#Legal and regulatory enforcement

[corpzoventuresprivatelimited]

Legal and regulatory enforcement must be handled as an integral part of every corporate strategy. The executive board and management must consider the scope and consequences of the company's relevant laws and regulations. They need to set up a compliance management system as a supporting risk management program, as it significantly reduces enforcement risk.

[kesarijournal]

The Curious Case of the Honorable Travel Agents and the Migration Mirage: A Tragicomedy from Punjab

Once upon a time, in the land of five rivers, where dreams of foreign lands flourish like the crops in its fertile fields, the Punjab Government (Akali Dal Badal) decided to sprinkle a bit of regulatory magic dust over the profession of travel agents. With a wave of their legislative wand, they declared, “Let there be order!” And thus, the travel agents were ushered under the watchful eyes of the…

[fullhalalalchemist]

URGENT: 🚨🚨EARN IT ACT IS BACK IN THE SENATE 🚨🚨 TUMBLR’S NSFW BAN HITTING THE ENTIRE INTERNET THIS SUMMER 2023

April 28, 2023

I’m so sorry for the long post but please please please pay attention and spread this

What is the EARN IT Act?

The EARN IT Act (s. 1207) has been roundly condemned by nearly every major LGBTQ+ advocacy and human rights organization in the country.

This is the third time the Senate has been trying to force this through, and I talked about it last year. It is a bill that claims "protects children and victims against CSAM" by creating an unelected and politically appointed national commission of law enforcement specialists to dictate "best practices" that websites all across the nation will be forced to follow. (Keep in mind, most websites in the world are created in the US, so this has global ramifications). These "best practices" would include killing encryption so that any law enforcement can scan and see every single message, dm, photo, cloud storage, data, and any website you have every so much as glanced at. Contrary to popular belief, no they actually can't already do that. These "best practices" also create new laws for "removing CSAM" online, leading to mass censorship of non-CSAM content like what happened to tumblr. Keep in mind that groups like NCOSE, an anti-LGBT hate group, will be allowed on this commission. If websites don't follow these best practices, they lose their Section 230 protections, leading to mass censorship either way.

Section 230 is foundational to modern online communications. It's the entire reason social media exists. It grants legal protection to users and websites, and says that websites aren't responsible for what users upload online unless it's criminal. Without Section 230, websites are at the mercy of whatever bullshit regulatory laws any and every US state passes. Imagine if Texas and Florida were allowed to say what you can and can't publish and access online. That is what will happen if EARN IT passes. (For context, Trump wanted to get rid of Section 230 because he knew it would lead to mass govt surveillance and censorship of minorities online.)

This is really not a drill. Anyone who makes or consume anything “adult” and LGBT online has to be prepared to fight Sen. Blumenthal’s EARN IT Act, brought back from the grave by a bipartisan consensus to destroy Section 230. If this bill passes, we’re going to see most, if not all, adult content and accounts removed from mainstream platforms. This will include anything related to LGBT content, including SFW fanfiction, for example. Youtube, Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Tumblr, all of them will be completely gutted of anything related to LGBT content, abortion healthcare, resources for victims of any type of abuse, etc. It is a right-wing fascists wet dream, which is why NCOSE is behind this bill and why another name for this bill is named in reference to NCOSE.

NCOSE used to be named Morality in Media, and has rebranded into an "anti-trafficking" organization. They are a hate group that has made millions off of being "against trafficking" while helping almost no victims and pushing for homophobic laws globally. They have successfully pushing the idea that any form of sexual expression, including talking about HEALTH, leads to sex trafficking. That's how SESTA passed. Their goal is to eliminate all sex, anything gay, and everything that goes against their idea of ‘God’ from the internet and hyper disney-fy and sanitize it. This is a highly coordinated attack on multiple fronts.

The EARN IT Act will lead to mass online censorship and surveillance. Platforms will be forced to scan their users’ communications and censor all sex-related content, including sex education, literally anything lgbt, transgender or non-binary education and support systems, aything related to abortion, and sex worker communication according to the ACLU. All this in the name of “protecting kids” and “fighting CSAM”, both of which the bill does nothing of the sort. In fact it makes fighting CSEM even harder.

EARN IT will open the way for politicians to define the category of “pornography" as they — or the lobbies that fund them — please. The same way that right-wing groups have successfully banned books about race and LGBT, are banning trans people from existing, all under the guise of protecting children from "grooming and exploitation", is how they will successfully censor the internet.

As long as state legislatures can tie in "fighting CSAM" to their bullshit laws, they can use EARN IT to censor and surveill whatever they want.

This is already a nightmare enough. But the bill also DESTROYS ENCRYPTION, you know, the thing protecting literally anyone or any govt entity from going into your private messages and emails and anything on your devices and spying on you.

This bill is going to finish what FOSTA/SESTA started. And that should terrify you.

Senator Blumenthal (Same guy who said ‘Facebook should ban finsta’) pushed this bill all of 2020, literally every activist (There were more than half a million signatures on this site opposing this act!) pushed hard to stop this bill. Now he brings it back, doesn’t show the text of the bill until hours later, and it’s WORSE. Instead of fixing literally anything in the bill that might actually protect kids online, Bluemnthal is hoping to fast track this and shove it through, hoping to get little media attention other than propaganda of “protecting kids” to support this shitty legislation that will harm kids. Blumental doesn't care about protecting anyone, and only wants his name in headlines.

