#not legally permissible in court

[fairydriver]

its freaking summer

[the-gayest-sky-kid]

okay which one of you guys wants to get platonically married and run away for tax emancipation and name change reasons

[damndude69]

.

[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.

[tieflingkisser]

How Many More Times Can We Say It? Your Harry Potter Addiction Is Funding Transphobia

An anti-trans group called For Women Scotland is crowdfunding their legal challenge over the Scottish government’s definition of the word ‘woman’ in the 2018 Gender Representation on Public Boards Act. To quote Pink News, ‘The legislation aims to ensure public boards have a 50% women gender balance in non-executive member positions, and it includes a definition of the word “woman” that is inclusive of trans women who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). FWS argued including trans women in this definition would impact women’s rights and expressed concerns about wider implications for single-sex spaces.’ The group lost their appeal at the Court of Session in November but were granted permission this month to appeal the decision to the UK Supreme Court. They just received £70,000 from one user under the name ‘JK.’ It’s J.K. Rowling. The accompanying post said, ‘You know how proud I am to know you. Thank you for all your hard work and perseverance. This is truly a historic case.’ I’m not sure I can shout it from the rooftops anymore. Harry Potter fans: this is where your money is going. This is where the cash you handed over is being put to use. Do you even care?

[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?”

[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!♥️)

[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

[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.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A school district that launched a legal challenge to New Brunswick's gender-identity policy says it will appeal a recent court ruling that effectively quashes its action.  The Anglophone East district education council took the province to court over changes to Policy 713, which requires a student to get parental permission to use a different name or pronouns in schools, arguing it violates the Charter rights of students.  But Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare ruled on Friday the council lacks standing, or the ability to bring the case forward. She said the concerns may be better addressed in a separate lawsuit by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. On Saturday, the council issued a statement that it had met and unanimously decided to appeal the ruling.  "Pursuing this appeal is a crucial step in defending local governance in the education sector, in resisting the pitfalls of centralization in Fredericton, and in ensuring that our voices are heard and that our mandate is upheld," it said in a news release.   "The DEC remains dedicated to advocating for the best interests of our students, educators, and the broader community."

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[katakaluptastrophy]

What do Captain Deuteros, the Princesses of Ida, the Baron of Tisis, the Lady of Koniortos Court, the Duchess of Rhodes, the Master Templar, and the Reverend Daughter all have in common? They almost certainly own slaves.

Ok, not "slaves". As I'm sure Housers would be the first to tell you, they do not have slaves. Gideon herself explicitly establishes this in chapter one:

I’m indentured, not a slave.

But functionally, what does that mean?

We don't get a definition of what Gideon means by a slave, or how this word is used in House (do the Houses also have slaves? Are slaves something other, uncivilised people have in the benighted darkness beyond the light of Dominicus and the empire?). Gideon is an unfree person who is subject to violence and exploited for the financial gain of her masters, but it means something to her that she is not, in some economic or legal sense, a slave. So what is an indentured servant?

Gideon's status is referred to using several other terms over the course of GTN, primarily by Silas Octakiseron. While Silas is not an unbiased commentator, it's interesting that his objection to Gideon is not just because she's Ninth, but because she has usurped her social position:

“Thrall,” said Silas. “Serf. Servant... Villein,” continued the necromancer of the house of the Eighth, warming to his thesaurus. Colum was staring at Gideon, almost cross-eyed with disbelief. “Foundling. I am not insulting you, I am naming you for what you are. The replacement for Ortus Nigenad, himself a poor representative of a foetid House of betrayers and mystics.”

We don't know the exact connotations of these words in House. But a "serf" historically was a sort of feudal peasant tied to the land of a manor. Unlike a slave, a serf usually couldn't be bought or sold as an individual, but could be transferred wholesale with the land. Generically speaking, serfdom involves a tie to the land, an obligation to generate income/goods for the feudal lord of the land through labour and/or rents, and a lack of freedom of movement. It could be from birth or a voluntary indenture.

The contextual information that we get about Gideon's status backs up this very feudal image:

Gideon is, as Crux repeatedly reminds her, in some way the property of the Ninth. She wears a security cuff, and her attempt to run away is described as theft and misuse of House goods. In a typically House way, it is not just that she owes them her labour - she owes them her body once she dies. (What's interesting is that this part isn't specifically tied to her status as an indentured servant, but it fundamentally colours how it is understood in world.)

