data/law.jsonl

{"id": "law_36259", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If a company agrees to pay travel cost for a job interview, is the promise binding and enforceable?", "question_body": "There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight . Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document. In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? My thoughts: On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law). On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance , which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview). So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not? Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.", "question_score": 231, "question_tags": ["contract-law", "employment"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "C": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "D": "There Is Little Pressure To Improve Contract Drafting One piece of the puzzle is tradition and habitual writing style. A customary writing style for legal documents evolved over time, some of those conventions have evolved overtime (e.g. \"Party of the first part, party of the second part\"), others have not. Archaic vocabulary is slowly being weeded out, but again, it is almost never the goal of someone drafting a contract to reduce the reading level of the document. As long as the judge, or other lawyers, know what it means, it is an aesthetic stylistic issue more than it is..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/36259/if-a-company-agrees-to-pay-travel-cost-for-a-job-interview-is-the-promise-bindi"}
{"id": "law_48515", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Who is supposed to teach the law to the citizens?", "question_body": "As I understand, in general, not knowing the law does not excuse violating it . That should apply to most if not all jurisdictions in most cases with very few exceptions . From personal experience, never in my life has school, family or anyone ever actually taught me any laws or showed me where I could consult them myself, and I have already reached legal age a couple of years ago. So my question is, who, by law or morality, is supposed to teach citizens the law so that they can be aware and abide by it? Answers can be generalized to include most jurisdictions or be specific.", "question_score": 129, "question_tags": ["human-rights", "legal-concepts"], "choices": {"A": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "B": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "C": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "D": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48515/who-is-supposed-to-teach-the-law-to-the-citizens"}
{"id": "law_27486", "domain": "law", "question_title": "I want to leave Islam, but they would execute and kill me. What do I do?", "question_body": "I live in an Islamic country, but I don't want to be a Muslim. I have no choice but to claim to be a Muslim: If I leave Islam, they will execute me according to Muslim law. Where can I go to have a peaceful, non-religious life? Can I get asylum in any English-speaking countries? For example, would the Republic of Ireland accept me as a refugee? This is a hypothetical/abstract question of law. I am not making any personal statements about my beliefs or intentions.", "question_score": 112, "question_tags": ["religion", "ireland", "refugee-law"], "choices": {"A": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "B": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "C": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "D": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/27486/i-want-to-leave-islam-but-they-would-execute-and-kill-me-what-do-i-do"}
{"id": "law_83103", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why do many "No Trespassing" signs say "POSTED"?", "question_body": "Many \"no trespassing\" signs say \"POSTED\" in large letters at the top. Why? Obviously, the sign is posted; that's the whole purpose of a sign. To me, it makes as much sense as putting \"ASKED\" at the start of a Stack Exchange question or \"TEXTED\" at the start of a text. Does it serve any legal purpose? Or is it just designed to scare potential trespassers with legal-looking text?", "question_score": 108, "question_tags": ["united-states", "legal-terms", "common-law", "legal-history", "trespass"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "B": "\"Posted\" is a Term of Art \" Posted \" is a term of art in trespass law, specifically meaning that signs forbidding entry have been placed at the borders of a parcel. The page \"Properly posted definition\" from Law Insider reads: Properly posted means that signs prohibiting trespass—or bright yellow, bright orange or fluorescent paint—are clearly displayed at all corners, on fishing streams crossing property lines, and on roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land. Or, they are displayed in a manner that is visible to a person in the area. The entry \"Posting\" in the \"Legal\" section of The...", "C": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...", "D": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/83103/why-do-many-no-trespassing-signs-say-posted"}
{"id": "law_29588", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If I don't want to patent something, what can I do to ensure the patent office doesn't unintentionally grant the patent to someone else?", "question_body": "Say that I have created a hypothetical new invention. I would like for it to be used by as many people as possible without restrictions, so I deliberately choose not to pursue a patent on it. As described in the answers to What if I don't patent my invention? , someone else can patent my invention unless the US Patent Office is aware that there is prior art, established by me producing and selling my invention. The trouble is, I can't necessarily guarantee that they will become aware of my prior art if I'm not particularly well-known. What can be done to ensure that the patent office knows about my prior work (which I deliberately choose not to patent) and therefore doesn't unintentionally grant a patent to someone else?", "question_score": 102, "question_tags": ["united-states", "patents", "prior-art"], "choices": {"A": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "B": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...", "C": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "D": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of \" 30 days of employment with xxxxx \". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of \" 1-year commitment \" is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, \" not to quit \") in..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29588/if-i-dont-want-to-patent-something-what-can-i-do-to-ensure-the-patent-office-d"}