It will make CSAM much much worse.

One of the many reasons this bill is so dangerous: It totally misunderstands how Section 230 works, and in doing so (as with FOSTA) it is likely to make the very real problem of CSAM worse, not better. Section 230 gives companies the flexibility to try different approaches to dealing with various content moderation challenges. It allows for greater and greater experimentation and adjustments as they learn what works – without fear of liability for any “failure.” Removing Section 230 protections does the opposite. It says if you do anything, you may face crippling legal liability. This actually makes companies less willing to do anything that involves trying to seek out, take down, and report CSAM because of the greatly increased liability that comes with admitting that there is CSAM on your platform to search for and deal with. This liability would allow anyone for any reason to sue any platform they want, suing smaller ones out of existence. Look at what is happening right now with book bans across the nation with far right groups. This is going to happen to the internet if this bill passes.

(Remember, the state department released a report in December 2021 recommending that the government crack down on “obscenity” as hard the Reagan Administration did. If this bill passes, it could easily go way beyond shit red states are currently trying. It is a goldmine for the fascist right that is currently in the middle of banning every book that talks about race and sexuality across the US.)

The reason these bills keep showing up is because there is this false lie spread by organizations like NCOSE that platforms do nothing about CSEM online. However, platforms are already liable for child sexual exploitation under federal law. Tech companies sent more than 45 million+ instances of CSAM to the DOJ in 2019 alone, most of which they declined to investigate. This shows that platforms are actually doing everything in their power already to stop CSEM by following already existing laws. The Earn It Act includes zero resources for proven investigation or prevention programs. If Senator Bluementhal actually cared about protecting youth, why wouldn’t he include anything to actually protect them in his shitty horrible bill? EARN IT is actually likely to make prosecuting child molesters more difficult since evidence collected this way likely violates the Fourth Amendment and would be inadmissible in court.

I don’t know why so many Senators are eager to cosponsor the “make child pornography worse” bill, but here we are.

HOW TO FIGHT BACK

EARN IT Act was introduced just two weeks ago and is already being fast-tracked. It will be marked up the week of May 1st and head to the Senate floor immediately after. If there is no loud and consistent opposition, it will be law by JUNE! Most bills never go to markup, so this means they are putting pressure to move this through. There are already 20 co-sponsors, a fifth of the entire Senate. This is an uphill battle and it is very much all hands on deck.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

This website takes you to your Senator / House members contact info. EMAIL, MESSAGE, SEND LETTERS, CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL. Calling is the BEST way to get a message through. Get your family and friends to send calls too. This is literally the end of free speech online.

(202) 224-3121 connects you to the congressional hotline. Here is a call script if you don't know what to say. Call them every day. Even on the weekends, leaving voicemails are fine.

2. Sign these petitions!

Link to Petition 1

Link to Petition 2

3. SPREAD THE WORD ONLINE

If you have any social media, spread this online. One of the best ways we fought back against this last year was MASSIVE spread online. Tiktok, reddit, twitter, discord, whatever means you have at least mention it. We could see most social media die out by this fall if we don't fight back.

Here is a linktree with more information on this bill including a masterpost of articles, the links to petitions, and the call script.

DISCORD LINK IF YOU WANT TO HELP FIGHT IT

TLDR: The EARN IT Act will lead to online censorship of any and all adult & lgbt content across the entire internet, open the floodgates to mass surveillance the likes which we haven’t seen before, lead to much more CSEM being distributed online, and destroy encryption. Call 202-224-3121 to connect to your house and senate representative and tell them to VOTE NO on this bill that does not protect anyone and harms everyone.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

President Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court reforms

Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer at WaPo:

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers. Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. [...]

Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures. The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

[...] Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.

Good News! President Joe Biden set to endorse major reforms to SCOTUS, such as term limits and an ethics code with actual teeth.

[serpentface]

Janeys about to win his first ever duel to the death, mostly by virtue of being a less shitty swordsman than his opponent.

DUELING IN IMPERIAL WARDIN

Dueling is partially legal in Imperial Wardin, with official duels overseen and regulated by authority figures, and unoffical duels regulated largely by social contract. This form of combat allows disputes, accusations, acts of vengeance, and slights of honor to be settled outside of court or pure interpersonal violence. Ritualized aspects of the practice act as a sort of self-regulation, allowing scores to be settled while dissuading the developments of outright feuds.

No one is materially compelled to accept a challenge to a duel, but refusing can be a tricky maneuver. In many cases, this will be taken as cowardice and a stain on the challenged party's honor and masculinity, and may add significant fuel to the challenger's accusations. The circumstances where it is socially 'safe' to refuse are when the challenger is VASTLY physically outmatched, or is of markedly lower status or otherwise seen as a social inferior (being lower class, a eunuch/woman/akoshos, an infamously dishonored party, a sex worker, etc), though even this can be risky depending on the circumstances.

Women and akoshos cannot be challenged in duels, nor can they Legally be challengers (with a very specific exception for Odonii priestesses, who have men's legal rights), though they can indirectly do so via a male relation acting as their proxy in combat. The alternative is not Entirely unheard of, but very rare, and rarer still that a male opponent will accept. The concept is, however, a motif in heroic folktales wherein a young woman disguises herself as a man and enters into a duel to avenge the murder of her brother or another family member. In most variants, this is cast as a heroic as an act of extreme familial piety, with her masculinization being an entirely temporary means of doing so (which is immediately abandoned post-duel).

