#not legally permissible in court

[fairydriver]

its freaking summer

[trainsinanime]

I've seen a number of people worried and concerned about this language on Ao3s current "agree to these terms of service" page. The short version is:

Don't worry. This isn't anything bad. Checking that box just means you forgive them for being US American.

Long version: This text makes perfect sense if you're familiar with the issues around GDPR and in particular the uncertainty about Privacy Shield and SCCs after Schrems II. But I suspect most people aren't, so let's get into it, with the caveat that this is a Eurocentric (and in particular EU centric) view of this.

The basic outline is that Europeans in the EU have a right to privacy under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an EU directive (let's simplify things and call it an EU law) that regulates how various entities, including companies and the government, may acquire, store and process data about you.

The list of what counts as data about you is enormous. It includes things like your name and birthday, but also your email address, your computers IP address, user names, whatever. If an advertiser could want it, it's on the list.

The general rule is that they can't, unless you give explicit permission, or it's for one of a number of enumerated reasons (not all of which are as clear as would be desirable, but that's another topic). You have a right to request a copy of the data, you have a right to force them to delete their data and so on. It's not quite on the level of constitutional rights, but it is a pretty big deal.

In contrast, the US, home of most of the world's internet companies, has no such right at a federal level. If someone has your data, it is fundamentally theirs. American police, FBI, CIA and so on also have far more rights to request your data than the ones in Europe.

So how can an American website provide services to persons in the EU? Well… Honestly, there's an argument to be made that they can't.

US websites can promise in their terms and conditions that they will keep your data as safe as a European site would. In fact, they have to, unless they start specifically excluding Europeans. The EU even provides Standard Contract Clauses (SCCs) that they can use for this.

However, e.g. Facebook's T&Cs can't bind the US government. Facebook can't promise that it'll keep your data as secure as it is in the EU even if they wanted to (which they absolutely don't), because the US government can get to it easily, and EU citizens can't even sue the US government over it.

Despite the importance that US companies have in Europe, this is not a theoretical concern at all. There have been two successive international agreements between the US and the EU about this, and both were struck down by the EU court as being in violation of EU law, in the Schrems I and Schrems II decisions (named after Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist who sued in both cases).

A third international agreement is currently being prepared, and in the meantime the previous agreement (known as "Privacy Shield") remains tentatively in place. The problem is that the US government does not want to offer EU citizens equivalent protection as they have under EU law; they don't even want to offer US citizens these protections. They just love spying on foreigners too much. The previous agreements tried to hide that under flowery language, but couldn't actually solve it. It's unclear and in my opinion unlikely that they'll manage to get a version that survives judicial review this time. Max Schrems is waiting.

So what is a site like Ao3 to do? They're arguably not part of the problem, Max Schrems keeps suing Meta, not the OTW, but they are subject to the rules because they process stuff like your email address.

Their solution is this checkbox. You agree that they can process your data even though they're in the US, and they can't guarantee you that the US government won't spy on you in ways that would be illegal for the government of e.g. Belgium. Is that legal under EU law? …probably as legal as fan fiction in general, I suppose, which is to say let's hope nobody sues to try and find out.

But what's important is that nothing changed, just the language. Ao3 has always stored your user name and email address on servers in the US, subject to whatever the FBI, CIA, NSA and FRA may want to do it. They're just making it more clear now.

[damndude69]

.

[northern-passage]

over the last 24 hours Tom Homan has flip-flopped on what exactly is going to happen this upcoming week in the US, but we know he has threatened a “big raid across the country” and Chicago seems to be the first target with leaked plans for tuesday, January 21st, 2025. if you are here and live in a sanctuary city, brace for ICE raids to begin this week. if you're able, you can request or print your own red cards (available in multiple languages) from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and offer them to people within your community.

if you see ICE, let people know. shout "ICE" and "LA MIGRA." do not open your door for ICE.