{"id": "law_16790", "domain": "law", "question_title": "On what basis might Trump's executive order on immigration be illegal?", "question_body": "On 27 January 2017, US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order entitled ' Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States '. On 30 January 2017, the acting Attorney General at the time refused to defend it in court because it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal: [ news article ]. On what basis(es) might this executive order be illegal?", "question_score": 90, "question_tags": ["united-states", "constitutional-law", "us-constitution", "immigration"], "choices": {"A": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "B": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "C": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16790/on-what-basis-might-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-be-illegal"}
{"id": "law_360", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer's instructions?", "question_body": "If a police officer gives me an order, how can I tell whether or not I'm legally obligated to follow that order? If I ask the officer, is he/she required by law to answer truthfully? If the police get to order citizens to do whatever they want, under whatever circumstances that they want, then go ahead and post that as an answer.", "question_score": 88, "question_tags": ["united-states", "police"], "choices": {"A": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "B": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "C": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "D": "You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are \"free to go\" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/360/how-can-you-tell-if-you-have-to-follow-a-police-officers-instructions"}
{"id": "law_48441", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How would the actions of Hänsel and Gretel in the Grimm tale be interpreted in modern law?", "question_body": "This came up as a layman’s law question. I thought of this when reading the classic Grimm tale Hänsel and Gretel to my children. The situation is as follows: The witch imprisons Hänsel with the stated intention to eat (and thus kill) him. Gretel is asked to light the fire in the oven with the stated intention by the witch to use the fire to cook Hänsel. Gretel pushes the witch into the burning oven and closes the door, knowing the witch will die in there. The witch is bigger and stronger than Gretel, so Gretel can’t really hope for a better chance to physically overwhelm her. Question: How would this be treated according to modern law? Would this be a straight-up murder or can Gretel claim some sort of self-defense and go free? If the answer depends on jurisdiction just make some reasonable choice.", "question_score": 88, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "law-in-fiction"], "choices": {"A": "Doing nothing is legally safer than doing something, but you're not without hope if you pull the lever. Although you'll likely have committed murder or at least manslaughter, case law is littered with lenience in exigent circumstances, even where convictions have been affirmed. Because this is a philosophical problem, there are plenty of opinions from that perspective, but not so many from a legal standpoint. Let's assume that you're an innocent bystander, (not an employee of the railway company or the train company, etc) and have no duty to act. If you do nothing, then it is unlikely that you...", "B": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "C": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...", "D": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48441/how-would-the-actions-of-h%c3%a4nsel-and-gretel-in-the-grimm-tale-be-interpreted-in-m"}
{"id": "law_63850", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why is stealing from an employer a criminal act when stealing from an employee is a civil act?", "question_body": "Here is the full question with all the context and details: In the majority of cases in the U.S. about theft at a workplace, why is the matter usually tried in a criminal court when the employer is stolen from, yet is tried in a civil court when the employee is stolen from? For example, if a bank owner refuses to send the last paycheck to someone who has just quit or been fired, it has to be fought in civil court. If a bank employee sneaks extra money from the branch, it has to be fought in criminal court. The following comments or something similar may be made, so I will address them before they are made: The reality for both examples above is that most of the time, it is not fought in court at all, and the injustice is just allowed to pass. I'm talking about which court it would be brought to, only considering all the times that the matter is actually brought to court, so this is an irrelevant point. The answer is as plain as day. It's because \"bill 9, section 9, article 6, subarticle 7, clause 45\" says so, you can read the legal document at this reference. I know it's because the laws say so, I'm asking why the laws say so. What is the legal history behind this imbalance, and why have things become the way they are today?", "question_score": 78, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "employment", "civil-law", "theft"], "choices": {"A": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...", "B": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "C": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "D": "What do you mean by \"stealing\"; this matters, because \"stealing\" often doesn't have a formal/legal definition (and when it does, it falls under your #2 point above, where the employer's action doesn't meet the definition of the forbidden act) and can describe conduct by both parties that could fall under both criminal and non-criminal remedies (i.e. civil and/or administrative action). Some examples: Employer criminal stealing : Taking an employee's property from their possession (e.g. taking cash from their wallet). Employer non-criminal stealing : Failing to pay an employee properly* (either not paying, or not paying completely, or not paying on..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/63850/why-is-stealing-from-an-employer-a-criminal-act-when-stealing-from-an-employee-i"}
{"id": "law_45484", "domain": "law", "question_title": "At what point can you walk out of a restaurant if they make you wait to pay the bill?", "question_body": "The other day, I ate at a restaurant; the food was fine, and I got to paying the bill. Their payment system went down. They couldn't accept cards; only cash, and I didn't have the cash on me for the bill. In the end, their payments system was down for about 45 minutes, with several diners being forced to wait around. The staff didn't at any time offer a reassurance that if things weren't fixed in a certain period of time, we could just leave. But it got me thinking to the legality of things - at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then?", "question_score": 76, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "commerce", "payment"], "choices": {"A": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "B": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "C": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "D": "In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/45484/at-what-point-can-you-walk-out-of-a-restaurant-if-they-make-you-wait-to-pay-the"}