"You talk so loudly for chattle, Nav... You chatter so much for a debt. I hate you, and yet you are my wares and inventory."

Crux is Harrow's seneschal. And it would seem that at least on the Ninth, this role is very much the same as its medieval feudal equivalent: the official in charge of the management of the estate's goods and labourers.

Gideon is a legitimate subject of violence in House law: Harrow talks about how it would be "master's sin" if she "employed unwarranted violence" against her. Which means that some degree of violent punishment of indentured servants is legally permissable.

She is meant to be a financially useful asset: regulations exist governing indentured people joining the military, where they can generate revenue for their House. However, Harrow warns Gideon that "the Cohort won’t enlist an unreleased serf" - because the movement of a serf is at the discretion of her Lady, not something over which she has free choice.

The description of how Gideon came to be of the Ninth is particularly interesting in shedding some light on the institution of indenture in the Houses:

The Ninth had historically filled its halls with penitents from other houses, mystics and pilgrims who found the call of this dreary order more attractive than their own birthrights. In the antiquated rules of those supplicants who moved between the eight great households, she was taken as a very small bondswoman, not of the Ninth but beholden to it: What greater debt could be accrued than that of being brought up?

Medieval serfs too had no freedom of movement; they required a license from their lord to spend extended time away from the manor.

It's easy to forget, when the Houses themselves likely range in scale from the size of Los Angeles to Aotearoa New Zealand, that legally they seem to understand themselves to constitute feudal households. Those born in each House are part of - or in some cases it would seem, property of - the House. We see discussion in the Sermon on Necromancers and Cavaliers of the heirs of cavalier lines being traded between Houses for political capital. Necromancers, meanwhile, are apparently such a political or reproductive asset that they are usually not allowed to marry outside their House. Obviously, these are examples of people at the top of House society, whose movement brings with it political power, or financial assets, or reproductive capacity. Where does that leave a more ordinary person who lacks those desirable assets? It would seem that they can be their own asset, granted access to another House on a debtor's bond - it's not clear in the House context whether this is typically an exchange of people already debt bonded to their House, free people entering into such bondage to secure a right of passage to another House, a combination, or something else entirely.

But it speaks to a much more ancient understanding of how people are tied to lands and lords, alongside the Houses' very different attitude to the value of human lives:

“You’re no slave, but you’ll serve the House of the Ninth until the day you die and then thereafter"

One could infer, since we've encountered nobles and serfs, that the Houses have something akin to a three-tier system like many historical European feudal systems, with nobles, freedmen, and serfs.

The medieval European feudal system was primarily a function of the management of land - serfs and freedmen's statuses were a result of their relationship to obligations to the land - requirements of work, or rents to their lord, who ultimately controlled and profited from that land. This is where the tricky difference between serfdom and slavery tends to arise.

But the Houses are not a European medieval feudal kingdom. They are not, presumably, a primarily agrarian economy. So what use might such bondspeople be? What does that society look like, outside of its highest nobles investigating each others' murders and its strangely incestuous demigods?

There must be some agriculture and industry. Given the trying conditions of living in inhospitable space environments, that there might be some class of labourers fundamentally tied to their Houses, perhaps initially stemming from the order or situation of their ancestors' resurrection, isn't impossible to imagine (after all, ruling families and cavalier lines also trace their status from the Resurrection). From the information about the rules governing movement between Houses, perhaps there are also people living in dire conditions on remote moons willing to sell their freedom for a chance at slightly better conditions, or a new start in a different House. Most Houses do not have the necromantic capacity to create skeleton constructs on a scale to manage most of their labour - in The Mysterious Study of Dr Sex, it's clear that the Sixth has a finite supply of skeleton constructs that they would require Ninth input to overhaul. We have to assume most labour on most Houses in human, and some portion of it at least in some way unfree.

But the Houses are a spacefaring society with a large, centralised military and an economically complex empire. It does not function entirely like a medieval kingdom, however much it may sometimes look like one. Much of its imperial structure seems to be on a much more 19th or 20th century model.

