
And this notion that a vague statement can get you out of a defamation suit is also completely bogus. "Criminal fraud" is a specific claim, and can be proved sufficiently false, or true. If I were to claim that you were a burglar, or a felon, it would clearly impart a defamatory opinion about you to a third party. It doesn't matter what the felony involved in the burglary was, or what the even more generic felony was for, it doesn't matter that it is vague. It's fucking bad enough to make a 3rd party take a harmful action towards you. Specifically, Alice is applying for a job with Bob. Charlie tells Bob that Alice is a felon, despite Alice never having committed a felony. Bob then declines to hire Alice, due to a belief that she is a felon. Voila, textbook defamation. No need to prove "credibility" because the information was already acted upon, and despite being a ridiculously vague assertion of facts, Charlie still clearly committed defamation. (Unless Alice is a public figure, in which can she would have to prove that Charlie knew the information to be false, or recklessly failed to verify the assertion.)
Lastly, you can't use villains in movies for what they say, because movies commonly fuck up ALL jargon and terms, legal jargon and terms being no exception. This is especially true because the average person has no fucking clue about the technicalities of legal jargon and terms themselves. Your argument is tantamount to using Swordfish as evidence about a specific feature of computer hacking/cracking.
The one good point that you have is that I should have said that good-faith accusations are protected from defamation. This is primarily because claims made in the process of litigation and criminal trials are privileged from defamation claims. (However, they are not immune to perjury claims, but then those are actually even harder to prove than defamation anyways.)
My mistake. I'll need to think of a different way to criticize someone for unnecessary insults.
I think you just found it... "these insults are unnecessary, and you're not helping the pathos of your rhetoric at all."
The govt has absolutely no business telling any employer that it has to provide contraception but it certainly can't tell religious organizations that it must.
The government has mandated that preventative medicine must be covered, and must be covered in full by insurance companies. This ensures that prostate exams, mammograms, and various other "maintenance" healthcare are provided for free of charge, to ensure that more of the population actually does them. If a person is struggling to make it through every month, and are already making a choice between medication and food, why would they spend more money to go have preventative healthcare?
Of course, since they ignore their preventative healthcare, they get sick more often, and become a healthcare burden, when all we had to do to prevent this, was get them preventative care.
Now, family planning is well established already as an important preventative care, and the experts widely agree on this matter. As such, it fits the bar for all secular work forces provide it, and at no cost. As such catholic institutions are taking government money to provide a secular service, are required to conform to all secular laws, and provide all preventative healthcare and for free.
You want a big mindblow? In New Mexico state, if you're poor, and do not have health insurance, you are guaranteed entrance in the New Mexico state medicaid family planning coverage, which will cover a yearly examination, and contraception. Why? Because if NM state does not provide these services for free, then when the person gets pregnant, they will then become eligible for the full Medicaid in a "think of the children" requirement that children without healthcare should be guaranteed healthcare. So, it works out to be more economic for the state's budget to provide PREVENTATIVE CARE, than deal with the issue when it manifests itself.
And all of this is really just moot anyways, because this already has strong support in the courts that if a religious organization is operating as a secular employer, that they must follow secular laws, exactly the same as a Christian Scientist employer cannot refuse to provide healthcare for his employees if he is over a certain size, despite his personal religious beliefs on the matter. The church should not get some special exemption to enforce its religious policies on its employees that an individual could not enforce as well.
This all comes down to: these are secular employments, and as such should not be exempt from providing what every other secular employer has to provide.
There are a number of ways that a hospital could work it so that they could hire only believers of their faith, as they are religious organizations. Unfortunately, when you start taking government funds, you have to be operating a secular institution.
You can run an entirely private hospital that only serves persons of your faith, and only hires persons of your faith, which would fall under all legal protections for religious organizations, but again... you would have to deny and refuse all government money funds and grants. This would make it extremely difficult to operate a hospital, and so most hospitals decline to do so.
Now that they are serving a secular mission, they are required to conform to secular law.
Hey jackass!
"The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics"
How are Catholics supposed to hire -only- other Catholics when doing so is a clear violation of the law?
Seriously you libtards are just complete and utter assholes.
The Church itself is staffed solely by individuals that share their faith. How are they able to do so when it is a clear violation of the law? Because it's not a violation of the law, because they are a religious organization, and thus exempt from a number of hiring laws. For instance, the Catholic Church can legally deny certain positions to women, such as priesthood.
While you might claim that "libtards" are complete and utter assholes, perhaps in this case, the person is not talking out of their ass, but is talking from a well supported legal position, and it is just your misunderstanding of the law that is driving you to think me insane.
See what I did there? Ad hominem's are fun!
"Ad hominem" does not mean insulting or attacking the person themselves. It means dismissing or accepting their argument based solely on the character of the arguer themselves.
"Well, she said that lava can fly in the air, and since she's totally hawt, she must be right." Is an ad hominem.
"Well, he said that lava doesn't fly in the air, and since he looks like a jock, he must be wrong." Is also an ad hominem.
"Well, she said that lava is purple, which it is not, so she's an idiot." Is not an ad hominem fallacy...
How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.
The original set of rules were already in place in California, and the Catholic Church attempted to fight a legal battle over it. They got all the way to the Federal District Appeals, and were shot down. The Supreme Court denied them a writ to hear the case.