{"id": "law_53481", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why is murder considered a more serious crime than attempted murder?", "question_body": "By its sentencing guidelines (the world over?), murder is considered a more serious crime than attempted murder. If intent to kill has indeed been proven, does the latter crime reward incompetence with leniency? Shouldn’t the incarceration of such a criminal be intended to either rehabilitate them, or to protect the public from them? So if the intent for an attempted and successful crime is the same, wouldn’t it take the same effort to rehabilitate them, or require the same precautions to contain them?", "question_score": 73, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "murder", "sentencing", "comparative-law", "theory-of-law"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "D": "Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/53481/why-is-murder-considered-a-more-serious-crime-than-attempted-murder"}
{"id": "law_4559", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why are lawyers typically excluded from juries?", "question_body": "At least in the United States practicing lawyers are called to serve on juries. But my understanding is at least one side will always remove them before trial. Why would it always be the case that at least one side would not want someone with legal training on a jury?", "question_score": 72, "question_tags": ["united-states", "jury", "lawyer"], "choices": {"A": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "B": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "C": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "D": "It would indeed be valid and legally enforceable. The Constitution places no limits on what languages bills must be written in. The Constitution specifically allows each house of Congress to make its own rules for how it passes bills, so, even if a house of Congress had a rule requiring its bills to be in English (which they don't, as far as I know,) they could simply change the rules and then pass the bill. From a practical standpoint, though, enforceability would also require courts to be able to discern Congress' intent from the bill. As such, unless we're expanding..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4559/why-are-lawyers-typically-excluded-from-juries"}
{"id": "law_22728", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can a law protect itself?", "question_body": "Can a law protect itself? For example, could it be written in to a law that, under no circumstances, it should be amended or abolished (a) for a fixed duration or (b) indefinitely? I am most interested in the United Kingdom but would also be interested to know what the general answer is, if there is one.", "question_score": 68, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...", "C": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "D": "australia Deliberately rendering the TV non-operational through software would appear to be malicious damage. Under the Australian Consumer Law, one of the statutory guarantees is that a product must be “durable”. Manufacturer’s can offer explicit warranties in addition but these in no way impact on the statutory guarantees. What durable means depends on the product and the price paid for it. For a low end TV, 3 years might be durable enough although it’s arguable, but for a high end TV it wouldn’t be. For whitegoods, 10 years would be appropriate. A similar period would be appropriate for a car...."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/22728/can-a-law-protect-itself"}
{"id": "law_37491", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it truly illegal for the US Armed Forces to hire someone whose IQ is less than 83?", "question_body": "In this video , Jordan Peterson says that [...] anybody into the Armed Forces if they have an IQ of less than 83 Is this true? What law is this supposed restriction based on?", "question_score": 67, "question_tags": ["united-states", "is-x-legal", "military"], "choices": {"A": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "B": "See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court .", "C": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "D": "This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of \"free\" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37491/is-it-truly-illegal-for-the-us-armed-forces-to-hire-someone-whose-iq-is-less-tha"}
{"id": "law_3921", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can you refuse to swear on the Bible?", "question_body": "Everyone has heard the procedure to get sworn in in an American court: Put your hand on a Holy Bible and answer yes to \"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?\" However swearing on a Holy Bible to God has decidedly Christian roots ( regardless of whether it is actually a Christian practice ) in an official setting in a country with a constitution that explicitly gives freedom of religion. As a non-Christian can you refuse to make such a vow?", "question_score": 66, "question_tags": ["united-states", "rules-of-court"], "choices": {"A": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...", "B": "In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to \"affirm\" instead of \"swear\" You do not have to say \"so help me God\" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed \"solemn affirmation\" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.", "C": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3921/can-you-refuse-to-swear-on-the-bible"}
{"id": "law_85325", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I legally include a line break in my child's name?", "question_body": "Ethics aside, is it legal (or even possible) to include a line break (newline) in my child's name? Preferably at the end of the child's first name, directly after the last letter. So instead of (for example) the name \"John Doe\", the name would always be written out \"John Doe\". And then when the first name only is written out the line break would have to be included, such as \"My child's first name is John and his last name is Doe\". If this is legal, how would I go about making sure the line break is included on the name section of the birth certificate?", "question_score": 66, "question_tags": ["name", "birth-certificate"], "choices": {"A": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "B": "In the US, any legal restrictions on names are implemented at the state level——although broad administrative restrictions exist on the federal level. Some states may restrict use of diacritics (ubiquitous in Vietnamese) or Arabic numerals (but not Roman numerals). At the other extreme, in Washington state, there is no requirement to include a name at all in the case of live birth of known parentage . In the case of delayed report of live birth , and \"An individual requesting the delayed report of live birth of an individual under twelve years of age must establish the facts concerning full...", "C": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "D": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85325/can-i-legally-include-a-line-break-in-my-childs-name"}