You have constitutional rights:

- DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR if an immigration agent is knocking on the door. / NO ABRA LA PUERTA si un agente de inmigración está tocando la puerta. - DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS from an immigration agent if they try to talk to you. You have the right to remain silent. / NO CONTESTE NINGUNA PREGUNTA de un agente de inmigración si el trata de hablar con usted. Usted tiene el derecho de mantenerse callado. - DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING without first speaking to a lawyer. You have the right to speak with a lawyer. If you are outside of your home, ask the agent if you are free to leave and if they say yes, leave calmly. / NO FIRME NADA sin antes hablar con un abogado. Usted tiene el derecho de hablar con un abogado. Si usted está afuera de su casa, pregunte al agente si es libre para irse y si dice que sí, váyase con tranquilidad. - GIVE THIS CARD TO THE AGENT. If you are inside of your home, show the card through the window or slide it under the door. / ENTREGUE ESTA TARJETA AL AGENTE. Si usted está dentro de su casa, muestre la tarjeta por la ventana o pásela debajo de la puerta. I do not wish to speak with you, answer your questions, or sign or hand you any documents based on my 5th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. I do not give you permission to enter my home based on my 4th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution unless you have a warrant to enter, signed by a judge or magistrate with my name on it that you slide under the door. I do not give you permission to search any of my belongings based on my 4th Amendment rights. I choose to exercise my constitutional rights.

What to do if you are detained - National Immigration Law Center

there's also the ICE Detainer FAQ and the ICE Raids Toolkit from Immigrant Defense Project. and you can also get information on DACA, various resources for preparedness, and flyers at united we dream:

this one is Chicago specific but another organization that is helping people prepare:

[celestialgalaxyglow]

At Jason's and Danny's apartment.

Danny: Hey dad.

Jason: Morning Danny, there was a letter in the mail for you. He hands Danny the letter. Mind explaining why the Gotham Clerk of Courts sent you a letter?

Danny: Oh it's here! He opened the letter. Well it's actually a bit of a surprise for you. He handed Jason the card. I legally changed my name. I am now Danny Todd-Wayne.

Jason: You took my name?

Danny: I did.

Jason (hugging Danny): I love son.

Danny: Love you too dad.

Jason: Wait, how did you change your name? Don't you need my permission for that?

Danny: I may or may not have forged you're signature.

Jason (tearing up): I'm so proud of you.

Part: 11, (all parts)

[antifainternational]

Proud Boys Lose Control of Their Name to a Black Church They Vandalized

The Proud Boys no longer have control over their own name. Under a ruling by a Washington judge on Monday, the infamous far-right group was stripped of control over the trademark “Proud Boys” and was barred from selling any merchandise with either its name or its symbols without the consent of a Black church in Washington that its members vandalized. In June 2023, the church won a $2.8 million default judgment against the Proud Boys after the organization’s former leader, Enrique Tarrio, and several of his subordinates attacked it in a night of violence after a pro-Trump rally in December 2020.

The ruling by the judge, Tanya M. Jones Bosier of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, effectively means that Proud Boys chapters across the country can no longer legally use their own name or the group’s traditional symbols without the permission of the church that was attacked, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church. The ruling also clears the way for the church to try to seize any money that the Proud Boys might make by selling merchandise like hats or T-shirts emblazoned with their name or with any of their familiar logos, including a black and yellow laurel wreath. In a lengthy statement, Mr. Tarrio said the church should have its nonprofit status revoked and Judge Bosier should be impeached. “Their actions are a betrayal of justice,” he wrote, adding, “I hold in contempt any motions, judgments and orders issued against me.” The initial judgment against the Proud Boys determined that Mr. Tarrio and other members of the group had climbed over a fence surrounding the church, which is just blocks from the White House, and burned a Black Lives Matter banner it was flying. The episode took place after a violent clash between supporters and critics of President Trump. The church called the Proud Boys’ actions “acts of terror” in its lawsuit and said they had been meant “to intimidate the church and silence its support for racial justice.” A judge agreed, calling the Proud Boys’ conduct “hateful and overtly racist.” When the Proud Boys failed to turn over any money, lawyers for the church sought to satisfy the judgment by seizing control of the trademarked name and by enjoining the group from “selling, transferring, disposing of or licensing” any merchandise using the words “Proud Boys” or any of the organization’s symbols.

The ruling was handed down as the Proud Boys were riding high after Mr. Trump, in one of his first official acts in his return to the White House, included Mr. Tarrio and several of his lieutenants in his sweeping act of clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people prosecuted in connection with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Mr. Tarrio, who was serving a 22-year prison term on charges of seditious conspiracy, received a full and unconditional pardon from Mr. Trump. His four co-defendants had their own prison terms commuted to time served. The banner-burning episode had a dramatic effect on the events of Jan. 6. It led to Mr. Tarrio’s arrest on vandalism charges as he returned to Washington on Jan. 4, 2021. As part of the case brought against him, he was kicked out of the city and was in Baltimore when his subordinates took part in the storming of the Capitol. On the night the banner was burned, another Proud Boys leader, Jeremy Bertino, was stabbed on the street during a clash with leftist counterprotesters. One lingering effect of that episode was that it turned the Proud Boys against the police after years of having troublingly close relationships with officers across the country. Another was that Mr. Bertino eventually became a government witness and testified against his compatriots at the trial of Mr. Tarrio and his co-defendants.

