legal interpretations

Hamburg - when (almost) everybody is wrong

My best friend’s brother had a brand-new baby girl on Tuesday. She’s quite pink but everybody is very proud of her. The brother is a teacher in Hamburg and his partner and baby are in a hospital in the city. 

It’s G20.

Yesterday I talked to my friend and she told me how terrified her brother was. Hamburg expected 100.000 protesters. Which is a lot, causes traffic jams and is a general nuisance. 

It also expected about 8000 violent instigators, hooligans, extremists and so on. 

In the run-up to G20 business in the richer parts of town had been marked as belonging to, well, rich people. All of this is nothing new. We have that every year in Berlin. Cars are set on fire, windows need to be barricaded, there will be water throwers. 

Try navigating that with a newborn. 

The hospital released both mother and baby a day early to get them out of the city because they expected a very real possibility that the hospital might be attacked and I sat in my kitchen on the other side of Germany wondering what the fuck that says not only about my the world but also a movement I have always felt very connected to.

But ultimately… I mean, heck, I have lived in Leipzig and spent a good deal of time in Connewitz, I come from the deep and very neo-Nazi east… I am not surprised.

And then there is the other side of the story. Hundred thousands of people who care about this world and this planet and what’s happening to it and our future. A tidal wave of worry but also of hope.

Setting up their tents in parks, areas that have been given to them by the city of Hamburg - their right to do so, to come together and protest, bolstered and protected by the German constitution AND a legally binding decision by a judge just the day before. 

And then there is the chief of Hamburg police, a man even my conservative friends in the city call an absolute hardliner… Twisting the legal decision to his liking, as a member of the executive branch looking for loopholes in a legally binding decision to interpret it to his liking. 

A man that many have accused of provoking the violence by rigorously responding to the slightest provocations from the black block in the March to Hell demonstration, basically doing what the violent protesters wanted: Instigating violence and drawing every other peaceful protester down the drain with them.

They didn’t even need to bring in their own instigators. Holy shit, this is Germany. We have a long-standing tradition of violent left-wing protests. We have the 1st of May and this is HAMBURG. St. Pauli is a rallying cry for everyone looking for an excuse to set a car on fire.  

All they needed to do was to declare the black block as the black block and let everything unravel from there. We even have a word for a mass of hooded demonstrators ready for violence. There is a reason your are not allowed to cover your face at demonstration because that is the ONE determining characteristics from dividing the peaceful protesters from the Hooligans. And everybody accusing me of dragging a football term into this. Look at them and tell me the difference. I dare you!

Do any of them care for the protests? To any of them care for G20 or what these people decide up there?

A friend of mine is a member of the police emergency personnel, a branch from the standard police that is trained for those exact situations (and football games, because Germany). He is also a few political meters left of me. What we call a “linke Zecke” here in Germany. He cares. 

He cares that idiots attack them and then run into the masses, using peaceful demonstrators as human shields. He also cares that an asshole in a plush chair plays Russian roulette with his men’s health by waging his own cute little war. 

The new baby’s father cares because more than half of his students are not of German heritage, spanning the globe in their mother tongues and skin colors. 

But people that invade the perceived “rich” quarters to vandalize whole streets, setting cars on fire and respond to pleas of “People live here!” which “Shut the FUCK up!” 

They don’t care. they just want an excuse to brutalize others and there is no difference if you call that left-wing or right-wing terrorism. It’s terrorism. 

And people like the police chief, who so blatantly disregards a law he swore to uphold? Does he care for anything but his own personal power and pride? Does he even CARE for the people who now have no car anymore, no business or who can’t go to a hospital because everything is blocked and emergency services are busy taking care of the victims on both sides of the violence he provoked days in advance?

What does HE care for?

There are situations that you cannot win, caught between a rock and a hard place and the pride and disregard of men who don’t see you as worth caring for. Police power, terrorists. Doesn’t matter. 

I just saw the pictures a friend sent from by-streets in Hamburg. Not the main streets. Not the protest route but remote, peaceful by-streets, far from the protest, littered with burning cars. Family cars, not expensive ones. Just family cars. Trash cans kicked onto streets and set on fire.