And the Cohort is one area where we can see some non-medieval, but awful implications to the Houses' practice of serfdom. Consider the commission that Harrow offers Gideon:

It purchased Gideon Nav’s commission to second lieutenant, not privy to resale, but relinquishing capital if she honourably retired. It would grant her full officer training. The usual huge percentage of prizes and territory would be tithed to her House if they were won, but her inflated Ninth serfdom would be paid for in five years on good conditions, rather than thirty.

Gideon is not being promised as canon fodder - this is a promise of officer training. And yet, Gideon is a serf - and that officer training would be an investment in financial returns from her involvement in the bloody machinery of empire.

How many people in the Cohort are not free? Are serfs released from their usual obligations in the House to which they are debt bonded to instead generate income for their House on the battlefield or die trying? What proportion of the Cohort are functionality enslaved children, sold a dream of glory by smutty comics and released by their Houses because their eventual deaths will be more profitable to their Houses than their labouring lives?

And fundamentally, if the Houses are in some way substantially reproducing aspects of medieval feudalism, there's only one person who can be responsible for that...

[serial-unaliver]

So this case is causing a lot of normally pro life people to start to lean pro choice.

Basically they're forcing this mother to deliver a baby that will either be born dead or die shortly after birth, and she may not be able to get pregnant again after this birth (when she does want to have a healthy baby in the future).

A lot of pro lifers dismiss such possibilities until they happen in reality...

[mya-valentine]

Beneath the Rain

Synopsis: As the rain pours endlessly over Fontaine, signaling Neuvillette's hidden sorrow, you step in to lift his spirits. Through light-hearted teasing and a shared moment in the rain-soaked courtyard, you help him find solace, reminding the Chief Justice that even in the storm, there is room for renewal and peace.

The skies above Fontaine were heavy with dark, rolling clouds. A steady downpour fell over the city, the sound of rain tapping rhythmically against the windows of the Palais Mermonia. The rain had been falling since early morning, and everyone in the city knew what it meant—the Chief Justice, Neuvillette, was in a somber mood.

Inside his office, Neuvillette sat behind his imposing desk, his silver-blue hair cascading over his shoulders as he reviewed legal documents, eyes scanning each word with meticulous care. The faint light of his office lamp reflected in his pale blue eyes, giving them an ethereal glow. Outside, the rain showed no sign of stopping.

You stood just outside his office, leaning against the doorframe, watching him. You were a bailiff—one of Fontaine's many law enforcers—and while your job often required a certain level of seriousness, your personality was anything but. Playful and mischievous, you loved finding ways to tease and surprise Neuvillette, especially when he was lost in his work.

Today, though, something was different. The endless rain told you that something was weighing on his heart. While most people in Fontaine feared the Chief Justice's stern and stoic demeanor, you had always seen something more in him. Beneath that composed exterior, there was a gentleness that few were privy to. And, of course, a certain vulnerability that came with the rain.

You knocked lightly on the door, not waiting for permission to enter. Pushing it open just enough to peek your head in, you caught sight of Neuvillette still deeply immersed in his work, his posture as straight and regal as ever.

"You know," you began, voice light and teasing, "if you keep this up, we might need to build an ark to escape the flood you're causing."

Neuvillette's quill stilled, and he slowly lifted his gaze to meet yours. His expression was calm as always, but there was something in his eyes—a hint of melancholy that matched the rain falling outside. He regarded you in silence for a moment, as if weighing your presence, before he spoke in that deep, rich voice of his.

"Shouldn’t you be attending to your duties?" he asked, though there was no real reproach in his tone.

You shrugged and stepped fully into the room, closing the door behind you. "Already done for the day," you said with a smirk, crossing the room to stand in front of his desk. "Now I’m here to make sure you don’t get washed away in a sea of paperwork."

Neuvillette sighed softly, setting his quill down and leaning back slightly in his chair. His hands folded neatly in his lap as he looked at you with that same serene, though distant, expression. "There is much to be done. The court does not rest simply because the weather is… unfavorable."

"Sure," you replied, moving around his desk so you could lean against the side of it, close to where he sat. "But even the Chief Justice of Fontaine needs a break now and then. Besides, it’s not just the weather that’s unfavorable, is it?"

He didn’t reply right away. Instead, he looked out the window, watching the rain slide down the glass in steady streams. The sound of it filled the silence between you, a gentle yet persistent rhythm. After a long moment, he finally spoke, his voice quieter than before.