[patricide1885]

Regarding Trump's executive orders

https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/1i6bbxd/a_legal_researchers_guide_to_trump_antitrans/

With misinformation going wild on this forum and all over the internet, and me having spent the entire day trying to put out the fire, I am going to set the record straight for what Trump's anti-trans executive orders do and don't do:

[1] They DO kickoff a rulemaking process to ban Passport gender changes, but DON'T ban them right away: There will be at least a 60 day comment period before Biden's old rules fall. If you put in an expedited application for a gender change right now (even if you haven't finalized your name change yet for those in process, you can amend your name later but not your gender), you can still self select your new gender if you move NOW! Posting this at the end of inauguration day.If you are able to amend the gender/sex on your Birth Certificate in your birth state and are not nonbinary, you are unaffected as you can apply anew (with surrendering any old Passports beforehand if applicable) with an amended Birth Certificate under both any new or old rules.

Do NOT update your passport. It's too late. Marco Rubio has expedited the change. Only exception is if you never had a passport before and all your documents don't say amended or anything that would tip them off that you're trans. They can see past passports. If they don't know you're trans they will likely just give you a passport based on the info you give none the wiser. There have been reports of people not getting their documents back if they know you are trans.

[2] They DON'T impact Social Security records: Social Security is an independent agency not subject to the whims of the President nor Executive Orders, ran by an official who can only be fired for cause and not for disobedience. Gender change bans on records are not happening right now.

[3] They DO setup effective permission for transphobic officials to try any action through lawsuits, threats, or the rulemaking process any other intimidation of the trans community or attempt to restrict our rights. The traditional institutional guardrails have been taken off. Of course, we will fight many of these in the courts and win (even if SCOTUS decides against protecting trans rights constitutionally) due to most of the big changes he wants needing legally to go through Congress.

[4] They DON'T affect name changes at all, these are managed by states and there is no proposal to change that or not recognize our name change orders.[5] They DON'T change any rights your state gives to you (read up on your state constitutional and state civil rights laws), your federal Civil Rights protections (even if the executive branch refuses to enforce it, you can still take them to court), federal law, the constitution, or anything like that. This ONLY affects how the Executive Branch operates, not anything or anyone else.

[6] Finally, updated Passports with amended gender markers cannot be reversed due to being validly issued under different regulatory regimes. They normally last for ten years before expiring, we will outlast this clown.

[genderqueerpositivity]

With the landmark ruling — which falls in line with many of the SCOTUS justices' conservative stances — a precedent has now been set that in certain instances, U.S. businesses can legally deny their services to LGBTQ+ people under the First Amendment.

A final fuck you to the LGBTQ community at the end of Pride Month, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

[superbat-love]

Bruce Wayne harbored a secret (well, besides being Batman). When he's not playing the billionaire playboy by day, he wrote a controversial relationship column for Gotham's seediest news outlet under the pen name Matches.

His advice was a potent blend of brutal honesty and strategies for navigating Gotham's underhanded legal system. He exposed the toxicity of relationships with manipulative clowns, dismantled the tactics of two-faced partners, and offered escape routes from partners more likely to break your back than your heart.

Matches’ column went viral, even hooking the ever-optimistic Clark Kent, who found himself surprisingly drawn to the column's cynical wisdom. When his charm failed with a certain oblivious Gotham vigilante, Clark anonymously sought Matches’ expertise for a blossoming crush.

Faced with a surprisingly normal question about winning someone’s heart, Bruce felt completely out of his depth. Wholesome romantic relationships were uncharted territory for him. But he can't ignore someone genuinely seeking help. Scrambling for inspiration, Bruce delved into the dusty Victorian romance novels lining his library shelves. If it worked for generations of Waynes before him, it had to stand a chance, right?

Blissfully unaware of Matches’ true identity, Clark took Bruce's hilariously old-fashioned dating advice to heart. He serenaded Bruce from beneath his balcony, formally requested permission to court him from Alfred, and sent him poetic love letters (complete with a lock of his own hair).

Surprisingly, Bruce's terrible suggestions work. While another might be baffled by Clark's sudden eccentricities, Bruce began to understand Clark's intentions. Clark's sincerity slowly won him over.