{"id": "law_28180", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How does SE's arbitration clause hold up under the GDPR?", "question_body": "Today the new Terms of Service of Stack Exchange have been released, sparking a lot of unrest about its arbitration clause; see the comments and answers on the linked meta above, and also this question . Does the GDPR prevent Stack Exchange from using the arbitration clause against EU citizens? In the sense that when there's a massive data leak and a large class-action suit will be filed, can EU citizens do that collectively, as opposed to going through arbitration for each separate user? The below is no longer applicable, since on the 10th of May electronic opt-out was made available . Related to this it states that the opt-out currently is a physical letter send to Stack Exchange (how they'd tie that letter to my SO account is a bit vague for me, as I can type any odd user page on my letter, not only my own), but this comment suggests that under GDPR there should be a digital opt-out for digital services. Does that mean that the entire clause is invalid (or however that goes in law), when there is no digital opt-out currently available?", "question_score": 64, "question_tags": ["european-union", "gdpr", "arbitration"], "choices": {"A": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "B": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the the right to an independent judge, as established in Golder v UK , ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves. (The Dutch case confirms that sector-wide arbitration is in fact legal, with regard to a standard arbitration clause commonly used in the Dutch building sector. The arbiter was found to be independent in that case precisely because they weren't picked by the builder involved.) The GDPR is only indirectly relevant, but the fact that it's mentioned..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28180/how-does-ses-arbitration-clause-hold-up-under-the-gdpr"}
{"id": "law_43175", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?", "question_body": "This recent article from The Verge claims that two men in San Diego have create a repo company that impounds e-scooters from companies like Lime, Bird, Lyft, Uber and Razor. However as far as I can tell these guys are doing this entirely on their own accord. They don't have a license from the city. They write \"tickets\" in their own system and charge their own rates. They are called not by police but by random business owners. To me this sounds like straight theft and extortion. Is this something they are legally allowed to do? The article claims that they are now being sued by all these big corporations, but it's unclear to my why this is being treated as a civil matter and not a criminal one.", "question_score": 63, "question_tags": ["california", "theft", "trespass", "extortion"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "C": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/43175/is-it-legal-for-private-citizens-to-impound-e-scooters"}
{"id": "law_15190", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest?", "question_body": "I recently read about protests blocking an interstate. I feel like ethically no one no (non-police) citizen has the right to obstruct my travel (on a public interstate for the sake of protest), therefore I'm interested to know if I personally have any legal route to retaliate against the individuals stopping my travel (exercising their rights at the expense of mine). Just because I think I should have the right to slowly push through a crowd unlawfully impeding my travel, doesn't make it the law, unfortunately. But that's why we have laws, right? So we can retaliate against people we feel are impeding our freedom in a peaceful manner. My question is simply of whether I have the ability to legally retaliate against the protesters who may have just made me an hour late for an important event by blocking a public freeway. Edit: Another way to look at it: If a police officer detained me without cause, and there were witnesses and video to verify this, I could sue the police department and win. Why then, can a group of citizens detain me without cause, without also facing legal repercussion? I'm curious to know what legal grounds I would have in this situation to travel unobstructed. Can I only call the police and hope they press charges? Can I video the protesters and press charges against each of them, even sue each protester for damages? In other words, is there any way for me to retaliate against the (unlawful) protesters legally and peacefully? Note: Many are responding with something along the lines of \"What if it were an accident? You couldn't press charges on the drivers in an accident for detaining you\". There's a huge difference between being detained by an accident, and a group of people intentionally and unlawfully detaining me on a public freeway. So I really don't understand these responses. My initial wording to the question seemed to confuse my intentions and lead to alot of \"no, you can't run them over\" rhetoric (which wasn't actually my question at all), so I've edited and simplified the question.", "question_score": 62, "question_tags": ["united-states", "travel"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...", "D": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/15190/what-power-do-i-have-as-a-driver-if-my-interstate-route-is-blocked-by-a-protest"}
{"id": "law_3381", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How do people publicly admit to criminal activity and not typically get arrested?", "question_body": "I've noticed that people on YouTube and even on TV would sometimes say things like \"I used to take lots of coke a few years ago\" or \"I used to smoke weed daily until this and that\" or \"Yea, I smoke weed every once in a while,\" or \"I used to pirate games a lot when I was a bit younger\" or \"I used pirated Windows and Photoshop until I got a job,\" etc., etc.. Basically they are confessing to a crime, on public record, couldn't anyone come after them? They've already confessed - technically all that would have to be done is a trial. In these cases: possession of coke, weed, pirating games and software. In some cases - admittance that they will do it again soon - smoke weed (\"I smoke it once in a while\"). I just keep wondering every time I hear or read it... I thought finally it's time to ask people who know what they're talking about and who may be able to satisfy my curiosity and help me understand. Hope the tags are right.", "question_score": 60, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "online-piracy", "punishment"], "choices": {"A": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no...", "D": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3381/how-do-people-publicly-admit-to-criminal-activity-and-not-typically-get-arrested"}
{"id": "law_37408", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I legally make a website about boycotting a certain company?", "question_body": "Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company? There is no lawsuit between myself and the company. There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives. However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott- company .com", "question_score": 59, "question_tags": ["united-states", "website"], "choices": {"A": "The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...", "B": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "C": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "D": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37408/can-i-legally-make-a-website-about-boycotting-a-certain-company"}