Once the challenge is accepted, both parties will negotiate terms through a proxy (by convention, this is a blood relative or other legal kin). This decides the time and location of the match, as well as its stakes. The majority of duels are Not to the death, rather to a lesser end- first blood, incapacitation, submission, etc. In fully legal duels, this agreement is submitted to a local authority and its terms become legally enforceable. Even in 'off the books' duels, the terms will generally be enforced by overwhelming social contract. There is effectively no backing out once the formal agreements have been made. One party not showing up at the agreed time and place effectively concedes a victorious social high ground to their opponent, but without the matter being 'settled' (encouraging further escalation).

Legally, duels must either be fought on private property or outside of city limits (as wearing a weapon in any of the capital cities is illegal for most civilians). You can find semi-legal underground dueling sites in most of the cities, though this tends to be associated with the petty, dirty squabblings of commoners and most nobility will opt to fight in the countryside.

Duels are typically overseen by a neutral third party, with legal duels being specifically officiated by a socially protected individual (usually a priest) who directs the ritual elements of the proceedings and observes and records its outcome. The arena is measured out in a circle approximately twelve paces wide, and marked with stakes and a binding of sanctified amenchil rope wound left to right. This form of binding is broadly used in cultural practice to delineate and spiritually protect sacred spaces (wound right to left in these contexts). Its reversed use in duels provides a regulatory psychological function- the arena becomes a segregated liminal space, and the rest of the world is symbolically bound with a protective barrier, keeping the violence of the dispute confined to this space and time.

Additionally, both combatants (and their familial proxies) swear a binding oath (before a holy relic in priest-officiated duels) - swearing to obey pre-negotiated terms and rules, and declaring that the victor shall be recognized as the righteous party and that the outcome of the duel wholly resolves the dispute. Being bound to such an oath might not settle things on an emotional level, but HEAVILY disincentivizes a duel starting or worsening family feuds- even in fatal duels, the defeated party's family has no justification to demand a blood price or avenge their slain kin, or otherwise commit direct reprisals over the dispute (and would be breaking a solemn oath before God, which will have consequences).

Both parties prepare themselves to fight. Exact traditions vary across the region, but duels are near-ubiquitously fought unarmored with a single blade (sometimes, but not always, replaced by staffs or blunted swords for non-fatal fights). In the south of the region (as depicted here), it's traditional to fight topless with one's cloak clasped around their hips and hair bound into a topknot (the gull feather here is not a dueling norm, but it's lucky).

Both combatants enter the ring and stand at opposing sides, and the dual begins at the overseer's signal. The challenging party is not permitted to make the first attack, and instead must dodge or block their opponent's first swing before they can begin to retaliate. The duel will then proceed to its pre-negotiated ending.

There are additional compacts that direct the fighting. Fleeing from the arena is an automatic loss (and an EXTREME stain on one's honor and masculinity). If the combat spills out past the boundaries, it must be halted and the arena entirely moved and re-bound before restarting. Surrender is possible even in fatal fights, and it is generally taboo to kill an opponent who has verbally declared defeat (as they have lost the duel in doing so, and the matter is thus settled- proceeding further is murder). These rules will be enforced by the authority in legally overseen fights, and are largely (though not universally) enforced by social convention in illegal duels.

Upon resolution, the winner extracts a verbal affirmation of their victory from the loser (if they survived), or from the loser's familial proxy (if they didn't). In some traditions, they are specifically permitted to cut the loser's hair (which is a humiliating and somewhat emasculating act, only adolescent boys (and mourners) wear their hair short in most of the Wardi cultural sphere). A winner who feels the loser fought/died valiantly or is otherwise highly respectable may abstain, as a means of protecting their opponent's dignity. The resolution of the fight ostensibly concludes the dispute, with the winning party justified as righteous in their cause, and gaining social capital and Masc Points in their victory.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The City of Toronto has taken a step toward cracking down on illegal renovictions after a committee of councillors approved a plan to regulate how landlords renovate their properties.   The Planning and Housing Committee voted to direct city staff to develop a bylaw that would attempt to curb the practice, which tenant advocates say is growing. They say the regulatory change would prevent landlords from evicting people by claiming they plan to renovate a property only to then increase the rent and find a new tenant. A long line of deputants decried the practice and said it's contributing to the housing affordability crisis currently gripping Toronto. Lawyer Karen Andrews from the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, told the committee that the city needs to act. [...] Under the law, any tenant displaced by a renovation to their rental gets first right of refusal when the work is complete. But lawyer Karly Wilson, from Don Valley Community Legal Services, said it's up to the tenant to keep tabs on their landlord and enforce their rights. In most cases it isn't practical or effective, she said. "As it stands, there is nothing in place to confirm that landlords are actually doing the renovations they say they're going to do and there's no way to ensure that tenants are being offered their legal right to move back in when those renovations are done," she said.

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[not-terezi-pyrope]

The push for legal prohibitions against AI training on public data via copyright law feels like it's going to have one of two outcomes, and I don't like either of them.

The law enforces a legal distinction between mechanically indistinguishable actions performed by a computer system and by the human brain, enshrining a double standard where what is doing a thing matters more than what the thing is.

Subjective art attributes like "style" and "influence", currently seen as so nebulous that fair use need not even be applied to them, become acceptable points of contention under copyright law, such that human artists can get sued for perceived infractions (e.g. you saw this artwork and "stole" the style of it in your work that looks similar).