So, Bruce penned a formal letter in acceptance of Clark's courtship, returning the gesture with a lock of his own hair sealed in a gold locket.

[mariacallous]

In a product demo last week, OpenAI showcased a synthetic but expressive voice for ChatGPT called “Sky” that reminded many viewers of the flirty AI girlfriend Samantha played by Scarlett Johansson in the 2013 film Her. One of those viewers was Johansson herself, who promptly hired legal counsel and sent letters to OpenAI demanding an explanation, according to a statement released later. In response, the company on Sunday halted use of Sky and published a blog post insisting that it “is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice.”

Johansson’s statement, released Monday, said she was “shocked, angered, and in disbelief” by OpenAI’s demo using a voice she called “so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference.” Johansson revealed that she had turned down a request last year from the company’s CEO, Sam Altman, to voice ChatGPT and that he had reached out again two days before last week’s demo in an attempt to change her mind.

It’s unclear if Johansson plans to take additional legal action against OpenAI. Her counsel on the dispute with OpenAI is John Berlinski, a partner at Los Angeles law firm Bird Marella, who represented her in a lawsuit against Disney claiming breach of contract, settled in 2021. (OpenAI’s outside counsel working on this matter is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partner David Kramer, who is based in Silicon Valley and has defended Google and YouTube on copyright infringement cases.) If Johansson does pursue a claim against OpenAI, some intellectual property experts suspect it could focus on “right of publicity” laws, which protect people from having their name or likeness used without authorization.

James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University, believes Johansson could have a good case. “You can't imitate someone else's distinctive voice to sell stuff,” he says. OpenAI declined to comment for this story, but yesterday released a statement from Altman claiming Sky “was never intended to resemble” the star, adding, “We are sorry to Ms. Johansson that we didn’t communicate better.”

Johansson’s dispute with OpenAI drew notice in part because the company is embroiled in a number of lawsuits brought by artists and writers. They allege that the company breached copyright by using creative work to train AI models without first obtaining permission. But copyright law would be unlikely to play a role for Johansson, as one cannot copyright a voice. “It would be right of publicity,” says Brian L. Frye, a professor at the University of Kentucky’s College of Law focusing on intellectual property. “She’d have no other claims.”

Several lawyers WIRED spoke with said a case Bette Midler brought against Ford Motor Company and its advertising agency Young & Rubicam in the late 1980s provides a legal precedent. After turning down the ad agency’s offers to perform one of her songs in a car commercial, Midler sued when the company hired one of her backup singers to impersonate her sound. “Ford was basically trying to profit from using her voice,” says Jennifer E. Rothman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrote a 2018 book called The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World. “Even though they didn't literally use her voice, they were instructing someone to sing in a confusingly similar manner to Midler.”

It doesn’t matter whether a person’s actual voice is used in an imitation or not, Rothman says, only whether that audio confuses listeners. In the legal system, there is a big difference between imitation and simply recording something “in the style” of someone else. “No one owns a style,” she says.

Other legal experts don’t see what OpenAI did as a clear-cut impersonation. “I think that any potential ‘right of publicity’ claim from Scarlett Johansson against OpenAI would be fairly weak given the only superficial similarity between the ‘Sky’ actress' voice and Johansson, under the relevant case law,” Colorado law professor Harry Surden wrote on X on Tuesday. Frye, too, has doubts. “OpenAI didn’t say or even imply it was offering the real Scarlett Johansson, only a simulation. If it used her name or image to advertise its product, that would be a right-of-publicity problem. But merely cloning the sound of her voice probably isn’t,” he says.

But that doesn’t mean OpenAI is necessarily in the clear. “Juries are unpredictable,” Surden added.

Frye is also uncertain how any case might play out, because he says right of publicity is a fairly “esoteric” area of law. There are no federal right-of-publicity laws in the United States, only a patchwork of state statutes. “It’s a mess,” he says, although Johansson could bring a suit in California, which has fairly robust right-of-publicity laws.

OpenAI’s chances of defending a right-of-publicity suit could be weakened by a one-word post on X—“her”—from Sam Altman on the day of last week’s demo. It was widely interpreted as a reference to Her and Johansson’s performance. “It feels like AI from the movies,” Altman wrote in a blog post that day.

To Grimmelmann at Cornell, those references weaken any potential defense OpenAI might mount claiming the situation is all a big coincidence. “They intentionally invited the public to make the identification between Sky and Samantha. That's not a good look,” Grimmelmann says. “I wonder whether a lawyer reviewed Altman's ‘her’ tweet.” Combined with Johansson’s revelations that the company had indeed attempted to get her to provide a voice for its chatbots—twice over—OpenAI’s insistence that Sky is not meant to resemble Samantha is difficult for some to believe.

