Tumgik
#Court Precedent
jtem · 1 year
Text
That guy Dick Cheney shot in the face died.
Cheney didn’t know that you weren’t supposed to point loaded guns at peoples faces. It wasn’t his fault.
According to Reich wing Cancel Culture, if it happened today Cheney would go to prison. Oh, no, my bad; they liked Dick Cheney so gun safety never mattered. 
Cheney didn’t even have to resign from his position as Vice President, after shooting that guy in the face...
320 notes · View notes
kingjasnah · 1 year
Text
admiral april: spock, the next time you steal the enterprise.....and there BETTER not be a NEXT TIME-
spock, fiveish years out from tos s1 ep11 the menagerie:
Tumblr media
881 notes · View notes
zooophagous · 1 year
Text
"Copying a photo to near perfection in a painting is a valid and true display of skill and artistic merit"
And
"Not every photo you find online is yours to be used as a stock photo however you want"
Are two takes that can and do exist together lol.
222 notes · View notes
shiominato · 3 months
Text
yuzu emulator is dead and has to pay nintendo $2.4 million
18 notes · View notes
alwaysbewoke · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
16 notes · View notes
halfyearsqueen · 13 days
Text
thinking about her and her siblings
#specifically the way she doesn’t use the word treason to describe their actions even though the likelihood of them in reality being#at the least complicit in her usurpation is not a small possibility#and like not deeming their actions treason is a way that she can save them from facing the full ramifications of it without seeming weak#she kinda shifts responsibility and culpability away from them and seems to be conscious in the fact they were ? not given much of a choice#in taking part in the rivalry between her and their mother#and like her calling her half brothers half brothers to me personally is ? not a way of disavowing the blood they share and more of a way of#bringing her mother back to the forefront and the fact she IS a product of viserys’ first marriage#she’s relying very heavily on the widow’s law for legal precedence to combat mentions of the great council#and the fact her claim can’t be considered in the same sense that it might be if she was alicent’s first child#and like - she can only really do that because she was invested as princess of dragonstone#so her claim was official. it mattered in the sense of viserys made it matter#and thus couldn’t be passed over the way it would’ve been#and like with helaena she doesn’t really need to have that distinction in place because HER claim wasn’t being discussed at all#and like I do think she was serious on giving them places of honor at her court after she’d ascended#she’d just never got to that part#like it’s ? complicated#it’s ? she cares about them . she doesn’t know them
8 notes · View notes
bitchfitch · 10 months
Text
idk. My like. Actual day job involves a lot of needing to know how copyright laws relate to the use of stock images and reference images in art. Like, That is an entire part of the studio I work fors legal teams monthly emails about like documenting sources and such.
And I just saw a post that had a stock model who linked his ToC. I feel so bad for this dude bc like. I prefer to respect folks wishes when it comes to how their images are being used, but he was going Full legal jargon with warnings about contacting lawyers and what not.
and basically none of his ToC was actually legally enforcable. Some of it was Actually Extremely Illegal as it would be classed as like discrimination under relavant laws. Some of it was absolute nonsense, you like need signed contracts for some of this stuff not a DA page that says them, and like. Idk. It's clear he was coming from a place of self protection and I will not fault him for it or use his images but I Desperately hope he never actually tries to go to court over any of it because he Will lose, and he will be loosing Hard.
28 notes · View notes
bardic-irritation · 2 years
Text
EVERY week I think THAT'S IT intrepid heroes we have HIT the PEAK of insane reveals the next episode CANNOT be any more wild than THIS
and EVERY WEEK some INSANE and BATSHIT new thing HAPPENS and I just have to wonder where's the CEILING. when will it END. when will my heart be allowed to REST
283 notes · View notes
fideidefenswhore · 3 months
Text
Had circumstances been just a little different, Anne Boleyn might still have lived. Had she produced a son, Jane would have been a passing distraction, Anne's enemies would have been silenced, and her fiery character might again have seemed, at least at times, beguiling to Henry. During the course of their brief marriage, which lasted just over three years, there had been many fluctuations. After the final miscarriage, Anne fought back, saying she had been frightened by Henry's accident, but also broken-hearted at his paying attention to another woman. This kind of criticism was not something Henry was prepared to tolerate in a wife; one of Katherine's strengths, as she herself acknowledged, was that she had never shown any sign of animosity or distress in response to the king's infidelities. Henry and Anne's relationship had been a genuine love-match, however, and the volatility which helped bring about the extraordinary events of the break with Rome remained a part of their relationship ever after.