Both of these concentrate power to corporations who already hold large corpuses of licensed artwork. It makes me so uncomfortable. Are we heading for a scenario where only corporations can meaningfully monetize "authorized" art, where they can prove that they have ownership of either the training data for an AI model or any nebulous artistic influences that could otherwise be targeted for suppression?

It's not like the latter case is even enforceable but it could be used to intimidate. Honestly, I think art style copyright would be so obviously absurd that the "codified double standard between human and machine actions" option is more likely to be what becomes law, but even that is... very bad, it ensures that AI systems can only be deployed by those with the most money and influence, in service of that money and influence.

I honestly thought that fair use and similar legal concepts were strong enough to withstand the push for this sort of regulation, but this has become such a hot button issue that I'm not sure. We are maybe sleepwalking into some very foreseeably unpleasant consequences here due to artist anxiety which, while valid in especially an economic sense, hasn't actually been thought through, is often not really validated by the reality of the situation or checked against the consequences of being asked for.

Artists want their work posted publicly by untouchable by what they see as some sort of infecting monster, perverting what they made with their own two hands, and that emotion is so strong that it feels like it's going to push us into an objectively worse regulatory future for AI and/or art than anything we have now.

😬

[eugenedebs1920]

In their last term, The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS), mainly the men, but occasionally Barrett showed the American people how little we are worth to them. They made it blatantly obvious that we are nothing more than serfs, subjugated, whose purpose is to pay taxes and STFU.

This was also made apparent with the reversal of Roe. The 2023-24 term had its share of long term dire consequences yet to be felt. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine was a devastating blow to the middle class/working poor. Its reversal will, at one time or another, affect the lives of 98% of Americans (the middle class, upper middle and working poor).

The right wing apparatus will tell you that regulations, protections, and limitations prohibit productivity which leads to less profits and in turn, a cooling of economic prosperity. What they aren’t divulging is the massive amounts of wealth they have amassed over the past 4 decades.

As far back as the Nixon administration, one could go back as far as the New Deal but, it’s a post, not a novel, certain restrictions, limitations, protective measures, and practices have been imposed on major corporations and industries. These regulations range from environmental protection, labor practices, safety standards, hazardous substances, banking practices, equal pay, the list goes on.

These regulatory agencies specialize in the field in which suits their skill set. Some call it the bureaucratic state. These non partisan civil servants work throughout changing administrations in their various fields without being inhibited by the views held by the party in power.

What the overturning of Chevron did is lessen the power that these agencies have. Putting the rules and regulations they enforced in peril. Now regulations created to protect the health and safety of Americans and the environment we live in, as well as the financial institutions and practices in which they can engage in, are put in peril.

The effects of this won’t be immediately noticeable. We are the frog in a warm pot of water, slowly being boiled to death. What does this have to do with Helene and future natural disasters one may ask?

Some of those regulatory agencies impacted by this reversal are, the EPA, FEMA, NOAA, the Department of Labor, OSHA, The FCC, the SEC, and so many more. Pretty much any agency that limits the exploitation these massive conglomerates and giant corporations can impose on Americans and the world they reside in.

We live in a time where the Supreme Court is rogue. With an extreme right wing MAGA majority, dead set on revoking rights as opposed to instilling them. A Supreme Court who, when scandals arose of lavish gifts coming from billionaire benefactors, rather than enforce a code of ethics they simply legalized bribery (Snyder vs the United States). A Supreme Court, so lawless and void of standards, that justices refuse to recuse themselves from constitutional crises cases, where they flew flags in support of the defendant, where the wife of another was in direct contact with the cheif of staff of a man who, while watching from the dining room of the White House, while a mob, led by his incendiary rhetoric ramshacked our capital. All the while chants of “hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence” rang through the the halls of that hallowed ground. When told the mob wanted to hurt the Vice President, the defendant said, “So what”.

I’ve had tacos more supreme than this court! This November 5th, it is not a choice between a vile demented old man and a lifetime protector and prosecutor for the people, it is the direction, the safety, the environment, the lending practices, the food we eat, the wages we make, the lives our children will have that is the choice because. If Trump is elected, Alito as well as Thomas WILL retire, giving the mandarin Mussolini FIVE SCOTUS appointments. This will dictate the next 30 plus years of our lives. So please! Get out and vote! Vote the Harris Walz ticket and blue down ballot. The freedoms of women, LGBTQ rights, labor rights, environmental protections, food and drug safety, fair banking/lending practices, our federal lands, clean water, green energy for the future, so much hangs in the balance and the effects will be felt for a majority of the rest of our lives. We are one nation, indivisible, we stand for liberty and justice for all! ☮️🇺🇸

[thehopefuljournalist]

According to a new survey, lawmakers are playing an increasingly important role in holding corporations and governments accountable for failures to tackle the climate crisis.

The research was done by Columbia Law School, and was commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). It revealed that the number of climate-related court cases has more than doubled since 2017 and is steadily rising around the world.

Their report confirms a trend highlighted in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2023, which claimed that individuals and environmental organizations were, more and more, turning to the law, as it became clear that the pace of transition to net-zero emissions was too slow.

“Climate litigation is increasing and concerns about emissions under-reporting and greenwashing have triggered calls for new regulatory oversight for the transition to net zero,” the Forum report said.

