Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content Count

    11100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

epeeist last won the day on November 13 2019

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4343 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your repeatedly posting in this thread, bringing up posts from over a year ago, clearly demonstrates how different you are...
  2. [Disclaimers: Given the thread title, discussion of the multiple items including GDPR in posts, not merely a single act, and the original discussion this was spliced from, I quite naturally assumed that the right to be forgotten, generally, could be discussed here, including consequences of same. If not, then I will start a new thread. Also, please note that external links may be to articles with content, including comments, which I am not necessarily endorsing; and, there may be offensive information somewhere else on said site, or the Internet as a whole. And, I had a beer earlier today, and have not proofread anything here.] .............. Very mildly amusingly, since original thread contained no indication of splice, I had assumed the posts were "forgotten"... Recent Austrian example, Facebook ordered to take down worldwide, all posts including similar posts (not just identical) about a local politician. Because last year's EU decision didn't say that no global takedown orders, but the opposite, said when they could be available. https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/12/facebook-loses-final-appeal-in-defamation-takedown-case-must-remove-same-and-similar-hate-posts-globally/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIFpPZV_1Mh9ur5YTjF7Hw08YOIv8KZx409783V_bJy2uL5fFafGJVZyTO8B9WA0D9sojjAroN4iEbabGsrfbxoP_b6Sr23htDb7ikgEzfpWwGeO4XU2OrijEanqNAXc9dCuYouBjsxVFa1zWKdqOc4KSisgtb1tt-TXkHCGkcYt https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/austria-facebook-eva-glawischnig-piesczek-censorship.html
  3. I agree that someone shouldn't be held accountable forever. That is NOT the same as saying that everyone is entitled to have everything deleted. If balancing is too difficult, then the default should be allow historical truth to be told, not default = be forgotten automatically (or upon request).
  4. [emphasis added] [Aside unrelated to Pyke - @realpseudonym I was deliberately being over-the-top in this specific instance] TL;DR: read only bold I think moral and/or safety evaluation should be part of the principle. I agree that people who do things, including deliberately bad things (like crimes) should be able to deal with the consequences, change, be able to go on and live their life, etc. I just think that as it exists, being "forgotten" is a very blunt tool - if e.g. existing protections against discrimination based on criminal record are insufficient, that should be addressed ahead of deleting the information. If for instance allegations based on arrest when no prosecution are a problem, then laws should restrict police release of information identifying who has been arrested (except when genuinely necessary to investigation). I mean, not criminal, but if that Spanish lawyer then went into business providing legal financial and ethical advice, I'd be concerned that the right to be forgotten was a disservice to clients and potential clients depending upon the nature of the history. Is having been in default on a mortgage bad enough that it should be known? Organizationally, should a restaurant's past bad reviews be forgotten? Food poisoning? Child abuse by a religious or educational group shouldn't be forgotten, nor by the individual perpetrators. What about allegations? Politicians? What e.g. Trump did and said in the past no matter how long ago about women, sex, real estate, etc. were in my view relevant no matter how long ago, even if appearing in European media... Also, because of global reach of some laws and orders (e.g. most recent I've read about Austrian), concern that the lowest (or highest, depending on your view) common denominator governs. We are concerned about totalitarian governments censoring info or restricting access, do democracies get a pass? Because they shouldn't (cough US cough).
  5. I thought that for one-offs like this, ask a mod to ask the question? But, they can comment. More generally (about this topic; I am shifting from a specific response to you, to the topic generally, and nothing hereinafter should be construed as a response to you; also, I am using "actor" in a gender-neutral sense, not referring only to male-identifying performers; and, I am not referring to any specific person), in terms of right to be forgotten (and like you, haven't exactly reviewed in detail), is the difference adequately dealt with between activities that happen to attract attention, versus those designed to attract attention, versus those accidentally but carelessly attracting attention? Like someone becoming famous as an actor, or on a reality show, or attempting to break a world record, etc. is deliberately trying to get famous. If later they no longer want to be known for their role in a movie or tripping while trying to break a record or something, is that fair? Versus someone, for good or ill, becoming known as the perpetrator or victim of a crime, while the former is blameworthy, should they both be enforceably forgettable? Rough analogy to the public/private actor distinction in US defamation law. E.g. for a post, the difference between: 1. Someone deliberately posting their name, address, intimate personal details, etc., then wanting it erased; 2. Someone carelessly posting enough info to be obviously or easily known then wanting it erased; or 3. Someone becoming knowable with more effort (e.g. if a post contains linking information that makes the person discoverable, or the combination of multiple posts).