Henry VIII, Lucy Wooding
#'never' is doing a lot of heavy lifting/ obfuscating here lol#(it's traditionally thought that she never had harsh words about bessie blount-- and indeed there's no record of this--#although elizabeth blount's primary biographer has said that she had no court presence after the birth of henry fitzroy suggests a frosty#dynamic... just about the elevation of fitzroy#however there's the hastings drama)#also 'her enemies would have been silenced' is overly simplistic#unpopular queens having sons might have reduced overt hostility#but it didn't annihilate it. more realistically might have 'bridled' her enemies#and yet i still find this excerpt compelling so . here we are#lucy wooding#last part of sentence 2 tho...eminently plausible#prior to this storms always melted into sunshine . stormclouds gathered on the horizon and storms began again. then repeat.#and as reviled as the assertion 'genuine love-match' has been as of late. there is evidence which supports it .#would jane have been a passing distraction? again we don't know. their periods of 'royal mistress' (although there needs to be a better ter#maybe...object of king's affections?) are different in that there is only record of anne's in hindsight via cavendish etc#and also in their actions. in 1526 there was no royal watcher that believed the withdrawal of one of the queen's ladies was significant#in 1536 there was one who believed jane's meetings with henry were highly significant and they proved to be...#altho as wooding underlines here they proved to be mainly due to circumstance#it's not to say there weren't discussions behind closed doors of anne becoming queen among the boleyns circa 1526. but they were not known#and wouldn't have been guessed due to lack of precedent
10 notes · View notes
yarnings · 4 months
Text
Oooh! Look! Precedent! Wonderful wonderful precedent!
8 notes · View notes
unhelpfulfemme · 7 months
Text
'But I have a plan to present you, between now and your wedding, with seven hounds with chains of silver and a golden apple between them — do I ever get them to you alive — so that when you race through the woods and fell your deer and see him undone and brittled there, you will bethink you of O'LiamRoe.' The words were wry, but the tone, with whatever effort, was one of lightest amusement. Her mood opened to him suddenly, the white brow patterned with fine, dry lines which had not been there before, and her eyes searching his. 'I have had dogs enough, O'LiamRoe; and lovers enough.' 'You have no friends,' he said, 'man or dog. I had thought to be a small bit of both.'
Queen's Play by Dorothy Dunnett
ROMANCE IS NOT DEAD (or at least it wasn't in the 16th century)
10 notes · View notes
stonecoldsilly · 2 years
Text
thinking about andhera winning some great victory to earn his mother’s regard and the queen of air and darkness refuses to recognise him
because he’s been a knight of the court of craft ever since he took his oath
103 notes · View notes
the-organic-dynamic · 25 days
Text
youtube
Ralph Wilde, Ph.D, addressing the ICJ during hearings at the Hague (February 26, 2024):
[Quotation begins around 23:22, emphases mine]
"In sum: the occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is existentially illegal...
because ... quite simply, [it is] an exercise of authority over the Palestinian people that, by its very nature, violates their right to freedom.
This multifaceted existential illegality — involving serious violations of peremptory norms — has two key consequences:
First: the occupation must end: Israel must renounce its claim to sovereignty over the Palestinian territory; all settlers must be removed. Immediately. This is required to end the illegality, to discharge the positive obligation to enable immediate Palestinian self-administration, and because Israel lacks any legal entitlement to exercise authority..."
"...whatever it does is illegal, even if compliant with or pursuant to the conduct-regulatory rules."