People standing by in absolute disbelief.

Yet still, people stand up and go there. They protest the unfairness of a world order that disadvantages people too poor to even come to Hamburg and protest in their own name. 

Yet still, the people of Hamburg sweep their streets and replace their windows and go on with stubborn northern determination. 

And yet, a man walks through the crowds with a shield saying “Leave me alone, I’m just going to the supermarket.”

And yet, the first thing I hear from everybody around me, no matter which camp they belong to is “this is not democracy” and “what do you need?”

And yet, humanity prevails. Even if it sometimes is by just surviving. 

anonymous asked:

If Belgium or another country decides that loot boxes are "gambling" & bans the game for that, will it impact the industry?

It really depends on how much the publisher cares. First, one question must be answered:

How much is the market that the Belgian law affects worth?

If the publisher only expects to sell 5,000 copies in Belgium, maybe it’s not worth the effort to fix things. Maybe the publisher will just shrug and say “Oh well, let’s just target France, Italy, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. instead.” Perhaps future games just won’t ship for Belgium.

But let’s say that it does represent a significant market that the publisher cares about. Maybe the entire EU gets in on it and not just Belgium. There’s enough players there that the expected earnings are important. Now what? Now the publisher asks more questions.

How will the law be enforced?

Will there be a government regulatory body set up to check every game for gambling content? If so, there needs to be some very specific requirements to meet - you can’t just say “I’ll know it when I see it”. It’s a law, it needs to set a legal precedent and be interpreted by the court system. It has to have a set procedure for determining whether an item is illegal or not. 

What is the minimum effort to go from illegal to legal?

A lot of this entirely depends on the legal requirements. Does this mean posting odds? Does this mean requiring a means in game of obtaining all items without using the random number generator? Does this mean some kind of warning label? What is the actual requirement? And how much will it cost to do that? If the cost is high, maybe it isn’t worth it. Maybe the publisher will run the numbers and decide that the EU isn’t worth it. Regardless, the publisher will have to factor the cost into future accounts and adjust their accounting for planned and in-progress projects. 

As you may have guessed, laws are finicky. They take a long time to deal with, they have a lot of requirements, and they aren’t super cut and dry because a ton of effort is spent on determining what is and isn’t legal. Maybe Belgium will declare loot boxes gambling, and therefore illegal. The publishers can either decide not to sell in Belgium, or they can spend the minimum effort to make the games not gambling in the eyes of the law. Maybe they aren’t loot boxes. I remember Marvel Comics winning a court case where they argued that their X-men action figures weren’t dolls (which were legally shaped like humans), but toys (which are not human) in order to get out of paying certain import taxes. Publishers already do stuff like that for localization in China. They can do stuff like that in Belgium.

Got a burning question you want answered?

@Quenchaos aka “Nobody” thanks for your submission, but it’s just too long to read and it’s just too early. You say you “couldn’t care less but here” you are writing paragraph after paragraph and you, like staff, don’t seem to realize that offsite I can post whatever I want.

Hope you didn’t spend too long writing that Wall of Text, because I deleted it.


Ride staff dick on your own blog, because it isn’t welcome on this one.

ninjaruski  asked:

JEDI LAWYERS. Because, when you get down to it, legal interpretation is just hermeneutics, and Jedi were supposed to be warrior philosophers.

listen. imagine obi-wan kenobi but so much worse. Just imagine some Jedi motherfucker in extremely well-tailored robes, grabbing obi-wan by the beard and whispering, “I’m you, but stronger.”


“no. shh. watch this.“

“Mr. Skywalker, I think you’ll find the last time my client saw the plaintiff, he was just a torso and also on fire. Therefore, my client had reasonable belief he was indeed dead, and cannot be held liable for slander.” 

you know who has lawyers?

palpatine has lawyers. so many. palpatine was probably a lawyer, now that I think about it. motherfucker was definitely a lawyer. palpatine was that asshole who sat in a dark room and went over all the ridiculous senate bylaws and corollaries of the budget and figured out that if he triggered clause 3(b)(1)(viii) section twelve, footnote 283 no one could fucking stop him because have you read clause 3(b)(1)(viii) section twelve, footnote 283, Senator Organa? Did you, Senator Amidala? NO, NO ONE’S READ IT BECAUSE ONLY POWER HUNGRY NUTJOBS WITHOUT A LIFE OUTSIDE OF THEIR EVIL PLANS ACTUALLY READS THE MINUTAE OF THE SENATE BYLAWS.

definitely a lawyer. god, what an asshole.

still-the-seventh  asked:

I've never heard of a forensic linguist! What do they do?