"The people of Fontaine look to the skies to understand the emotions of their city. But they don’t always understand… that the rain is not just for them."

You softened at his words, recognizing the weight behind them. "You’re sad," you said, more a statement than a question.

Neuvillette’s eyes remained on the window, his expression unreadable. "Perhaps. There are always things to contemplate… mistakes to correct, injustices to remedy."

You watched him for a moment, your heart aching at how much he carried on his shoulders. Neuvillette was Fontaine’s pillar of justice, yes, but he was still just one person. You knew how much he cared—about fairness, about his role in the city’s legal system—but you also knew he often kept his emotions hidden, even from himself.

"Hey," you said gently, reaching out to place a hand on his shoulder. His gaze shifted to you, and for a brief moment, you saw the vulnerability he so carefully kept buried. "You don’t have to carry everything alone, you know."

He didn’t say anything, but the way he looked at you said enough. There was gratitude there, even if he couldn’t express it out loud. You smiled, trying to lighten the mood.

"Tell you what," you said, standing up and pulling him with you, surprising him with your sudden motion. "Let’s take a break. You and me. A little walk outside. Who knows, maybe the rain will stop if you clear your mind."

Neuvillette hesitated, clearly reluctant to leave his work behind. "The city requires my attention—"

"The city can wait for an hour," you interrupted, still holding his hand as you led him toward the door. "Besides, what’s the point of having the Chief Justice if he’s too exhausted to think clearly? Trust me, a little fresh air will do you good."

Though it took some coaxing, Neuvillette eventually relented, allowing you to pull him away from his desk and out of the office. Together, you walked through the grand halls of the Palais Mermonia, the echo of your footsteps mingling with the steady rain outside. It wasn’t long before you reached the courtyard, where the rain was still falling softly, though not as heavily as before.

You stepped out into the courtyard, not caring that the rain would soak through your clothes. You turned back to look at Neuvillette, who had stopped at the edge of the doorway, watching you with a mixture of confusion and amusement.

"Come on," you called, holding out your hand. "It’s just a little rain. What’s the worst that could happen?"

Neuvillette stood there for a moment, considering. Then, with a quiet sigh, he stepped out into the rain, joining you in the center of the courtyard. The droplets fell gently on his silver hair, sliding down his face and clothes, but he didn’t seem to mind. Instead, he looked up at the sky, as if trying to understand what the rain was telling him.

You took his hand again, squeezing it lightly. "See? It’s not so bad."

Neuvillette glanced down at you, and for the first time in hours, a small smile tugged at the corner of his lips. It was barely there, but you saw it. And that was enough.

"It is… peaceful," he admitted softly, his gaze softening as he looked at you. "I forget, sometimes, to appreciate these quiet moments."

"That’s what I’m here for," you said, giving him a playful nudge. "To remind you when to stop being the Chief Justice and just be… you."

Neuvillette’s eyes softened even further at that, and he lifted your hand, brushing his lips lightly against your knuckles. It was a simple gesture, but one that made your heart flutter nonetheless.

"Thank you," he murmured, his voice barely louder than the rain.

You smiled up at him, your heart swelling with affection. "Anytime."

For a long moment, the two of you stood there, hand in hand, letting the rain fall around you in gentle, steady rhythms. The clouds still hung low, and the city was still shrouded in grey, but the atmosphere between you and Neuvillette felt lighter, more at ease.

And then, as if sensing the change in his mood, the rain began to ease. The heavy downpour that had drenched the city all day finally slowed to a drizzle, and for the first time in hours, there was a hint of light breaking through the clouds.

Neuvillette looked up at the sky, his expression thoughtful. "Perhaps," he mused softly, "the rain is not only a reflection of sorrow… but also of renewal."

You grinned, tugging him a little closer to you. "I like that idea."

As the last of the rain tapered off, you stood there together, the soft sounds of water dripping from the rooftops mixing with the gentle breeze that began to blow through the courtyard. In that moment, it felt like the city itself was breathing a sigh of relief—just like Neuvillette.

And as he stood there beside you, his hand still in yours, you knew that whatever storms came next, you would always be there to remind him of the peace that followed.

.

.

.

Masterlist