3 notes · View notes
whoreiaki-kakyoin · 6 months
Text
Some people have aggressively stupid takes on censorship, fictional content, kink…. But then also in irl sex and relationships, too, and it’s exhausting. If you are a grown adult wringing your hands about how you could never date anyone two years younger than you or getting your panties in a twist over regular safe consenting sex practices/acting like safe and consensual k.ink is inherently abusive…. Then your brain has been so thoroughly rotted by online puritan discourse and you need to get off of twitter and experience the real world. Genuinely. Hope this helps.
#and there is a difference between having an understanding of these things and avoiding certain k.inks because of personal preference/trauma#but acting as if people who participate in and enjoy these things safely and privately are ‘freaks’ or ‘disgusting’ or immoral#is not the same thing#also please recognize the rhetoric you are parroting for fucks sake#because calling people ‘freaks’ and ‘degenerates’ and wanting to police anything sexual… not the take you think it is#this sort of thing actually enables and leads to things like a lot of sodomy laws in the us that existed pre obergefell v hodges#which classified any sex deviant from your standard piv penetrative sex as unlawful and immoral#setting a very dangerous precedent about what people can and cannot do in their own home#there are so many reasons that it pisses me off seeing these things but with the state of things in so many places right now#it baffles me when chronically online bitches swallow puritan rhetoric without a second thought and don’t see the writing on the wall#in an era of book bans and drag bans and the demonization of the lgbtq community at large#and with a Supreme Court that has shown time and again that they put their personal biases ahead of the safety and rights of constituents#I do not know how people do not recognize#this sort of reactionary shit will ALWAYS hurt marginalized people first. respectability politics will not save you when they turn on you#okay send tweet I’m just annoyed#laur speaks!#I better not get some dumbass shit on this post I am tired I am chronically and mentally ill and having a hell of a semester.#not looking for discourse. I do not have time. get blocked argue with the wall read a fucking book and learn some shit while you’re at it.
18 notes · View notes
st5lker · 10 months
Note
why would someone hoping that companies being able to take people's likeness and duplicate it via software becomes illegal be "dumb as fuck"?
actors already have some ownership of their own likeness which prevents studios from making CGI copies of them when they havent been signed up to a film, so why wouldnt voice actors get ownership of their likeness?
because first of all i do not believe that owning private property is ever a good thing at all and either way owning a likeness is very different from saying "all ai impressions of a voice should be illegal". actors owning their own likeness means, in an extremely simplified way, that companies cannot make money off of tricking people into thinking somebody is part of something when they're not. it's essentially the same thing as coca-cola having a trademark on their name and logo. and voice actors already DO own their voice's likeness. see bette midler's lawsuit against ford for using a voice impressionist to sing like her in a commercial. what YOU'RE suggesting should be illegal already is, and that's not even what kellen goff (and many other people in the notes of that post) seem to be suggesting, which is that using ai to make an impression of someone's voice at all should be illegal.
i'm not saying companies should be able to take actor's likenesses. i am saying that making it illegal to make ai text to speech of an actor's voice is dumb and will only help big companies and rich people and hurt the small timers that dont have the same legal team budget. back to the idea that owning a likeness is like owning a trademark, do you think trademarks are good? what about when monster energy tries to sue every single game developer that puts the word 'monster' in their game's title? what about when adidas tried to stop the black lives matter global network from using their logo for the crime of having three stripes? do any of these instances sound like strict "intellectual property" laws help anyone but large companies?
18 notes · View notes
halfyearsqueen · 3 months
Text
in it's fledgling stages known only as the party of the princess, team black was given it's name post the tourney of 111AC. politically she hadn't garnered much personal support prior to it - only men and women who planned on upholding the oaths they'd sworn to her and promised her father, the reigning king. but then in the days and weeks afterward, some had started to approach her again. while others did not, there was a gradual shift within the court. lords and ladies donning blacks and reds and greens. unspoken declarations of loyalty to either the princess or the queen.
8 notes · View notes