“It was a boneheaded move,” says David Herlihy, a copyright lawyer and music industry professor at Northeastern University. “A miscalculation.”

Other lawyers see OpenAI’s behavior as so manifestly goofy they suspect the whole scandal might be a deliberate stunt—that OpenAI judged that it could trigger controversy by going forward with a sound-alike after Johansson declined to participate but that the attention it would receive from seemed to outweigh any consequences. “What’s the point? I say it’s publicity,” says Purvi Patel Albers, a partner at the law firm Haynes Boone who often takes intellectual property cases. “The only compelling reason—maybe I’m giving them too much credit—is that everyone’s talking about them now, aren’t they?”

[fairydriver]

shilling for the fellow who brings the sheep in

shilling for the fellow who milks the herd

shilling for the fellow with a wife for keeping

how

love on a farmboys

wages

[caldella]

Still kinda surprised by how many people post-Mastermind seem to miss these details RE the trial:

-Stolas can't refute the assassination attempt claims because he did not hear them and does not know they exist. He doesn't even know Striker was at that trial. He saw Blitzø's head about to go choppy choppy, guessed it was something to do with the illegal portion of IMP, and knew that almost definitely the Grimoire was involved. He acted accordingly.

- Trying to push back on the trial and get a handle on what had fully transpired wouldn't work. The people running that trial were making a show. They wanted to punish someone, publicly. Only an equally big show would catch their attention enough to get them to listen.

- Andrealphus and Stella have both demeaned Stolas in public since the start of S2. From Stella's Not Divorced party, this has been happening for years and is accepted. He's a laughing stock to his own social class. Part of Stolas' abuse has been a form of forced isolation by getting his peers to look down on him. The public has heard how pathetic he is. He probably knows the other upperclass won't listen to him unless he is dramatic enough for Andre to not turn the room back in his favor.

- Even if Blitzø had permission from Stolas to use the book, Stolas was not permitted to give the book out for that purpose. Andre states in the beginning of the episode that the deal with the Grimoire was incredibly illegal. Stolas' reasoning to Ozzie for the crystal was that it was a legal way to travel to the human world. Blitzø had been breaking the law by using the Grimoire. He was guilty of that, even if Stolas was complicit.

- Blitzø's crystal is registered, which almost definitely means it has an issue date and other info to track when it was given out. There are months/a year or more where IMP was publicly functioning before it. Functioning legally now doesn't absolve him of functioning illegally in the past.

- Blitzø admitted to using the book in court and admitted to attempting to steal it, which Stolas might not have known, but it was safe to assume at that point that the court had some proof of the book's use. Even if not, Stolas knew full well that IMP had been functioning illegally pre-crystal. This would've doomed Blitzø either way. The actual truth was still a death sentence for Blitzø.

There was no way for Stolas to pick apart the trial at that point, and telling the actual truth about the Grimoire would only split the blame between them. And the court was ready to kill Blitzø to let that blame serve as a lesson. His only way to completely absolve Blitzø of guilt was to pretend everything Blitzø did was Stolas' idea and turn all blame to himself.

(Editing to say this isn't bashing anyone who 'didn't get it,' I suppose just surprised at how largely some of these points are missed.)

[olderthannetfic]

US politics related ask:

Given the whole shitshow of the current US administration, and all the potential rights that feel up in the air (it looks like Idaho could put Obergefell for review in front of the Supreme Court, for example), do you think the OTW should consider moving hosting of AO3 to another country? People are floating that around as a solution to whatever the administration may do.

Looking at old reddit posts, the discussion seems to be ao3 doesn’t register on anyone’s radar, and there are a lot of safeguards. it’s a non profit text archive ect…

Or

That it’s naive to think they won’t try.

So…thoughts?

--

Like I've said every time this comes up (which is often, even without Cheeto being involved), which country?

The options you probably think are progressive aren't. The US is vastly more permissive in this particular context than anywhere but the sketchy-ass hosting people with much deeper pockets move their unethical live action porn or piracy empires to.

Canada? Moronic about BDSM and also, often, underage. Most of Europe? Fair use isn't a thing, and the closest equivalent is far less protective. Australia? HAHAHAHA NOPE.

