Since they concede these emails were stolen (there is certainly a debate as to whether copied files are stolen, especially in the debate over piracy, but they actually do say "stolen...
Since they concede these emails were stolen (there is certainly a debate as to whether copied files are stolen, especially in the debate over piracy, but they actually do say "stolen information"), they're now saying possession of stolen goods (if digital movies are goods, emails certainly are) is not a crime? This seems like r/badlegaladvice fodder.
They're saying it's okay and legal if it's of immense public concern. It's a whistleblower argument of sorts. Say you came into knowledge of a series of emails detailing a plot to overthrow the US...
They're saying it's okay and legal if it's of immense public concern. It's a whistleblower argument of sorts. Say you came into knowledge of a series of emails detailing a plot to overthrow the US government through military power. It shouldn't be illegal or even "wrong" to disclose those facts, because the public "deserves to know" what you've learned.
I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but that's basically what they're saying. A pirated movie doesn't meet that standard.
Absolutely. He's done many, many things to kowtow to Russia and Putin, even if they want to continue to say that there was no "direct" collusion. And they know collusion isn't a legal term; that's...
Absolutely. He's done many, many things to kowtow to Russia and Putin, even if they want to continue to say that there was no "direct" collusion. And they know collusion isn't a legal term; that's why they always use it.
Since they concede these emails were stolen (there is certainly a debate as to whether copied files are stolen, especially in the debate over piracy, but they actually do say "stolen information"), they're now saying possession of stolen goods (if digital movies are goods, emails certainly are) is not a crime? This seems like r/badlegaladvice fodder.
They're saying it's okay and legal if it's of immense public concern. It's a whistleblower argument of sorts. Say you came into knowledge of a series of emails detailing a plot to overthrow the US government through military power. It shouldn't be illegal or even "wrong" to disclose those facts, because the public "deserves to know" what you've learned.
I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but that's basically what they're saying. A pirated movie doesn't meet that standard.
Absolutely. He's done many, many things to kowtow to Russia and Putin, even if they want to continue to say that there was no "direct" collusion. And they know collusion isn't a legal term; that's why they always use it.