  6. I try to mirror the formality or lack of the sender, if replying. E.g. if they wrote in email "Hi, firstname" I do likewise, usually. Letters, attached or otherwise, generally much more formal of course. Just like I've gotten emails to me by firstname, with very formal letter attached. If mirroring not applicable e.g. because I'm originating, close with Best Regards, or Regards even if less formal opening like "Hello All". I avoid yours truly and variations usually, in part because of etymology, it historically suggests the person using that closing is superior - for that reason I may sometimes deliberately use it with some... If they've provided info or something, even if obliged to, typically "Thanks, and Best Regards". If around a holiday, or when Covid lockdowns first beginning, I might add something about holiday or wishing continued good health. If dealing with someone in QC, even if the body of the email is in English, I'll typically open with Bonjour and close with a bientot. If group is a mix, "Hello and Bonjour All" opening, "Best Regards et a bientot" closing. Aside, I hate the practice some have of addressing admins by firstname (e.g. when sending an email with documents to admin directly as requested) but their bosses more formally. If an admin person closes with first name, I'll reply accordingly, but close with just my first name (and, in a couple of cases, have explicitly told them, just my first name is fine - in one case, dealing with American, they thanked me but said their direction was all lawyers addressed formally with "Esq." after their name, so I lived with it, didn't want to create difficulty for them based on my principles. In some cases, especially around holidays, I've explicitly included greetings to admin person copied on an email not addressed to them, if I've dealt directly with them before.
  7. I didn't want to cause confusion before, but I'll note I work full-time in a non-law job, and with my employer's knowledge and permission (written into agreement), and having discussed with and informed LSO and Lawpro, and maintaining my own status and insurance for part-time practice, and informing all potential clients of my full-time work and noting in retainer agreements, I practice law on the side. But that's law on the side of a non-law job, NOT law on the side of a lawyer job.
  8. Not giving legal advice of course, but asking you a question: The firm where you work, and the LSO, and Lawpro, are all okay with this?!
  9. I hadn't noticed before that you linked to the appropriate authoritative page. Re Queen's, I am an alumnus and really enjoyed my time there, but agree with your skepticism about recognition outside Canada. Anecdotally I recall someone discussing having gone to a legal academic conference in the US (this was many years ago), they said they were from Queen's. No recognition. In Kingston, Ontario. Sudden recognition, "Oh, Kingston Jamaica?"
  10. 38 might be one set of charges for a set of transactions within a short time frame. How long ago, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? It might be that if I read the specific details I might agree. But I certainly don't agree that the mere fact of 38 convictions should be an absolute bar without exception based just on that number, without more information. I have issues with the LSO and its decision-making in a number of instances, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong; and, given principles of fairness, if the LSO did treat other wrongdoers unfairly leniently, especially those already called, then that would be a good reason not to prohibit the call of someone whose misdeeds had all occurred before seeking to become a lawyer, as that would be an unfair difference.
  11. I strongly disagree. It depends a lot on how long a time has passed, and what they've done in the meantime. There have been some examples where e.g. someone does something and then only a few months later is seeking bar admission that I have an issue with, but that's due to there being too short a time in between.
  12. @lawschoolhopeful6 As tempting as it is to just tell you to do your own search, I was curious about North Dakota: "ABA-Approved Law School J.D. Required: Yes Foreign Law Graduate Eligibility: No" http://www.ncbex.org/jurisdiction-information/jurisdiction/nd Now, don't rely on anything I or anyone else or any website that's not the official North Dakota bar admission info (the above is NOT official info it's just the most reputable that came up on my first search results page), check yourself. And, as was noted even if not admitted in ND if admitted in another state that allows foreign degrees, then maybe ND allows you to advise about federal not state law. Maybe. I don't know. But it sure sounds like if your dream is North Dakota, you should go to an American ABA-accredited law school (since even if accredited by a state, it is generally only ABA-approved law schools, that give you mobility to other states). Pandemic issues aside (border crossing for classes n Detroit, or are more online?), the Windsor-Detroit Mercy dual degree does grant you an ABA-approved degree as well as a Canadian one, just not a particularly reputable US one. But if your heart was set on North Dakota and you couldn't for whatever reason go to a US law school in the normal way, maybe that would be your best option. I say maybe, again, you have to do your own research. And, even if called to the bar in a state that allows those with a Canadian law degree to write the bar, again as others have noted, being called may allow you to practice yourself but doesn't get you hired by a firm. EDIT: also, of course, eligibility to move to and work in the US is another issue entirely, if you're not a US citizen.
  13. And @pzabbythesecond I agree that sweat is not a good drink ingredient. Tears, though, serve a triple purpose: the metaphysical satisfaction of knowing you've helped induce the tears, the saltiness that is akin to olive brine for a dirty martini, and the unhappy bitterness of the tears serving the function of bitters. Sugar cubes, I think are more of an absinthe thing with the slotted spoon, and thinking of how one is driving them to madness (as absinthe was believed to do because of the thujone from wormwood, I've read conflicted analyses of whether or not that's true).
  14. A vodka martini made with an overpriced flavourless prestige vodka and too much vermouth, said vermouth having been stored after having been opened at room temperature for an uncertain period of time, ordered at a bar that serves this vile melange as an expensive bespoke cocktail. That's not what I'd want to drink, of course (I'd prefer a gin martini with little to no vermouth, or if drinking outdoors in hotter weather, a gin and tonic; whether to use bitters depends upon the gin being used). And, I'm not critical of all bespoke cocktails nor bars that exercise creativity (including their own infusions), nor even of all prestige vodkas - I have tried some that I thought worth a premium, but that's another discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...