"that they might be a bit more trustworthy, than a rando-website setup in your mother's basement trying to pass off twitter articles or homeopathic/antivax propaganda as real news."
Except that some of those sites look quite professional and spend a decent amount of money of looking "corporate".
As for your greater point, yia but that is why I cited the New York Times, Washingtom Post, and Spanish national newspapers as my source for my opinions on what is happening in South Africa.
"Economic side of things yes, but you're forgetting that many artists don't personally profit from their works. (specially online). Many go the route of open licensing that allows anyone to use their work, so long as they acknowledge that they did the work. Effectively you're saying that if an artist doesn't seek to profit from their work, and you come along and steal it, That's fine. Because there was no economic harm. "
Nope, because we are talking about copyright law and the cases decided under it. Under the law someone who owns the copyright has an absolute right to conrtol distribution whether or not he is actively attempting to profit or not. The theory is that others using it would prevent him from gaining that economic benefit if he wanted to profit from his copyright.
"That I may view it and it's contents, but those contents do not leave that house without your express consent."
Except that the example is not quite right. In the given case a third person was given access to a cloud account with the ability to download and copy anything in said account.
Put it this way if you show me an album in your house of you having sex, you usually do not lose the right to restrict the photos but you do usually give up the right to prevent someone you showed the album to from describing the content to others. Moreover, if you let me look at the album when I have a camera and you do not at least tell me that I cannot look at the album when I have the camera you likely would be deemed to have waived your privacy rights.
"That perhaps it should be codified in law that personal pictures are private unless verbally or writtenly expressed otherwise?"
The real question is not the "personal nature of the pictures" but whehther your actions are consistent with you attempt them to keep them private. If you publish a picture to a private facebook group and do not specificly provide that the pictures cannot be copied or otherwise deceminated outside the group you probably have lost any claim to privacy for those pictures. They issue has been, is and likely will remain whether your actions are consistent with keeping the pictures private or whether your actions waive any privacy interest.
Noone is doing that type of poll at present. It should be noted that Biden has always been popular in Northeast PA, Lehigh- Allentown-Bethleham area which are the old steel mill towns that swung 20% -40% between the 2012 and 2016 elections.
Actually read the London Mail's article on the proposed Alabama statute and similar statutes the goal is to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade which would return the abortion issue to individual states. Alabama, Georgia, etc would prohibit abortions of Fetus after a heartbeat is detected. New York and California would be free to continue there policy of allowing abortions till the child is actually born (and even afterword if a late term Fetus survives being aborted.)
"Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?"
It does not it leaves such questions to the individual states.
Dragonmount.com is a fan-maintained website dedicated to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy series. It is an online community of people from all over the world who have come here to experience the series to the fullest.