OTW also has access to shittons of free legal services from lawyers who know the US context. Yes, there are lawyers who like fanfic in other countries, but OTW does not have immediate access to the same level of free labor for a multitude of reasons from the fact that they operate primarily in English to the fact that some countries are fucking small.

In four years, if Cheeto successfully becomes dictator for life, then yes, we can explore those options. Until that happens, this conversation is stupid just like it was stupid the last 87 times.

[merwgue]

"Rhysand hasn't done anything wrong"

Here’s a breakdown of the actual legal crimes Rhysand could be charged with, based on real-world laws:

A Court of Thorns and Roses (Book 1)

1. Sexual Assault – Rhysand forces Feyre into non-consensual situations, including touching her and kissing her while under the influence of drugs.

2. Drugging/Administration of a Controlled Substance – He forces Feyre to drink faerie wine (a mind-altering substance), which removes her ability to consent and control her actions.

3. Kidnapping/False Imprisonment – Under the Mountain, Rhysand traps Feyre into a bargain that forces her to spend time with him, effectively limiting her freedom.

A Court of Mist and Fury (Book 2)

1. Sexual Harassment – Rhysand frequently engages in unwanted physical contact with Feyre, coercing her in various ways under the pretext of their bargain.

2. Psychological Abuse/Coercion – The manipulation and psychological control Rhysand exerts over Feyre could be classified as emotional abuse, which can carry legal ramifications depending on the jurisdiction.

A Court of Wings and Ruin (Book 3)

1. Trespassing – Rhysand repeatedly enters Tamlin’s lands without permission, which would be considered trespassing by legal standards.

2. Incitement to Violence/Sabotage – Rhysand knowingly encourages Feyre to sabotage the Spring Court while she’s undercover, which could lead to charges of inciting criminal behavior.

3. Attempted Murder (by Suggestion) – While not directly responsible, suggesting that someone (Tamlin) should kill themselves could be viewed as reckless endangerment or incitement to self-harm, which is illegal in many places.

A Court of Frost and Starlight (Novella)

1. Harassment – Rhysand's continued psychological harassment of Tamlin could potentially be charged as harassment, particularly given its persistent nature.

General Crimes Throughout the Series you can face up to a life sentence with :

1. Assault – Rhysand has a history of using his powers to physically and mentally harm others, especially when he forces Feyre into certain situations or physically manipulates her.

2. Torture – His treatment of the people in the Court of Nightmares, particularly through physical and psychological intimidation, could be considered torture or cruel and inhumane treatment under international human rights law.

3. Abuse of Power/Authority – Rhysand frequently abuses his position as High Lord, using his powers to manipulate, control, and coerce others, which could be considered an abuse of authority. (Hm hm, remember what happend to saddam Hussain?)

4. Kidnapping/False Imprisonment – By forcibly keeping Nesta in the House of Wind without her consent, Rhysand is restricting her freedom and movement. This can be legally classified as kidnapping or false imprisonment.

5. Endangerment of a Mentally Ill Person – Nesta is clearly dealing with severe trauma, depression, and possibly PTSD. Locking her up without proper care or therapy can be considered neglect and endangerment of someone with a mental illness, especially since she was using alcohol to cope. (Those teen-help programs.)

6. Illegal Detainment Without Licensing – The Night Court is not a rehabilitation facility, and Rhysand has no legal authority or medical qualifications to keep Nesta there against her will. This would violate laws that protect individuals with mental health issues from being detained in non-medical facilities by non-professionals.

4. Emotional and Psychological Abuse – Forcing Nesta into isolation and removing her autonomy could be seen as a form of emotional and psychological abuse, which has legal ramifications in many jurisdictions.

In a real-world legal system, these actions could be prosecuted as criminal offenses, including sexual assault, kidnapping, drugging, trespassing, harassment, and psychological abuse.

So yea, you're dear old boy would be in JAIL by now.

Now let's calculate The charges against Rhysand, if brought to a real-world court system, could lead to significant legal consequences. Let’s break down the potential sentences for each crime, based on common legal standards in many countries:

1. Sexual Assault

Possible Sentence: 5 to 20 years in prison, depending on the severity and jurisdiction.

Sexual assault is a serious crime, and the penalties are harsh, especially if the victim is incapacitated (e.g., under the influence of drugs, as Feyre was).

2. Drugging/Administration of a Controlled Substance

Possible Sentence: 2 to 10 years in prison.

Administering drugs to someone without their knowledge or consent is considered a felony in many places and carries a substantial sentence, especially when done to facilitate control or assault.