Hey :) tbh, I stumbled upon this myself during one of my classes and asked my professor about it. And he’s brilliant! As soon as he realized that me and a friend are interested in this special area of applied linguistics, he got Carole Chaski, Nicci MacLeod and Lawrence Solan as guest speakers for us. Did I say he is amazing?!

Back to your question… Forensic linguistics is a broad term to describe everything between language and law. A forensic linguist examines written and verbal evidence. This could be to interpret legal texts, investigate plagiarism, look into courtroom interpretation, investigative interviewing, and police interviews, analyse suicide letters, statements, confessions, threats, or to teach forensic linguistics and research for new techniques etc. And it’s so interesting! Makes me feel like my love for linguistics is actually good for something! Fingers crossed I’ll actually make it tho… it’s really hard to get into the field. And over here, it’s not yet that established as in e.g. the UK or the States.

Here are some links :D can you be fangirling for linguists? Apparently, yepp.

Carole Chaski:
Lawrence Solan: (he’ll give a talk at my uni next Monday!!!)
Nicci MacLeod:
Tim Grant:
Hannes Kniffka:

And other linguists that do fascinating work, but not directly in the field of FL:
Christopher Hart:
Andreas Musolff: (just saw him again this Monday - brilliant!)

Jonathan Culpeper: (He does a lot of research on impoliteness and the speech act ‘insults’ - my favourite one! Really interesting and there actually hasn’t been a lot of research on insults - luckily, for me :D)

Look at what you did… I think this is the longest post/answer I’ve ever given on here :D

Over and out.

WOMEN OF VALOR - Parshat Pinchas

We should talk about the Daughters of Tzelophechad more.

This is one of the most important narratives in the Torah, and it doesn’t get a lot of attention. The basic story is this: God has recently given the laws of land inheritance, in preparation for entering into the Land of Israel. And the standard rule is that when the head of the household dies, the land will be divided among the sons in the family. 

Now a modern ear can probably already hear the problem with this formula. It’s so obvious: What about daughters?? 

But in those days, it took a family with only daughters to realize that the law, as written, would cause them to lose their land completely once the patriarch died. And that is exactly the case that the daughters of Tzelophechad - Machla, Noa, Chogla, Milka, and Tirtza - bring before Moses:

Why should the name of our father be lost from family because he had no son? Give us a holding among our father’s brothers! (Numbers 27:4)

And Moses, the great leader and the supreme judge of the Children of Israel… has no idea what to say to them. He seems stumped by the question. So he brings their case before God. And God’s response is one of the most surprising and critical lines in the whole Torah:

Keep reading

heartwhcle  asked:

↔ = The character’s ability to read directions

 Headcanons List!

  Exceptional. Gaara is the Fifth Kazekage of Sunagakure, son of the Fourth. Basic academic skills were taught at a young age. More analytical skills such as deciphering maps, interpreting legal documents, and, yes, reading directions, are also expected from someone in his position. Any shinobi of a proficient level must know how to read and understand directions in order to complete a mission.
Inside the confusion of the Trump executive order and travel ban
When President Donald Trump declared at the Pentagon Friday he was enacting strict new measures to prevent domestic terror attacks, there were few within his government who knew exactly what he meant.
By Evan Perez and Pamela Brown, CNN

It wasn’t until Friday – the day Trump signed the order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admission for 120 days – that career homeland security staff were allowed to see the final details of the order, a person with the familiar the matter said.


The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas, and largely avoided the traditional interagency process that would have allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, according to numerous officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized, government officials said.

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen – did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President’s inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

There had been some debate whether green card holders should be even allowed to board international flights. It was decided by the Department of Homeland Security they could fly to the US and would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening.

