Web lists-archives.com

Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override




On 2/9/2017, 1:46:30 PM, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Disaster Master graced us with on 
> 2/9/2017 10:09 AM:
>> I don't care. I didn't post to a newsgroup. Get over it.
> Yes, you did,

No, I didn't. I sent an EMAIL to the address <general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.

I have no control or knowledge of what Mozilla's email list server
chooses to do with it after that.

>>> Laws are fluid
>> Only in the minds of people who don't understand it.
> Really, so Dred Scott is still in effect?

<sigh> Dred Scott was a supreme Court decision, not a 'law'.

Laws (usually) say what they mean and mean what they say. The meaning,
intent and effect of the law is not 'fluid' (whatever that really
means), although there are those among us who try to convince us that
black is white and up is down.

>>> along with differences in different countries.
>> That comment is meaningless, since no country can enact a law that
>> applies to people in other countries.
> Yes, they can and as we've recently been reminded in the Citizens United 
> ruling corporations are people. Firefox is offered internationally so 
> they are affected by any laws applying to software from other countries.

But only in said countries. The law here does not affect Firefox 'over
there', except in so far as it affects any people and/or offices here.

> A couple of cases in point, the EU force Microsoft to offer other 
> browser alternative to their OS.

Microsoft only needed to accommodate them in the EU. They chose to make
the change unilaterally, because it was easier than trying to maintain
different builds for different countries.

>  Also:
>
> REF: 
> https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-loses-big-german-reputation-lawsuit/88985/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> *The German Case*
>
> And that’s what this case in Germany is all about. Essentially, the main 
> player in this case had some pretty unsavory photographs appearing when 
> people searched for his name online, and while he had filed suits in 
> order to block the publication of those images, they were still 
> appearing years later. So, this man filed a suit and demanded that 
> Google remove all of the photographs that were attached to his name and 
> this event. And the judge ordered Google to comply.

Google 'operates' in Germany. They could have pulled out of Germany and
refused. They chose not to.

They could have also only filtered the results so that only Germans
couldn't see the pics, but they chose not to do that.

That said, obviously, national laws with respect to companies that offer
services online is an evolving system of crazy. Hopefully sane heads
will prevail, and Google will not be required to follow the laws of
every little petty dictatorship when it comes to the way they do things
online.

> The European Union resented the Helms Burton Act because it felt that 
> the U.S. was dictating how other nations ought to conduct their trade 
> and challenged it on that basis. The EU eventually dropped its challenge 
> in favor of negotiating a solution.

Anybody can challenge almost anything in court.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general