Dale M

@AndrewLeach “free expression” in a US sense means that the government cannot prevent you from expression yourself. You might choose to express yourself by collecting stamps. Or making detailed records of the comings and goings of your neighbours. Or collecting data on stack exchange users. Some types of free expression are more sinister than others but they are all protected.

Dale M

Oct 9, 2024 19:43

@MichaelHall yes - it’s in the first paragraph titled “Primary Holding” supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113. Do some basic research before hurling abuse.

Dale M

Oct 9, 2024 19:43

@MichaelHall Roe v Wade found that there was an implied Constitutional right to privacy and that was the right that was violated by the relevant anti-abortion law. In overturning it SCOTUS has said that Americans do not have. Constitutional right to privacy.

Dale M

Oct 9, 2024 19:43

@Barmar nothing

Dale M

Oct 9, 2024 19:43

@MichaelHall no, you have a right against unlawful searches of your home, while it has much the same effect, it’s not the same thing.

Dale M

Oct 9, 2024 19:43

@AndrewLeach collection information, like dancing, or painting your house green is a form of expression - speech is not just speech in the USA.

Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Sep 24, 2024 22:47

@ohwilleke Even if they have no case against Walmart (which - vicarious liability); do they have one against the employee?

Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jul 22, 2024 21:47

"Pure" economic loss is recoverable in tort in some jurisdictions (e.g. Canada, Australia) in some cases - the law is fuzzy.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: Can m…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jul 22, 2024 02:17

@Acccumulation stock ownership does not give control of a company - that’s the role of directors. What stock ownership does is give you a right to dividends and a right to vote.

Dale M

Jul 22, 2024 02:17

@Acccumulation you do not have to pay rent to use your own stuff. That’s what ownership means at law. You might want to make such an arrangement with co owners and that arrangement might be an enforceable contract, but you don’t have to. You can use it because you own it, but so can they.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: Is si…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jul 11, 2024 07:57

@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE That’s not the question. The question is: if I sign a document without reading it am I bound and the answer is yes. There are other questions about what happens if there is a dispute about what document I signed but once that’s established by agreement or determination there is no doubt that I’m bound.

Dale M

Jul 11, 2024 07:57

@JimmyJames you said that you were told what you were signing (“vague notional explanation”). If what they produce later does not match the description then that’s misrepresentation and the agreement is void. If they change it after the fact then that’s fraud and they go to jail. What you asked is if it’s binding if you don’t read it and it is. This is true if you haven’t read it. It’s also true if you haven’t seen it. It’s also true if you don’t know what it is. It isn’t true if there is deliberate or accidental misrepresentation by the other party but then, that’s true if you had read it.

Discussion on answer by jesse_b: Lith…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Apr 26, 2024 08:31

@jesse_b the chance of a novice surviving a parachute jump from a commercial airliner (which are not designed as a parachute platform and don’t have ejection seats) is also essentially zero. Also, most crashes happen on take off or landing when you don’t have the time or altitude to deploy a parachute.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: Enfor…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Apr 20, 2024 21:54

@DewiMorgan better to stay silent and be thought a fool than leave a comment and remove all doubt. Why would you even suggest that past conduct in a completely different context be relevant here?

Dale M

Apr 20, 2024 21:54

@DewiMorgan intent is never moot but intent is objectively assessed by considering what a reasonable observer would conclude, not subjectively by asking the party what they intended.

Dale M

Apr 20, 2024 21:54

@Greendrake I thought of that too. I’m in two minds. On the one hand, a private citizen can’t give someone permission to commit a crime, so you can’t authorise “burglary”, but you can give permission for someone to take your stuff, which would make it not burglary. However, it would all depend on what the specific elements are.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: is th…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Mar 26, 2024 20:29

@jeff the learner (AI or human) does not have to observe the licence if their use is fair use. I can read a colleagues textbook or use a library copy.

Dale M

Mar 26, 2024 11:49

@Flater why would that matter? As an engineer I use many, many works as inputs that are covered by copyright - that’s how I learned my trade. But I’m not reproducing them when I produce my output. An AI appears to be no different.

Discussion on answer by gnasher729: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Mar 15, 2024 21:07

@DonQuiKong because you just described a loan, not a gift

Dale M

Mar 15, 2024 21:07

@NuclearHoagie by allowing the use, it’s likely the licence was a gift - a gift doesn’t need consideration and can’t be revoked.

Discussion on question by Pamela Gall…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Mar 14, 2024 20:08

@ohwilleke I suspect they are trying to assemble a list of verified (at least one reply) email addresses for spam purposes.