The UNEP report catalogues a number of high-profile court cases which have succeeded in enforcing climate action. In 2017, when climate case numbers were last counted, 884 legal actions had been brought. Today the total stands at 2,180.

The majority of climate cases to this date (1,522) have been brought in the US, followed by Australia, the UK, and the EU. The report notes that the number of legal actions in developing countries is growing, now at 17% of the total.

Climate litigation is also giving a voice to vulnerable groups who are being hard hit by climate change. The report says that, globally, 34 cases have been brought by children and young people, including two by girls aged seven and nine in Pakistan and India.

Here are five of the climate breakthroughs achieved by legal action so far.

1. Torres Strait Islanders Vs Australia

In September 2022, indigenous people living on islands in the Torres Strait between northern Queensland and Papua New Guinea won a landmark ruling that their human rights were being violated by the failure of the Australian government to take effective climate action.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruling established the principle that a country could be in breach of international human rights law over climate inaction. They ruled that Australia's poor climate record was a violation of the islanders’ right to family life and culture.

2. The Paris Agreement is a human rights treaty

In July 2022, Brazil's supreme court ruled that the Paris climate agreement is legally a human rights treaty which, it said, meant that it automatically overruled any domestic laws which conflicted with the country’s climate obligations.

The ruling ordered the government to reopen its national climate mitigation fund, which had been established under the Paris Agreement.

3. Climate inaction is a breach of human rights

Upholding an earlier court ruling that greenhouse emissions must be cut by 25% by 2020, the Netherlands Supreme Court ruled that failure to curb emissions was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The December 2019 ruling stated that, although it was up to politicians to decide how to make the emission cuts, failure to do so would be a breach of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention which affirm the right to life and respect for private and family life.

4. Companies are bound by the Paris accord

Corporations, and not just governments, must abide by the emissions reductions agreed in the Paris climate treaty. This principle was established by a 2021 ruling in the Netherlands brought by environmentalists against energy group Royal Dutch Shell.

The court ordered Shell to cut its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 bringing them in line with Paris climate targets. The judge was reported as saying there was "worldwide agreement" that a 45% reduction was needed, adding: "This applies to the entire world, so also to Shell”.

5. Courts overturn state climate plans

Up until now, three European governments have been defeated in the courts over their climate plans.

In March 2021, Germany’s highest court struck down a climate law requiring 55% emissions by 2030 cuts, ruling it did not do enough to protect citizens’ rights to life and health. The same year, the French government was ordered to take “immediate and concrete action” to comply with its climate commitments. And in 2022, the UK’s climate strategy was ruled unlawful for failing to spell out how emissions cuts would be made.

[sad-eyed-lady-of-the-paperbacks]

Ok I should do an actual thoughtful post on this but instead I’m just gonna go off on a ramble. (I’m not a historian or a financial expert btw)

So I have always been interested in the discrepancy between Mitya’s assertion to Alyosha near the beginning that Grushenka “liked to make a bit of dough and made it by lending at wicked rates of interest, the cunning vixen, the rogue, without mercy.” (McDuff translation 1.3.5) and the narrator’s assertion in 3.7.3 “Not that she ever lent money on interest”. At first I chalked it up to Mitya just making assumptions about her, since he does say some things that are incorrect (for instance that Samsonov will leave her a considerable sum of money when he dies, when it is well known that he said he wouldn’t and, sure enough, did not even mention her in the will). However, I did think it was odd that a profit-motivated professional moneylender would never lend money on interest, and it feels even more odd now that I know there was a legal annual interest limit (6%). If it was legal to lend on interest, why wouldn’t she?

Well. I’m now reading the very fascinating Bankrupts and Usurers of Imperial Russia: Debt, Property, and the Law in the Age of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy by Sergei Antonov. And it’s fascinating getting context on all of this—and, bear in mind, context that Dostoevsky’s audience would have taken for granted.

There were a lot of regulatory laws that existed around moneylending and debt collecting, as usury was extremely frowned-upon legally, religiously, and socially. But these laws were very difficult to enforce, especially since moneylenders had all kinds of ways of skirting around them and hiding their more predatory practises. Besides, according to the above-mentioned reference work, “even at the highest levels the government realized that it was both impossible and undesirable to eliminate interest rates that exceeded the legally mandated maximum.” So, Antonov goes on to relate:

For example, an 1861 memo prepared by one of the tsar’s closest aides and a general in the Corps of Gendarmes, Ivan Annenkov, recognized that usurers in Russia enjoyed “complete immunity” but urged that “we must not [condemn as usurers] all persons who loan money for interest, even if under private agreements such interest would exceed the limit defined by the law. Everybody knows that no one has so far placed his capital in private hands in return for the legal 6% . . . [government’s policies] must not touch upon those private obligations and conditions that are founded upon mutual benefit.” Annenkov proposed a systematic procedure of identifying as many individual lenders as possible and then focusing on those known to engage in particularly abusive practices.

So this guy was like “yeah, even though what they’re doing is technically not legal, we kind of agree with it actually, and so instead of going after people based on the letter of the law, let’s just keep an eye on known moneylenders and go after the ones who are really crossing the line and hurting people.

