The publication added that CD Projekt cuts jobs at its subsidiary every two to three years, with annual staff turnover reaching around 30%.
As summed up by another former employee, “GOG has been acting well tactically from a financial perspective, but poorly strategically, and the current business model is likely running out of steam.”
So nothing burger? Other than a corpo being anti-worker which is not news…
No they don’t. The 1st amendment only prevents the government from censoring people, not corporations. In fact the 1st amendment protects corporate censoring.
At least it wasn’t an airliner this time.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.
No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.
Calling that murky is missing the point.
Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).
We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right
We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.
‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.
Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.
But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?
Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts ‘celebrating’ violence. It’s their right to do so but so is mine and other’s to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.
You are not answering the question.
You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.
Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?
That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.
I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone’s opinion.
I did not exclude future crimes from my question.
Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?
It was a combination of some infrastructure being offline (a VOR beacon) thus requiring a different procedure that was not followed correctly.
I don’t believe the pilots ever considered they had crossed into Soviet airspace, they were probably unaware of any deviation from their flight plan.
Nor was there any contact with Soviet forces. Were they ordered to leave the airspace would significantly change the share of blame making the pilots criminal and letting the Soviets off easily.
The intercept claims to have tried to have fired warning shots but admits they were not really visible in the night. I think that if he flown directly in front of them, they would notice if not visually the turbulence. But the decision seems to have been taken that it was not a civilian plane at a higher level and the identification part of the intercept a formality. Apparently they had actually missed intercepting some actual spy planes recently and they had to save face.
Yes the US already were invading Syria, an offensive operation. This ain’t self-defense.
Firstly act of wars do not necessarily, in fact usually, do no lead to full blown war. Iran and Israel launched missiles at each other recently and they did not go to full blown war, does that mean that both of those acts were not in-fact act of wars but perfectly normal behavior?
I presume you are referring to KAL-007 (as when MH-17 happened the Russian proxies were already at war with Ukraine). It was the Soviet Union and it didn’t shoot it down for violating an imaginary ADIZ but after twice overflying Soviet territory. It’s disputed whether the plane did manage to exit Soviet airspace after the second overfly but it not relevant, the SU justification was always that it crossed in their territory not that it entered a unilaterally declared ADIZ.
Why? China also has an ADIZ which just like S.Korea’s and every ADIZ is based on bullshit not on international law. China will also “intercept” aka fly planes alongside and whine about Korean “aggression”.
ADIZ violations are not real. Actually trying to enforce one by shooting down planes would be an unprovoked act of war.
Doubt it. He ranks low on the color chart.
The EU should mandate support for its native alphabets (probably via Unicode) for IT service providers that provide services in the EU.
You can’t read can you?
I did not deny that I question your atheism. I clarified that it is not due to you reading the bible but due to your defence of Christianity.
I am not doubting that you are an atheist because you 've read the bible (after all I wrote in my last post that I 've also read it) but because of your Christianity apologia.
As usual you answering a strawman and not me.
Rofl. I suggest your realize that even the Protestants don’t actually care about what the Bible says, despite it being the basis of their attack on the Catholic Church (whose origins alongside the Orthodox predate the Bible and have consistently been against a Bible only interpretation of Christianity). In practice Christian churches have been railing against queer people since forever.
Thus it is you who should look at the history of Christianity in the last 2000 millennia and not just the read the Bible.
I 've read the fucking bible, it’s morally reprehensible and indefensible if you have a shred of decency. It’s understandable since it was written by people with completely different morals to us with an agenda to push.
Trump’s base, his defense secretary, identify (strongly) as Christians, most people consider them Christians. A no true Scotman objection by you is meaningless pedantry. Even if we deny them the title of Christian they are still more dangerous than Gabbard’s little and more mainstream. Actually them being more mainstream is the reason they are more dangerous than Gabbard’s cult.
Are you really an atheist? If you are a Christian remember lying is a sin!
Sure attacking Denmark is insane (and will not happen) but the US has a long history of meddling in Panama.
In regards to Panama it’s more of an issue of Trump saying the quit parts loud than a radical departure from normalcy.