But the guidance sent to airlines on Friday night, obtained by CNN, said clearly, “lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA.”

As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official.

Before the President issued the order, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch. A source said the executive order did not follow the standard agency review process that’s typically overseen by the National Security Council, though the source couldn’t specifically say if that included the decision to not have the order go through the Office of Legal Counsel.

Separately, a person familiar with the matter said career officials in charge of enforcing the executive order were not fully briefed on the specifics until Friday. The officials were caught off guard by some of the specifics and raised questions about how to handle the new banned passengers on US-bound planes.

Regarding the green card holders and some of the confusion about whether they were impacted, the person familiar with the matter said if career officials had known more about the executive order earlier, some of the confusion could have been avoided and a better plan could be in place.


Bannon and Miller were running point on this order and giving directives regarding green cards, according to a Republican close to the White House.

But even after the Friday afternoon announcement, administration officials at the White House took several hours to produce text of the action until several hours after it was signed. Adviser Kellyanne Conway even said at one point it was not going to be released before eventually it did get sent out.

Administration officials also seemed unsure at first who was covered in the action, and a list of impacted countries was only produced later on Friday night, hours after the President signed the document at the Pentagon.


anonymous asked:

I'm not American so I've really little knowledge on American Politics. What does the death of Justice Scalia mean is something bad or good?(is this even appropriate to say??)

There are 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, which issues the most important legal decisions, particularly about interpreting the Constitution. The appointments are for life, so a new position only becomes available when a justice dies or retires. The President nominates a new candidate, and then the Senate must approve them. Because the 9 justices are appointed under different presidents over time, some are more liberal (usually appointed by Democratic presidents) and some more conservative (usually appointed by Republican presidents).

Justice Scalia was appointed by Pres. Reagan in 1986 and since then has been a very vocal and consistent conservative. He was probably the most conservative justice and had served as a sort of unofficial head of conservative legal thought for decades. His opinions and even his dissents were often well argued and persuasive. He was anti-reproductive rights, anti-same sex marriage, and was a devout Catholic.

With his death, Pres. Obama will now be able to nominate a much more liberal/progressive candidate to the court. This is important because many Supreme Court decisions are very close. On some of the most controversial issues, the Court often splits 5-4. Replacing Scalia with a more progressive justice will move one of the votes to the more liberal side (sometimes at least). It could change the path of the Supreme Court for decades to come, just as Scalia’s appointment in 1986 pushed the Court towards the conservative side for several decades.
In 1864 Maryland, Confusion Over Emancipation Made Slaves Interpreters of Law by Martha Jones

In the midst of the Civil War, who was a slave and who was free? When African Americans in Maryland asked this question 150 years ago, in August 1864, they engaged in a sophisticated analysis. The answer was to be found in the confrontations between African Americans, slaveholders, and soldiers. Understanding emancipation required the careful reading of orders, statutes, and presidential edicts. The result was sometimes confusion, even for lawmakers. Judges, congress members, and the President differed over who had the authority to end slavery. Legal pundits suggested that the Constitution might not allow for abolition at all. Enslaved people had a great deal at stake: their liberty. They studied emancipation’s complex legal contours. They interpreted the law. Then, they acted.

Read more about what they did, including Annie Davis’ letter to Abraham Lincoln inquiring about her freedom.

If you’re a “student of knowledge” you should be able to figure out what school of law (madhab) I follow pretty quickly.

You’d also know that I don’t use Ijtihad.

That I’ve never issued a Fatwa (legal ruling/opinion) because I’m not a Mufti.

That any opinion, legal classification, or interpretation of an Ayah or Hadith that I put forward comes from my teachers, classical scholars, and from all other qualified sources other than myself.

You’d realize that nothing I’ve written is new, and usually the issue is that you just haven’t heard of it, and I’m not asking you to agree with anything, I’m simply asking that you respect the simple fact that there are differences of opinion between schools.

There are differences over how we hold our hands when we pray, what time Asr is, and what the first ayah of Surat Al-Fatiha is.

So, trust me, there are more than one opinion on the thing you think I’m “using my independent reasoning to deduce.”

I’m not, I’m just not.