Which meant that the police did keep detailed records of known moneylenders, and to the shock of absolutely no one, the notes beside the names in these records were heavily interested in the personal character of each lender. Political leanings, religion, whether they had a family, whether they were landowners, their morals and conduct, etc. I’m sure none of this led to any kind of discrimination in terms of who was allowed to get away with predatory moneylending practises and who was prosecuted for the very same. (Heavy sarcasm) 

Since Grushenka did not have a powerful family behind her and was widely known to be a fallen woman and Kuzma Samsonov’s mistress (despite the fact that she was definitively known not to be promiscuous and to reject the advances of any other men who tried it), it’s very likely to me that she would be under special scrutiny, especially in a small town where there weren’t as many moneylenders to keep an eye on as there were in, say, St. Petersburg. Given that she received a lot of business advice from Samsonov, and some of this advice might very likely have included those methods of getting away with practises of dubious legality without leaving a paper trail, and given the necessity of her being extra careful in order not to be prosecuted, it would make sense that the narrator (being himself a character and resident of the town, and thus only able to report things to us based on the information he has available and how it appears to him,) would not have any information or records available to him which would suggest that she was lending on interest at all, let alone above the legal rates. Given the strong negative feelings against usury, making such an accusation or implication without evidence would be highly slanderous, and the narrator would be unwise to risk that, thus his statement that Grushenka did not lend on interest at all.

Whereas it is possible that, given Mitya’s close association with Grushenka during the past month and the fact that she does confide some things in him (her feelings about Alyosha, letting him read the letter her officer sent, laughing about Fyodor’s scheme to have him jailed, etc.), he may have known something the narrator didn’t. Of course, it’s also possible that he was just making an assumption that happened to be correct, or at least more plausible than the narrator’s.

And I think that Dostoevsky meant for the narrator’s assertion that she never lent on interest to seem highly improbable, even implausible, given that his audience would have been very familiar with the widespread business of moneylending across all classes of society, and how it operated. Again, if there was a legal maximum interest rate, and plentiful ways to get away with illegally lending above that maximum rate, then why would a professional moneylender consistently lend money on no interest at all? She would at the very least be lending on legal rates to make a profit off of the interest, and more than likely at illegal rates as well, simply taking care to do so covertly. And I think the original audience would have understood this implicitly.

Hope this was somewhat coherent.

[moonturtlephilosophy]

I replied to a post yesterday about 'radfems' talking about that radical isn't just for transphobic and or man hating women, because it's a very brought descriptor.

And my enteire coment chain was deleted/restricted even tho I didn't day anything wild? I just asked a question and then stated some facts? I am not entierly sure how this site works yet but I feel like someone shut my mouth against my will. I don't like it.

Hell, feminism as a whole is radical, for fucks sake.

---

radical

adjective

1.

(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.

"a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework"

2.

advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.

---

Wanting to change and or abolish the partiarchy is, most of the time, radical. These 'gender criticals' are the opposite of radical since they pick and chose outdated features of the patriarchy like bioessentialism, genderessentialism, the binary myth, stuff like that and enforce them, aka try to stifle actual progress. Progress always starts as a radical idea.

For feminism that probably started with the then radical idea that women are, in fact, people. And should be treated as such. As women got more legal protections and rights, queer women entered the official conversation with the then radical idea, that they too, are people. And deserve rights. And so on.

The main radical idea now is probably that men need to be included in the conversation/ true intersectional feminism. Be it men/mascs in general or the conversations around trans men/mascs. And thats were the zeitgeist is at. Thats why those who focus on feminism but are stuck in their mindset/unable to evolve, tend to be terfs and stuff.

Intersectional feminism is oposed to bigotry and small mindedness, not being radical.

Now, some people don't stop at 'let it stay like it is' and actually want to revert backwards/against the direction of progress and if they go far enough, they could be right wing radical (yk, like fashists). To be fair, thats a lot of terfs. But that still doesnt mean they 'own' the term radical.

Aside from feminism, radical ideas are the cornerstone of all progress. ALL. I know public schools avoid the topic or tell you about "bad radicals" at best to scare you off, but that capitalist propaganda is something you should decode for yourself.

Yk, messages like "radical means so out there it's absurd" like.. bruh

Also, extremism and being radical are also two different things that many actors in out current climate wanna see muddled together. Learn the difference.

Moral of the story: men are and always have been included in real feminist conversations and feminism is inherently radical. Otherwise, what are you fighting for? What do you acomplish by NOT changing anything??

[unpluggedfinancial]

Coinbase's Legal Battle with the SEC: A Push for Transparency and Clear Regulation

The ongoing tension between Coinbase and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a new turn. In recent months, Coinbase has launched two significant legal actions against the SEC, reflecting the company's growing frustration with the regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies in the United States. These actions underscore the urgent need for transparency and clear rules in the rapidly evolving digital asset industry.

Lawsuit Over FOIA Requests

In June 2024, Coinbase filed lawsuits against both the SEC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Coinbase's FOIA requests sought critical information on two fronts:

The SEC's View on Ethereum: Coinbase is particularly interested in how the SEC perceives Ethereum, especially after its transition to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. This shift has sparked debates about whether Ethereum should be classified as a security under current U.S. laws.

"Pause Letters": Coinbase also requested copies of "Pause Letters" referenced in an Office of Inspector General report. These letters could provide insight into the SEC's internal communications and strategies regarding the regulation of digital assets.

By taking legal action, Coinbase aims to compel these agencies to release the requested information. The company alleges that federal financial regulators are attempting to "cripple the digital-asset industry" and believes that greater transparency will shed light on the true motivations and actions of these regulators.