The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics, who do not service predominantly other Catholics, and a few other reasonable conditions to cover birth control for their employees. This means, that if a Catholic organization, goes out and hires atheists, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and Wiccans, that they would have been forced (just like every other public employer) to provide birth control for those individuals.
These Catholic organizations, which would have been required to provide birth control, do not feel that sharing their faith is necessary to be employed by them, so they should be treated just like any other employer. I don't care if your organization is "based on religious ideas", if you're practicing secular employment, then you cannot bring up your religious ideas to justify discrimination of those employees. You yourself have already chosen to eschew your religious employment grounds.
...if you're going for a car analogy.
...snip...
No, if we're going for a car analogy, it would be a license plate that has been taken out, folded, and then unfolded without breaking it, which is then reinstalled on the car.
they provide conclusive proof that the Heartland Institute promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and effectively engaged in treasonous activity.
This is a statement of fact. That it is prefixed with "My read on the documents is that..." does not magically turn that statement of fact into opinion.
So you have to actually accuse Heartland of 'systematic criminal fraud'....
You're confused... in fact, actually, you have to not accuse someone of a criminal act, as an accusation is protected, rather you have to state that Heartland committed an illegal act as a fact.
And seriously, you don't think his statement is credible? If a newspaper prints, "Person XY entered the house and raped the 47-year-old victim at 12:00", then it can be sued for libel. Until Person XY is convicted, you cannot make assertions of fact like that.
Your initial assertion has no libelous substance whatsoever. I suspect that you are aware of that, which is why you are making bold-sounding statements which are, in fact, perfectly safe. All this does is make you look like a coward.
If you want to get on this then, "Heartland Institute has promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and engaged in activities that are detrimental to the public good, and these papers prove it."
Fine, there. Happy now? OOooooo... I can paraphrase another person's statements of fact into a clearer statement of fact. (Note, I don't think they've committed treasonous activities, because it does not fit the Constitutional definition of treason... and besides, who's going to get two people confessing to treason in the same act?)
It doesn't mean anything anymore and has to be dropped. It leads either to confusion if used right or grammar peeves if used wrong. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
You're just trying to restrict my freedom of speech. CHILLING EFFECT!
The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, though, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.
Indeed, even more so, because as a "public figure", the HI is at a disadvantage for proving libel or any other form of defamation. As such, they could only have a chance of winning if the defendant had "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Early comment on the documents is going to probably be fine, and measured evaluation of the purportedly faked document (i.e. here's what it says, here's the grain of salt) would still remain entirely valid.
Your being to picky. People care less about grammar these days ten most other things. Irregardless, there doing the best they can
Its not "ten" dumbasd. Its "then"!
However, if it was in a documentary and it were false, then you can be sure that Monsanto lawyers would be all over it.
Do you know of any evidence that the figures were independently obtained?
Legally speaking, either the figures were unchallenged, or a jury came to a finding of fact that they were trustworthy.
The guy even admitted that after finding the plants to be roundup ready, that he specifically set aside the seed and used it to plant a 1000 acre section of field.
His defense was that he never used roundup on the field, so there shouldn't be a finding of infringement. The courts rejected that defense...
but you know, keep digging up bullshit that the farmer didn't even argue, as if that would change reality...
"During 1998, over 95% of Schmeiser's canola crop"
According to the documentary, those precentages were widely variable, and not independently evaluated but asserted by Monsanto.
Oh, well, if it were in a documentary, then it MUST be true.
Drill down to the link on the right, and you see that it's expanded to other models.
Still only talks about replacing struts and hinges... nothing about welding...
That's what I said. They don't say what they replace it with, cause that's outside the scope of the d.o.t. But you are welcome to try to open the rear window on my 2000 Mountaineer - I haven't been able to since 2004, when they fixed it as part of a recall, and was told that yup, that was the fix.
Sounds like the people "fixing" the problem decided to weld it shut rather than properly replace the parts, since the former is cheaper than the later. This still doesn't support your argument:
Actual recall by Ford for certain Ford and Mercury models. Some people dropped the rear window on their head, and sued. Ford's response was to weld it shut as a recommended safety recall.
While it does sound like this was a real recall, it seems more likely however that the specific dealership that you took it to decided to weld it shut, not Ford the company itself. The recall notice also talks about the hinge FRACTURING, not "people dropping the rear window on their head". If the hinge was fracturing due to a manufacturer fault, then it would be proper that people should sue and a recall issued to resolve the problem. The recall notice also specifically mentions "... THE DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HINGES AND LIFTGATE STRUT BRACKET. ON VEHICLES BUILT FROM MARCH 3, 2002 THROUGH JUNE 23, 2003, THE DEALERS WILL ONLY REPLACE THE HINGES." This makes it clear that FORD intended for the dealers to effect a repair by replacing parts, while your dealership decided "fuck that, that costs us money" and welded shit shut, rather than doing their damn job.
If we analogize this back to the doctors, this would be like medical experts suggesting surgery to remove the gall bladder for some ailment X, and your doctor deciding that it would take up too much of his time and money to actually do properly, so he just hands you antibiotics and says, "there, fixed."
Don't blame Ford for this, when they issued perfectly reasonable instructions for Dealerships to resolve the problem, and the Dealership decided to be fucking idiots. BTW, go find a better place to service your vehicle, the guys you used seemed to be dirty rat bastards.