{"id": "law_71149", "domain": "law", "question_title": "HOA Prohibits "Large Families"", "question_body": "My wife and I have found a vacant lot (this is in Utah, BTW) where we would like to build a house. However, the HOA that the lot belongs to does not allow more than four occupants, regardless of the size of the home. The CCR actually says (community name) is designed and intended to be for a specific lifestyle. Neither the Units nor the common areas are designed to accommodate large families. Permanent residents of (community name) shall be restricted and limited to families with no more than four person's related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Does the HOA actually have authority to enforce this? What happens if we build a house (with plenty of room), move in with our two kids, and then have another baby?", "question_score": 59, "question_tags": ["real-estate", "hoa", "utah", "fair-housing-acts"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...", "D": "As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for \" housing for older persons \", and the act \"does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling\" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/71149/hoa-prohibits-large-families"}
{"id": "law_4483", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can an employer withhold pay for a fire drill?", "question_body": "Moved from WorkplaceSE . Recently there was a routine fire drill in an office building. As with most fire drills, it took about half an hour for the fire drill to complete and for everyone to get back to work. When the employees got back to their desks, they were told to charge 30 minutes of time to an overhead charge number, but then management sent out a correction saying that they were not allowed to charge the time lost during the fire drill. Instead, they had to \"flex\" their time (that is, make up the 30 minutes at some other time during the pay period, or else take vacation time). Is this illegal, or just bad practice? Do these employees have any recourse? Any examples of similar times when an employer mandates a period of time that an employee NOT be allowed to work during normal working hours are welcome also. Jurisdiction is in Virginia, USA, but input from other areas welcome for my curiosity. This didn't affect me personally so I'm not searching for legal advice, but it happened to some close acquaintances of mine. For them, the cost of just working an extra 30 minutes is far less than getting lawyers involved, but it did pique my interest so I thought it was worth a question.", "question_score": 57, "question_tags": ["united-states", "employment"], "choices": {"A": "This seems to fall under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and is defined as \"waiting time.\" From Employment Law Handbook : On-duty waiting time should be counted as hours worked. It is time spent by an employee, typically during normal work hours, waiting for direction from their team lead, supervisor, or manager. These on-duty waiting time periods usually last only for a short time and can be unpredictable as to when they occur and how long they will last. The employee is generally not allowed to leave the workplace during a period of on-duty waiting time. Essentially, because the...", "B": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "C": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "D": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4483/can-an-employer-withhold-pay-for-a-fire-drill"}
{"id": "law_38347", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?", "question_body": "The signature on my driver's license is a unique and identifiable smiley face :-) I use this signature to sign all legally binding documents. A lot of the time, people reject it, and request an \"actual signature\". I then show them that it is the same signature as my driver's license, and they usually, (but not always,) accept it. Is my signature legal? Or must it be my name? If it is legal, is it a bad idea?", "question_score": 57, "question_tags": ["united-states", "contract-law", "signature"], "choices": {"A": "Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face? Yes, that is lawful. A person's signature does not necessarily have to include the person's name or initials. What matters is that the signature reliably and unequivocally identifies the person who produces it, which apparently you have been able to prove by showing your driver's license. The Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) states in its entry for signature that \" whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself is sufficient \". It directs to the entry for sign , which likewise speaks in terms of...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38347/can-i-sign-legal-documents-with-a-smiley-face"}
{"id": "law_38916", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"", "question_body": "I've been living at this place for about two months and my lease looks pretty typical. Nothing unusual. I've had no problems so far. Today my landlord called me and explained something about the city wanting to charge him for a rental inspection that only covers the outside of the house, and so he's outraged that he has to pay for some guy to just look at the house from the sidewalk. He then explained that his plan is to present me with a \"land agreement\" and also a contract to invalidate the current lease so that I'm just paying him for the land agreement instead. I'm pretty confused about this whole thing and it doesn't seem right. Through some quick googling, it sounds like I'd suddenly have to pay taxes on the property as if I owned it. Suddenly I would become responsible for paying the fee he's complaining about? Not to mention I don't know if any tenant rights apply anymore. I'm deeply confused and would like to know if this is a thing many landlords try to do and whether there's anything I should start doing to cover myself if my landlord starts getting weirder. Update: He says it could be a few months before he has the land contract for me to sign. I haven't agreed to anything and told him I'm going to check with a lawyer before taking any action. Update 2: I'm not going to be signing anything and am going to be upfront about that rather than entertain the notion of having a lawyer look over the agreement. Thanks everyone!", "question_score": 57, "question_tags": ["united-states", "rental-property", "landlord", "ohio"], "choices": {"A": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "B": "In the US, any legal restrictions on names are implemented at the state level——although broad administrative restrictions exist on the federal level. Some states may restrict use of diacritics (ubiquitous in Vietnamese) or Arabic numerals (but not Roman numerals). At the other extreme, in Washington state, there is no requirement to include a name at all in the case of live birth of known parentage . In the case of delayed report of live birth , and \"An individual requesting the delayed report of live birth of an individual under twelve years of age must establish the facts concerning full...", "C": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "D": "A \"land contract\" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as \"contract for deed\". See \"What is a Land Contract in Ohio\" and \"How Land Contracts Work\" The actual law is Section 5313 . In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults,..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38916/landlord-wants-to-switch-my-lease-to-a-land-contract-to-get-back-at-the-city"}
