It's a farce. My local paper can no longer provide historical data because they can't afford to buy access to previous rulings older than the cutoff the courts themselves are obligated to provide....
It's a farce. My local paper can no longer provide historical data because they can't afford to buy access to previous rulings older than the cutoff the courts themselves are obligated to provide.
Outside of media circles, the story hasn't caught on either, which bothers and surprises me. This is an issue parliament should be making legislation on, but won't unless it becomes a big story.
When you're reading an article that's talking about law in Europe you can safely ignore everything they say unless they link to the text of the law / judgement / decision that they're talking...
When you're reading an article that's talking about law in Europe you can safely ignore everything they say unless they link to the text of the law / judgement / decision that they're talking about.
This is the most perplexing to me in all of this. I can't read the Norwegian verdict
This is the author of the article saying "I don't know what I'm talking about".
I'd hope Tildes could avoid these kinds of heated rants based on the author's lack of understanding of law.
It's a farce. My local paper can no longer provide historical data because they can't afford to buy access to previous rulings older than the cutoff the courts themselves are obligated to provide.
Outside of media circles, the story hasn't caught on either, which bothers and surprises me. This is an issue parliament should be making legislation on, but won't unless it becomes a big story.
When you're reading an article that's talking about law in Europe you can safely ignore everything they say unless they link to the text of the law / judgement / decision that they're talking about.
This is the author of the article saying "I don't know what I'm talking about".
I'd hope Tildes could avoid these kinds of heated rants based on the author's lack of understanding of law.
Do you have any insight to provide regarding this specific decision/law other than the generalization to ignore rants?