We also have a right to face our accuser in court. A camera can’t very well testify in a court case. I suppose the company operating the camera can be the accuser, but the only evidence they have is what the camera captured.

It isn’t “small claims” as called out in the article. Speed cameras violate constitutional rights of the accused. The fine is sent to the car’s owner without regard to whether or not the owner is driving. That is a constitutional due process violation. A little research will show that red light and speed camera…

I’ve done it! The best thing about it is that, if anyone’s looking at you weird, is not like you can see them do it!

Seems like the camera company is Gatso. The name might ring a bell to those from the UK.

I don’t know how it plays out with speeding cameras but it’s been researched that red light cameras merely replace one form of collision with another, possibly making things even worse.

Could be worse and have average speed cameras like France.

Bout damn time. F- Cameras.

Good for her. I hope she wins.

Shut up MRA scum!

Women’s earnings are not 30% lower than a man’s when accounting for positions, roles, yada yada. For example, women are often the project maangers in tech, not the actual engineers. So yes they make less. A female engineer does not make 30% less than a male engineer.

I still feel the original “the pass” should have warranted a penalty of sorts and not ended up getting the win. If you have to go all 4 wheels off track to make the pass, it’s not legitimate pass.

I absolutely have heard of the first amendment. The first amendment is about governmental laws protecting the right to protest, says nothing about private properties or companies which this is. If Richard Petty and his company were government institutions, then you’d be right...

If you work for the government you can’t be fired for exercising your freedom of speech. If you work for a private sector company they can fire you for anything they want as long as it’s non-discriminatory.

the first amendment doesn’t mean that your job can’t fire you for expressing a thought that goes against their beliefs. its not an issue of the first amendment. it specifically covers what actions the goverment can take against you. While I don’t agree with his actions, as the owner, they are his actions to take. Now,…

The first amendment, as many people on the left have pointed out, only insures you are not arrested for your speech. It doesn’t prevent people from calling you an asshole, or shield you from the consequences of that speech. 

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I actually tried to find a law that would state that what he was doing is illegal, but came up empty. Could you point me to a specific labor law that says this?

I don’t agree with his actions, but I think he’s within his full right to do this as an employer. Granted it’s an asshole move in my eyes, he’s got as much right to do it as his employees have to (legally) kneel during the anthem.

Which could be countered with lackofsituationalawareness, go fuck yourself.

They were arrested.

Sorry, but I won't stop having sex with your sister.