{"id": "law_33056", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment?", "question_body": "In the fourteenth amendment, what does the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” contribute? What people born in the United States would not have been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Now answer the same question restated using original wording to include within \"The Jurisdiction\": would the formulation below have a different legal meaning? All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. (Purely theoretical legal question; no relation to current events.)", "question_score": 56, "question_tags": ["us-constitution", "fourteenth-amendment"], "choices": {"A": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "B": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "C": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "D": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33056/what-is-the-meaning-of-and-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-in-the-14th-ame"}
{"id": "law_73561", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why isn't a draft (conscription) slavery?", "question_body": "The 13th Amendment bans all slavery except for \"a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.\" It doesn't appear to contain any language about military service or national security. A draft is involuntary work that there is no way to opt out of. They can send you anywhere in the world and force you to perform any tasks they want, even some tasks that would be illegal for civilians (like killing people). If you refuse, you go to jail. Why isn't this considered slavery?", "question_score": 55, "question_tags": ["united-states", "military", "slavery"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "The only real answer is that the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the constitution, and specifically the argument that the 13th Amendment prohibits a draft for compelled military services has totally rejected that argument. For many years now the US has not used a draft, and it is obviously possible for the US to have an enduring and powerful military without any draft, which was perhaps not apparent to the Justices in 1918. A draft had been common in this country from the colonial period, through the Revolution, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and...", "D": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms...."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/73561/why-isnt-a-draft-conscription-slavery"}
{"id": "law_30098", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Course of action in a criminal case when there is no conceivable defense", "question_body": "I am not a lawyer or a law student; my work is in mathematics, but I like to learn about criminal law as a hobby. I have spent some time googling and searching to find an answer to my question but have found no results. Here is what I am interested in knowing: Suppose a public defender is assigned a criminal case — let's say the charges are gross misdemeanor or nonviolent felony — and there is quite literally no conceivable defense for the client. The prosecution has compelling evidence for all elements of the crime, action, and any required culpability. At this point, what do you do for your client? My best guess would be to put heavy effort into plea bargaining, but this scenario is something that is hard for me to learn about in my hobbyist pursuits because it isn't very well documented. It seems like something you learn from experience, and could depend greatly on the individual attorney and their relationships with the prosecutors in the jurisdiction. The only thing I can find that relates to my question is information about the strategies of lawyers who defended notorious murderers who were overwhelmingly guilty. I would like the scope of my question to be something less serious and less complicated than that. In most of those cases, the defenses' main goal was to keep them out of a death penalty, and the trials were long and complicated. Also, to be thorough, please feel free to note / comment on any of the following in an answer: You know there is practically no conceivable defense for your client; how does that change your efforts in plea bargaining? Let's say the prosecutor won't budge - not a single plea offer. You know there is practically no conceivable defense for your client - what do you do when the case goes to trial? At any point, is it a matter of ethics to make it clear to your client that there is no conceivable defense for their case and your primary service as their counsel will be to provide guidance through the confusing and complicated legal / court process and help make sure their rights to a fair trial are upheld? Now suppose you are not necessarily a public defender but a private attorney for hire. Someone comes to you looking to hire you for counsel on the type of charges outlined above. There is little to no conceivable defense. Do you take the case? If so, do you tell them this before negotiating a price? I understand my question is certainly subjective. The answer could vary greatly from case to case, dependent on countless variables. I do, however, still think it is constructive and on topic because it can be answered on a high level as to how to initially assess those variables and form a strategy. I am open to feedback for how to improve my question. Please edit tags as needed.", "question_score": 54, "question_tags": ["united-states", "criminal-law"], "choices": {"A": "There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...", "B": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "C": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "D": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/30098/course-of-action-in-a-criminal-case-when-there-is-no-conceivable-defense"}