The Sidebar

General discussion for law.stackexchange.com | Please note tha...

Dale M

Mar 13, 2024 20:52

@paulster It would have been fine, but it might have been closed as a request for specific legal advice

Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: In…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Feb 8, 2024 02:22

Australia has also introduced arbitration into commercial settlements for family law because of its relative efficiency compared to the court.

Dale M

Feb 8, 2024 02:16

@ohwilleke clearly a different culture - I has heard that international arbitration is best avoided if its seat is in the USA. I only domestic commercial where it’s seen as a quicker and cheaper alternative to litigation which gives finality due to the limited avenues for appeal.

Dale M

Feb 7, 2024 20:31

@ohwilleke but hearings are so expensive and document exchange is (relatively) cheap.

Dale M

Feb 7, 2024 20:31

@HelloDarkWorld @ohwilleke requests are usually stated very broadly to avoid just such a thing.

Dale M

Feb 6, 2024 20:58

@ohwilleke common law jurisdictions other than the USA do not require US-style depositions (though the parties in a civil trial can agree to them and in arbitrations evidence-in-chief is almost always provided in writing before the hearing). Discovery is limited to documents including expert reports and a list of witnesses. That does allow for slightly more room for surprise in evidence unsupported by documents … but if you’re building a case on that …

Dale M

Feb 6, 2024 20:58

@HelloDarkWorld Yes. That’s the point. Trials are decided on the evidence known to all not because one side knows something the other doesn’t. Drop-mike a-ha moments are vanishingly rare in a courtroom.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: Can a…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Nov 22, 2023 03:47

@JHR that’s really an economic -social question than a legal one.

Dale M

Nov 22, 2023 03:47

@JonathanReez yet home ownership in Japan is well behind most of the OECD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_ra‌te

Dale M

Nov 22, 2023 03:47

@PaulJohnson not the first part - the prohibition on penalty clauses is common to all common law jurisdictions AFAIK

Discussion on answer by Dale M: Contr…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Sep 6, 2023 22:20

@JirkaHanika and if you were going to court, you would be paying for expert reports. About $500 is right - per hour.

Dale M

Sep 6, 2023 22:20

@JirkaHanika that’s not hard at all - there’s a whole profession dedicated to working out the value of houses - even hypothermia houses

Discussion on answer by Dikran Marsup…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Dale M

Sep 3, 2023 12:58

@thinkingman colour is a sensory experience, not a physical reality - light a a specific wavelength is not colour. If my brain gives me an experience that you would describe as an olfactory experience then it smells for me - just like my experience of colour if I were colourblind is going to be different from yours.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: How T…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.meta.stackexchange.c...

Dale M

Jul 27, 2023 21:55

@nvoigt Thanks for your ping. I've read that post before and it doesn't say what you think its saying, its says what I think its saying. It says not to suspend users for suspected AI posts - it does not say don't delete suspected AI posts. Please see stackoverflowteams.com/c/moderators/questions/6279

Dale M

Jul 27, 2023 20:32

@nvoigt you are not quite right, see edit.

Dale M

Jul 27, 2023 20:32

@Someone-OnStrike no. Whatever they do, it’s their company- not ours.

Dale M

Jul 27, 2023 20:32

@Someone-OnStrike there is no corporate policy, so that’s not why the strike is happening. The strike is happening because some moderators feel that SE is not being consultative enough in formulating one. I’m not striking because my personal opinion is that, since it’s their sandbox and I’m a guest, they don’t have to ask me when they change the rules.

Discussion on answer by Dale M: GDPR:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 22:20

@JonathanReez legally there is no difference. You’re conflating “will they” with “can they”, Legally they can.

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 22:20

@JonathanReez you know, except when they do and get multi-billion dollar fines from US companies.

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 22:20

@JonathanReez really? Ask Julian Assange if a country can reach out and grab you beyond their borders.

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 22:20

@JonathanReez why do you think you don’t have to?

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 22:20

@o.m. The OP should have compliant procedures and follow them.

Discussion on question by Corbin: May…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jul 1, 2023 21:28

@ComicSansStrikephim I wouldn’t assume Nazi’s are not a protected class. Some jurisdictions (including some states) protect political views. Nazism, abhorrent as it is, is a political view and may qualify.

Discussion on question by TRiG: To wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Dale M

Jun 19, 2023 08:37

@MichaelHall no, you can open a chat room anytime you like and post a link in a comment to continue your discussion. You can also flag and ask one of us to do it.