3. Kidnapping/False Imprisonment (Feyre and Nesta)

Possible Sentence: 10 to 30 years in prison.

Kidnapping, especially when it involves controlling someone’s freedom against their will (like forcing Feyre and Nesta into his control), carries one of the longest prison terms.

4. Endangerment of a Mentally Ill Person (Nesta)

Possible Sentence: 5 to 15 years in prison.

This charge involves negligence and the failure to provide proper care for someone in a vulnerable state. In this case, Rhysand locking Nesta up without professional help can result in significant legal consequences.

5. Harassment/Emotional and Psychological Abuse (Tamlin and Nesta)

Possible Sentence: 1 to 5 years in prison (for each offense).

Emotional abuse and psychological harassment can carry prison sentences if they lead to significant harm, especially if Rhysand’s actions contributed to worsening their mental states.

6. Trespassing (Spring Court)

Possible Sentence: 1 year or fines.

Trespassing, while a less severe crime, can result in fines or a brief prison sentence, depending on how frequently and aggressively it’s done.

7. Torture/Abuse of Power (Hewn City)

Possible Sentence: 10 to 25 years in prison.

Torturing or inflicting severe harm, even in a ruling capacity, could result in lengthy imprisonment under human rights laws.

8. Failure to Prevent Mutilation (Wing Clipping in Illyria):

Crime: Complicity in Mutilation/Assault – In many countries, allowing or failing to prevent acts of bodily harm, especially when in a position of power, can lead to charges of complicity or negligence. Clipping wings is comparable to physical mutilation.

Potential Sentence: 10 to 20 years per incident, depending on the severity of harm. Rhysand, as High Lord, could be held accountable for allowing this to continue in the military camps he oversees.

9. Endangerment of Women’s Rights:

Crime: Neglect and Discrimination – The continued allowance of these practices in Illyria could be viewed as a form of systemic discrimination and neglect. Failure to protect women from harm, despite having the power to intervene, would likely result in charges related to discrimination and endangerment.

Potential Sentence: Civil penalties and lawsuits from the affected women, alongside possible criminal charges leading to fines and 5 to 10 years imprisonment per case of systemic abuse.

10. Complicity in Abuse and Torture (Hewn City):

Crime: Torture/Degrading Treatment – As the ruler of the Night Court, Rhysand maintains direct control over the Hewn City but allows its brutal social system to continue, particularly against women. Even though he doesn't directly participate in the abuse, turning a blind eye to it could result in complicity in human rights abuses or crimes akin to torture, especially since Hewn City is described as being "hell for women."

Potential Sentence: 10 to 25 years in prison for each case of torture or degrading treatment, with possible civil lawsuits and heavy fines.

11. Denial of Safe Haven and Equal Rights:

Crime: Violation of Human Rights – Women from Hewn City are barred from escaping their abusive environments, and Rhysand’s refusal to allow them into Velaris essentially traps them in dangerous situations. In the real world, denying refuge or asylum to those in danger can be classified as a violation of human rights.

Potential Sentence: 5 to 10 years for human rights violations, with additional civil penalties from lawsuits if women can prove they were harmed as a result of being denied safety.

Crimes Against Humanity – While not on the same scale as mass genocide or war crimes, the endangerment of entire groups of women through neglect, allowing mutilation, or complicity in torture can still fall under human rights violations. Such crimes are serious, and while they may not lead to a death sentence, they would likely result in long-term imprisonment, potential international condemnation, and severe civil penalties.

Maximum Sentence: If these charges were to be tried separately and consecutively, Rhysand could face up to 80 to 100+ years in prison

Likely Sentence: In a real-world legal system, some of these sentences may be served concurrently (at the same time), leading to a likely total sentence of 25 to 40 years in prison, depending on how the crimes are classified and judged.

Additionally, he would likely face civil penalties, lawsuits from the victims (e.g., Feyre and Nesta), and substantial fines.

Thank you for reading, if you want me to do any other character just say in the comments!❤️ (this took me over 2 days to research but I had my amazing dad helping me!♥️)

[fatehbaz]

---

For the Maya, the honey bee is more than an insect. For millennia, the tiny, stingless species Melipona beecheii -- much smaller than Apis mellifera, the European honey bee -- has been revered in the Maya homeland in what is now Central America. Honey made by the animal the Maya call Xunan kab has long been used in a sacred drink, and as medicine to treat a whole host of ailments, from fevers to animal bites. The god of bees appears in relief on the walls of the imposing seacliff fortress of Tulum, the sprawling inland complex of Cobá, and at other ancient sites.