{"id": "law_31368", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How does the mandate to report income from illegal activities in the US jibe with the Fifth Amendment?", "question_body": "Al Capone was famously taken down for tax evasion for not reporting income from his illegal activities. If someone were to report the income from illegal activities like a marijuana dispensary or a bribe, my understanding is that they would be then investigated/prosecuted for their disclosed activities. However, The Fifth Amendment states that: No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,... Since reporting income, even if illegal, is a mandate and the Fifth Amendment protects against someone being held as a witness against themselves, the law seems to be inconsistent. How does the mandate to report income from illegal activities in the US jibe with the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination?", "question_score": 52, "question_tags": ["united-states", "tax-law", "fifth-amendment"], "choices": {"A": "There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...", "B": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...", "C": "The original 1913 Revenue Act only required the reporting of income from \"lawful\" sources. In the 1921 Revenue Act the word, \"lawful\" was removed requiring all income to be reported. [IRS Publication 17] states: Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. In United States v. Sullivan in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to require that a tax return be filed to report income. If...", "D": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31368/how-does-the-mandate-to-report-income-from-illegal-activities-in-the-us-jibe-wit"}
{"id": "law_28856", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is requesting waiving the right to deletion of contributions against GDPR?", "question_body": "I just got one of those GDPR mails from gitlab.com, which pointed me to a Web page where I had to accept some terms and conditions. The same as everywhere, except this passage: (For GitLab Contributors Only) As part of my voluntary contribution to any GitLab project, I acknowledge and agree that my name and email address will become embedded and part of the code, which may be publicly available. I understand the removal of this information would be impermissibly destructive to the project and the interests of all those who contribute, utilize, and benefit from it. Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I hereby waive any right to request any erasure, removal, or rectification of this information under any applicable privacy or other law and acknowledge and understand that providing this information is a requirement under the agreement to contribute to the GitLab project. As far as I understood GDPR, this passage is just plain bullocks and they're trying to get away with arguably the most difficult bit of GDPR, especially if you consider their argument. I can feel their pain, but it also just doesn't feel like this is made possible by GDPR and if GitLab would deny or not completely fulfil such a deletion request, it would be liable to litigation. Am I correct in this? Note: I'm not trying to put GitLab in a bad spot here, they're just the first (only?) ones that included this kind of passage in their agreement.", "question_score": 51, "question_tags": ["privacy", "gdpr"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "C": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "D": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28856/is-requesting-waiving-the-right-to-deletion-of-contributions-against-gdpr"}
{"id": "law_84554", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why do lawyers write contracts with language that is more difficult to understand than other works?", "question_body": "The recent Ig Nobel Prize Winning work \"Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language\" by Martínez, Mollica, and Gibson demonstrates that contracts are written in language that is harder to understand than other genres such as academic or media writing. In particular, center-embedded clauses are used at more than twice the rate in contracts than in other professional writing except newspapers, lead to long-distance syntactic dependencies and are recalled and comprehended at lower rates than excerpts without these clauses. Why is this? One would have thought that making contracts understandable to the parties would generally be in everyone best interest, but it is possible to imagine situations where this is not the case. Abstract of the paper: Despite their ever-increasing presence in everyday life, contracts remain notoriously inaccessible to laypeople. Why? Here, a corpus analysis (n ≈10 million words) revealed that contracts contain startlingly high proportions of certain difficult-to-process features–including low-frequency jargon, center-embedded clauses (leading to long-distance syntactic dependencies), passive voice structures, and non-standard capitalization–relative to nine other baseline genres of written and spoken English. Two experiments (N=184) further revealed that excerpts containing these features were recalled and comprehended at lower rates than excerpts without these features, even for experienced readers, and that center-embedded clauses inhibited recall more-so than other features. These findings (a) undermine the specialized concepts account of legal theory, according to which law is a system built upon expert knowledge of technical concepts; (b) suggest such processing difficulties result largely from working-memory limitations imposed by long-distance syntactic dependencies (i.e., poor writing) as opposed to a mere lack of specialized legal knowledge; and (c) suggest editing out problematic features of legal texts would be tractable and beneficial for society at-large. Comparison of indices of linguistic processing difficulty in contracts versus various genres of written and spoken English. Effect of text register (legalese vs simple) on comprehension accuracy in the main experiment (i) and replication study (ii), and recall of legal content in the main study (iii). Effect of language experience (measured using Author Recognition Task) on comprehension accuracy (iv). Posterior distribution over logistic regression coefficients reflecting the influence of condition and each surface property on recall (v). Negative coefficient values reflect a decrease in recall performance.", "question_score": 51, "question_tags": ["contract-law", "lawyer", "legal-writing"], "choices": {"A": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "B": "There Is Little Pressure To Improve Contract Drafting One piece of the puzzle is tradition and habitual writing style. A customary writing style for legal documents evolved over time, some of those conventions have evolved overtime (e.g. \"Party of the first part, party of the second part\"), others have not. Archaic vocabulary is slowly being weeded out, but again, it is almost never the goal of someone drafting a contract to reduce the reading level of the document. As long as the judge, or other lawyers, know what it means, it is an aesthetic stylistic issue more than it is...", "C": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "D": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84554/why-do-lawyers-write-contracts-with-language-that-is-more-difficult-to-understan"}