Petition for Rulemaking

The second significant legal action by Coinbase is its April 2023 lawsuit against the SEC, which seeks to force the agency to respond to a petition for rulemaking. Coinbase initially submitted this petition in July 2022, requesting formal guidance on the regulatory framework for the crypto industry. The SEC's prolonged silence prompted Coinbase to seek judicial intervention, hoping to secure a clear and actionable response.

This lawsuit highlights Coinbase's argument that the SEC's current approach—termed "regulation by enforcement"—is detrimental to the crypto industry. Coinbase asserts that the lack of clear rules creates uncertainty and stifles innovation. The company contends that formal guidance would provide the necessary clarity for businesses operating in the digital asset space.

Broader Context and Implications

These legal battles are part of a broader debate over the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States. The SEC has taken a stringent stance, asserting that most cryptocurrencies are securities and should be regulated as such. This perspective has led to numerous enforcement actions against various crypto companies, including Coinbase.

In March 2024, a federal judge ruled that most of the SEC's claims against Coinbase could proceed to trial, marking a significant setback for the company's efforts to dismiss the lawsuit. Coinbase argues that the SEC's aggressive stance is counterproductive and calls for a more collaborative approach to developing a comprehensive regulatory framework.

Aligning with Coinbase's Mission

These legal actions are not just strategic moves but are deeply aligned with Coinbase's mission statement of promoting financial freedom. By challenging the SEC and advocating for transparent and clear regulations, Coinbase is doing everything in its power to create an environment where digital assets can thrive. This dedication to financial freedom and innovation is at the core of Coinbase's goals, reflecting its commitment to transforming the financial landscape.

Conclusion

Coinbase's legal actions against the SEC and FDIC reflect a pivotal moment in the relationship between the crypto industry and U.S. regulators. By demanding transparency and clear rules, Coinbase is advocating for a regulatory environment that supports innovation while protecting investors. As this legal battle unfolds, it will undoubtedly shape the future of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States and potentially set precedents for other jurisdictions around the world.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

It is hard to imagine a worse candidate for the American presidency in 2024 than Donald J Trump. His history of dishonesty, hypocrisy and greed makes him wholly unfit for the office. A second Trump term would erode the rule of law, diminish America’s global standing and deepen racial and cultural divides. Even if he loses, Mr Trump has shown that he will undermine the election process, with allies spreading unfounded conspiracy theories to delegitimise the results. There are prominent Republicans – such as the former vice-president Dick Cheney – who refused to support Mr Trump owing to the threat he poses. Gen Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Mr Trump, calls his former boss a “fascist”. America was founded in opposition to absolute monarchy. The Republican nominee models himself after the leader he most admires: Russia’s autocratic president, Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump’s authoritarianism may finish US democracy. He has praised and promised to pardon those convicted in the January 6 insurrection. He has suggested bypassing legal norms to use potentially violent methods of repression, blurring the lines between vigilantism, law enforcement and military action, against groups – be they Democrats or undocumented immigrants – he views as enemies. His team has tried to distance itself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and its extreme proposals – such as mass firings of civil servants and erasing women’s rights – that poll poorly. But it is likely that, in office, Mr Trump would adopt many of these intolerant, patriarchal and discriminatory plans. He aims to dismantle the government to enrich himself and evade the law. If Republicans gain control of the Senate, House and White House, he would interpret it as a mandate to silence his critics and entrench his power. Mr Trump is a transactional and corrupting politician. His supporters see this as an advantage. Christian nationalists want an authoritarian regime to enforce religious edicts on Americans. Elon Musk wants to shape the future without regulatory oversight. Both put self-interest ahead of the American people. Democracy erodes slowly at first, then all at once. In office, Mr Trump appointed three supreme court justices, who this summer blocked efforts to hold him accountable for trying to overturn the 2020 election: their immunity ruling renders the president “a king above the law”, in the words of the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor. Since Kamala Harris stepped into the spotlight following Joe Biden’s exit, her campaign has been a masterclass in political jujitsu, deftly flipping Mr Trump’s perceived strengths into glaring weaknesses. With a focus on joy, the vice-president sharply contrasted with Mr Trump’s grim narrative of US decline. In their sole televised debate, Ms Harris skillfully outmaneuvered Mr Trump, who fell into her traps, appearing angry and incoherent. She is confident and composed. He sounds unhinged. [...] Political hope fades when we settle for what is, instead of fighting for what could be. Ms Harris embodies the conviction that it’s better to believe in democracy’s potential than to surrender to its imperfections. The Republican agenda is clear: voter suppression, book bans and tax cuts for billionaires. Democrats seek global engagement; the GOP favours isolation. The Biden-Harris administration laid the groundwork for a net zero America. A Trumpian comeback would undo it. A Harris win, with a Democratic Congress, means a chance to restore good governance, create good jobs and lead the entire planet’s climate efforts. Defeating Mr Trump protects democracy from oligarchy and dictatorship. There is too much at stake not to back Ms Harris for president.

The Guardian Editorial Board's endorsement of Kamala Harris for the 2024 US Presidential Election (10.23.2024).

The Guardian’s editorial board gave a powerful endorsement for Kamala Harris, as our democracy’s survival depends on her winning.

[heresylog]

do you have pokemon sleep?

No, I collected snippets of their privacy policy. I was very uncomfortable with them collecting this data about my sleep habits.

