I feel like there are 2 related arguments against this. One is that it could motivate political prosecution to disenfranchise people. The second is that it kind of creates a slippery slope, if treason disenfranchises you why not murder, or rape, or election fraud or whatever other crime someone considers serious enough
We do. It’s called the Equality Act 2010. It requires reasonable adjustments for disabled people. However, this is not always provided for in reality. The equality act is mentioned in the original article
This reminds me of how Eeyore is treated in Winnie the Pooh
That isn’t actually true. The price on the shelf is considered to be an invitation to treat. By taking the item to the checkout you are offering to buy it which they can reject. In practice they will sell it to you for the price on the shelf but this is not the law
Coffee. There are a couple of Lemmy communities but none of them are that active. Reddit had r/coffee and r/espresso that were both fairly active
Even better. The countdown resets if you look away
I know this is a joke but was there not a court case somewhere in the US about saying in Minecraft after saying incriminating things?
There is technically an unwinnable sts seed
A lot of these comments are American so I thought I would provide a different point of view. In the UK it is a legal requirement for some broadcasters to have a certain percentage of signed programmes.
Can people please put the country in the title. I have read multiple headlines thatjust say “court decides” with no explanation of what court or jurisdiction. Australia is not the only country where the employment status of Uber drivers is under question