Today, in small, open-sided, thatched-roof structures deep in the tropical forests of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, traditional beekeepers still tend to Xunan kab colonies. The bees emerge from narrow openings in their hollow log homes each morning to forage for pollen and nectar among the lush forest flowers and, increasingly, the cultivated crops beyond the forests’ shrinking borders. And that is where the sacred bee of the Maya gets into trouble.

---

In 2012, the Mexican government granted permission to Monsanto to plant genetically modified soybeans in Campeche and other states on the peninsula without first consulting local communities. The soybeans are engineered to withstand high doses of the controversial weedkiller Roundup; multiple studies have shown exposure to its main ingredient, glyphosate, negatively impacts bees, including by impairing behavior and changing the composition of the animals’ gut microbiome. Though soy is self-pollinating and doesn’t rely on insects, bees do visit the plants while foraging, collecting nectar and pollen as they go. Soon, Maya beekeepers found their bees disoriented and dying in high numbers. And Leydy Pech found her voice.

A traditional Maya beekeeper from the small Campeche city of Hopelchén, Pech had long advocated for sustainable agriculture and the integration of Indigenous knowledge into modern practice. But the new threat to her Xunan kab stirred her to action as never before. She led an assault on the Monsanto program on multiple fronts: legal, academic, and public outrage, including staging protests at ancient Maya sites. The crux of the legal argument by Pech and her allies was that the government had violated its own law by failing to consult with Indigenous communities before granting the permit to Monsanto. In 2015, Mexico’s Supreme Court unanimously agreed. Two years later, the government revoked the permit to plant the crops.

---

As Pech saw it, the fight was not simply about protecting the sacred bee. The campaign was to protect entire ecosystems, the communities that rely on them, and a way of life increasingly threatened by the rise of industrial agriculture, climate change, and deforestation.

“Bees depend on the plants in the forest to produce honey,” she told the public radio program Living on Earth in 2021. “So, less forest means less honey [...]. Struggles like these are long and generational. [...] ”

---

Headline, images, captions, and all text by: Gemma Tarlach. “The Keeper of Sacred Bees Who Took on a Giant.” Atlas Obscura. 23 March 2022. [The first image in this post was not included with Atlas Obscura’s article, but was added by me. Photo by The Goldman Environmental Prize, from “The Ladies of Honey: Protecting Bees and Preserving Tradition,” published online in May 2021. With caption added by me.]

[pawberri]

Myths about disability in the US that I hear all the time and that are super damaging

1. If you get a diagnosis, all your doctors and employers and family members will know

No. HIPAA makes all of this super illegal and unlikely. If you’re a minor, or in a situation where your parents have access to your records that’s one thing, but if you’re an adult with legal control over yourself YOU get to choose who has access to to your medical records. When I was younger I had this idea that diagnosis and stuff went on some kind of “permanent record” that anyone with power could access, but medical records are very decentralized and you have to give permission to your care team for them to get old records from other doctors. You can literally have a different diagnostic profile with every doctor you see.

2. If you get a diagnosis you have to say you have a disability on job applications

No. If anything it’s the employer who’s in a dubious position for putting that question on a job application. If those questions serve some actual purpose it’s to see if you’re physically capable of performing the job and or for diversity hiring. In any case, you have zero legal obligation to disclose your disability and will not face repercussions for not doing so. Again, the employer has no access to your medical records.

3. Having a diagnosis makes you more likely to be institutionalized/suffer from ableism

I can’t say this is completely 100% inaccurate all the time, but for the most part you are under equal or worse risk of suffering at the hands of the system without a diagnosis. A diagnosis usually implies treatment, and can often aid in getting treatment. Having good treatment improves your quality of life and control of yourself. Having control of yourself gives you a better chance of not getting into a situation where your rights actually are stripped from you (I.e being 50150d for suicide, public psychotic breaks, etc) and having proof of treatment outside an institution actually gives you a better chance of not being held longer. Though as a bonus myth being held for more than a few days requires a court hearing and significant effort and is not a given. Going “lalala I can’t hear you” about your mental illness actually does not make life better for you.

Does any of this mean that absurd human rights abuses I can’t account for won’t and don’t happen? No. But the system does not function how many people believe and will tell you it does. Your medical records are solidly private and under your control 90% of the time. People fear monger A LOT about the fact that being disabled and diagnosed will immediately ruin your life. They do it in the name of “fighting ableism” but it’s a straight up lie. Diagnosis is not the end of your life or career. It’s a part of treatment.