5. WHO WE MIGHT SHARE YOUR INFORMATION WITH

In connection with the purposes and on the lawful grounds described above, we will share your personal information when relevant with third parties such as:

(f) Ad network. Service providers that deliver information to you via ad network system regarding Pokémon's current or future products and services (Adjust KK, based in Japan, and its subcontractors, such as Adjust GmbH, Lease web Germany GmbH, Lease web Netherlands B.V., and Leaseweb USA, Inc., based in Germany, Netherlands, and USA).

(g) Other third parties (including professional advisers). Any other third parties (including legal or other advisors, regulatory authorities, courts, law enforcement agencies and government agencies) based in the UK, USA, Japan, and other countries/regions to enable us to enforce our legal rights, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of our employees, or where such disclosure may be permitted or required by law.

We, and others, use cookies, web beacons, device IDs, and other tracking mechanisms to ensure that you get the most out of our App. Cookies are small amounts of information in the form of text files which we store on the device you use to access our App. Cookies and other tracking mechanisms, such as device IDs, allow us and others, to monitor your use of the software, simplify your use of our App, and to help us and others associate the mobile devices you use, your activities across websites, and your browsers for advertising purposes.

7.2 Our website may contain content and links to other sites that are operated by third parties that may also operate cookies and other tracking mechanisms. We do not control these third-party sites or their tracking activities, and this Privacy Notice does not apply to them. Please consult the terms, conditions, and Privacy Notice of the relevant third-party site to find out how that site collects and uses vour information and to establish whether and for what purpose it uses cookies.

8. HOW WE LOOK AFTER YOUR INFORMATION AND HOW LONG WE KEEP IT FOR

8.1 We use appropriate technological and operational security measures to protect your information against unauthorized access or unlawful use.

8.2 We will retain your information for as long as is appropriate to provide you with the services that you have requested from us or for as long as we reasonably require to retain the information for our lawful business purposes.

[beardedmrbean]

My job now wants to give us bathroom passes and has a hall monitor to check passes if you are allowed to go to the bathroom

I’m 27 I’m not in grade school…thinking I should quit

There's gonna be some issues with both OSHA and ADA compliance there I think, legally they can do it within reason but it can open the door to all kinds of lawsuits if they do.

Thanks to the internet and those blessed meme things, many employees live by the meme-philosophy: Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, that's why I poop on company time. However, under the law, employers are legally allowed to restrict bathroom breaks, at least, within reason.

Generally, reasonable restrictions will not prohibit employees from using the restroom when the need arises. However, in production, or client facing industries, employers may require an employee to wait for a co-worker to relieve their position before taking a bathroom break. Additionally, if an employee has a medical condition that necessitates frequent bathroom breaks, employers may need to be flexible as frequent bathroom breaks is an easily achievable reasonable accommodation in nearly all situations.

Giving Bathroom Restrictions the Business

While there is no federal law that specifies the number or length of bathroom breaks an employer must provide, restricting bathroom use unreasonably can lead to lawsuits and even all-out labor disputes with picketers and media. OSHA does provide rules that require employers to provide employee restrooms, and allow employees access to those restrooms.

Generally, unreasonable restrictions on bathroom usage will be viewed as a violation of an employee's rights because it subjects employees to detrimental effects to their health, including urinary tract and bladder infections, kidney stones, and other ailments. Furthermore, depending on a company's policy, restrictions on the length of bathroom usage may also have a discriminatory impact on women, or aging individuals, who sometimes need a little extra time in the restroom.

What's Reasonable?

What is considered reasonable will vary from job to job, and likely depend on state law as well. If an employee's bathroom usage interferes with their ability to do their job, or with the production line, or client services, then the law may not protect that employee.

Alternatively, if an employee needs to use the restroom, an employer should not have a policy that denies that employee the ability to do so. Even where an employee has an essential job, such as on a production line, an employer may be required to provide prompt and temporary relief of duties for the employee.

Does an Employer Have to Pay for Bathroom Breaks?

Generally, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, short breaks between 5 to 20 minutes are considered mutually beneficial for employer and employee, and as such, should be paid. However, if the breaks extend beyond 20 minutes, an employer can refuse to pay for that time.

____________________

This will be location specific for you I think.

An employer does not have to pay you for a break during which you are completely relieved of your job duties.  Your employer can require you to stay on the business premises during your break.  Only the following breaks are required:

      Minors younger than 16 must be given a 30-minute break if they are employed five hours or more in a day.

      All employees must be allowed toilet breaks when needed.

      A union contract may require breaks and those requirements are enforced by the union.

      Certain other limited categories of workers, such as airline pilots, may be entitled to mandatory breaks under applicable regulations. Check with the appropriate regulatory agency.

_________________________

Half dozen other sites I've looked at and even the state labor website say 'when needed' so they can't restrict bathroom breaks, not unreasonably at least.

Can't give you little bathroom pass cards at the start of the week and that's as many times as you can pee or anything like that at least.

[ocean-sailor]

The music industry is not regulated; therefore abuses of power are being allowed to happen.

Music artists are entering into contracts under duress and without the aid of sound independent legal advice.

There is no protection for young artists entering the industry, some having had no prior knowledge.

A regulatory body would enforce policies that protect artists.

And introduce a disciplinary procedure for those who do not adhere to the policies set out. 

I recognise we have unions etc. but none of which have the powers to enforce and therefore protect Artists. 

'Please sign my petition so that I can at least start the conversation, or hopefully ensure future artists are protected.'

Rebecca Ferguson