Big fat coincidence, the website for the Office of Special Counsel is down.

The only problem is, measles isn’t going to wait for that long, before it spreads to other children (who either genuinely cannot take vaccines for medical reasons, or for whom vaccines are ineffective.)

Or — it’s because showboating after unanswered goal #10 would kinda be bad form in any sport, regardless of sex. 

Ahem.

“Nobody’s calling the American’s dicks because they scored too much.”

My guess, it’s as you say —- he had no choice. Either his label made the choice, or it was a practical option, to stay competitive with other companies engaging in similar practices ...

... Not that the latter is the most admirable rationale for doing anything. But if Billboard were inclined to change the rules…

The deal he made to bundle his music might’ve cost his label a lot of money. And if he thought he was working within the framework of rules Billboard established, only to find out his sales were disqualified while another artist’s giveaway bundling went undisturbed, he has some right to be annoyed.

(To say nothing of…

True, but that’s not what he’s necessarily arguing about, it sounds. His is more an argument of uneven treatment/application of Billboard’s rules. If Billboard said, “Sales included with bundled products and sales resulting from “giveaways” of other merchandise do not count, only sales of the songs or albums alone,”…

Fair point. But — I think there is an argument that the rules need to be evenly applied, or at least, strictly defined, to avoid the appearance of uneven treatment of bundled sales. What degree of contractual privity exists between Billboard and charting artists, and what degree of legal responsibility it has to…

“The very first step would be the impeachment inquiries. That’s when Congress can request all the documents, and have people testify etc.”

—- Congress has already issued subpoenas, which are going ignored. The validity and enforcement of those subpoenas is now in the hands of the courts. While articles of impeachment…

Oh Lord, you’re right. He was 12, but claimed to be 13! He breached a ToS — surely something no other kid has ever done. Why isn’t he in baby supermax right now?

No one’s questioning his ability, or even that he’s at fault, or a bad kid. State and federal child labor and online safety laws aren’t anything anyone wants to get sued over. But Twitch, his team, and eSports leagues have owe him the duty to abide by the law.

Remember, those laws exist to protect children from being…

The reason it’s left out is because no one knows, or has claimed that he was supervised.

And considering the child’s participation on the team may nonetheless run afoul of labor laws, that guardian may have good reason not to appear as aiding the child in misrepresenting his age.

1. Headline — “_________ needs to stop!”

I respectfully disagree.

Though not all, some supporters are very open to a fair and objective discussion.

If you were telling a story featuring CoD, probably not. If you were telling a story about video games, and it contained footage from CoD, it’d depend heavily on the context since fair use doctrine could apply.

It’s part of the point. (Or, rather, it would be part of the fair use analysis.)

It may be under copyright, but it’s still subject to fair/free use. Whether the company likes it or not, by virtue of a an voluntary, ongoing contractual relationship with the U.S. military, its vehicle has become an undeniable part of military history and ongoing military conflict.

While that doesn’t make the…

Non-protagonist character.

Fixed it. 

Apparently, this is thanks to common law enacted about a century and a half ago, stating that private citizens can make arrests if they witness a public offense (e.g. misdemeanor) or have reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed. This statute is the authority security guards assert when making an…

Correct on all points. Specifically, the statute states, “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]” I do think the key word is unfair. (E.g., while evidence itself may be relevant, does it also introduce a defendant’s extreme,…