{"id": "law_16673", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why is the structure of the US Code so poor? (And would it even be legal to reorganize it?)", "question_body": "In the process of researching the legality of coil guns in Massachusetts (University engineering project), I stumbled across Cornell's Legal Information Institute, which offers what appears to be a complete rendition of the entire United States Code, and decided to do a little exploring. While I learned a lot of interesting tidbits of information perusing the U.S.C., I was amazed at how poorly it was structured. I know politics is sticky business, and not everything is going to be clean, but what I saw struck me as exceptionally bad. In software design, there's a widely used phrase to describe certain particularly jumbled programs: spaghetti code. This term can be applied to programs which have poor data structure designs, are poorly organized, or simply just don't make logical sense in terms of the way they are laid out. The name comes from how these attributes can be applied to a bowl of spaghetti; it's jumbled and tangled together, and you would be required to really dig deep to find, say, the two ends of a single strand. As someone who is very active in open-source programming, a development style that fundamentally breeds spaghetti code, my first reaction upon seeing the U.S.C. in its entirety was, \"Oh my god, this is spaghetti code.\" The organization is so horribly jumbled. For example, in regards to the Titles, why would topics that sound so incredibly broad, such as Title 6 - Domestic Security, and Title 12 - Banks and Banking, be in the same structural level as Title 23 - Highways, or Title 24 - Hospitals and Asylums? Why do we have Title 14 - Coast Guard and Title 32 - National Guard when there is Title 10 - Armed Forces? The Coast Guard and the National Guard are clearly both a subset of the Armed Forces. Why is a \"machine gun\" defined under Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code, when every single other type of firearm seems to be defined under Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure? It's not as if Title 26 is redefining a machine gun for the purpose of tax law; Title 18 actually states something along the lines of \"Machine gun, as defined in Title 26 / Section etc etc\". I could go on and on about the various inconsistencies that I see in regards to how the U.S.C. is structured. Maybe I see it as more of a problem due to my involvement in software development, a field in which structure is paramount to success, but this just doesn't sit right with me. That leads me to my questions (finally): 1. Are there any underlying reasons behind the nonsensical structure of U.S.C. titles? Is it simply a case of \"This is how it's been for awhile, don't fix what isn't broken.\" or is there more to it than that? 2. Pretend that over the next few election cycles, a super majority of software engineers and computer scientists are elected to the House and Senate. These people take structure very seriously, and they are very unhappy with the structure of the U.S.C. Barring the even more ridiculous case of Congress repealing everything and passing the exact same laws again, just under different Titles/Chapters/etc, would it be possible for Congress to arbitrarily merge, combine, and delete Titles, and to rearrange the location of laws, definitions, etc? Are there laws/regulations governing this?", "question_score": 50, "question_tags": ["united-states", "legal-history", "legal-writing"], "choices": {"A": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "B": "Are there any underlying reasons behind the nonsensical structure of U.S.C. titles? Is it simply a case of \"This is how it's been for awhile, don't fix what isn't broken.\" or is there more to it than that? First of all, the United States Code is generally not designed to be used by non-lawyers. Second, one of the main ways to research case law interpreting a statute is by doing a boolean search on the code section of that statute. Every time you change a title or section number, you impair the ability of people doing legal research (both judges...", "C": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...", "D": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16673/why-is-the-structure-of-the-us-code-so-poor-and-would-it-even-be-legal-to-reor"}
{"id": "law_41742", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How come the nude protesters were not arrested?", "question_body": "I read today about the Anti-Censorship Activists in New York (Warning! NSFW pictures inside link) who protested against Facebook while being totally nude out in the street. I'm also pretty sure public nudity is not allowed in the USA. How come they were not arrested or at least warned by police? Is there some exception to the law?", "question_score": 50, "question_tags": ["united-states", "protest"], "choices": {"A": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "B": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "C": "A \"land contract\" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as \"contract for deed\". See \"What is a Land Contract in Ohio\" and \"How Land Contracts Work\" The actual law is Section 5313 . In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults,...", "D": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/41742/how-come-the-nude-protesters-were-not-arrested"}
{"id": "law_2163", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How is it possible for millions to use pirated software at home and never get arrested?", "question_body": "It's not like talking about using weeds that you tell your friends about but you don't go in public shouting about it. Instead people go to online forums sometimes posting with their real names- bragging about using pirated software. What is exactly stopping the police from having them arrested?", "question_score": 49, "question_tags": ["copyright"], "choices": {"A": "You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation...", "B": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "C": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "D": "Civil law instead of criminal law Not all things that we commonly refer to as \"illegal\" are actually crimes - many of them refer to violations of contracts or other obligations where the harmed party may (or may not) use the civil system to obtain some satisfaction, but the government and prosecutors will not do it for them. In general (with some exceptions, depends on jurisdiction and circumstances), most low scale copyright violations are treated as a civil matter - it allows the harmed party (i.e. the copyright owner) to sue you for damages in a civil court, if they..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2163/how-is-it-possible-for-millions-to-use-pirated-software-at-home-and-never-get-ar"}
{"id": "law_37252", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it illegal to infringe copyright if your boss or your client ordered you to do it?", "question_body": "The first possible scenario is this: suppose you work in a company, and you need to install some software for a client. The software needs to be purchased, but the boss tells you to just download it for free illegally (infringing copyright). You tell your boss that of course that's illegal and it's not the best way to do the job, but they tell you: \"I know, but who cares, just download it for free\". If you did it, who would be responsible for the illegal download in this situation? If you are responsible, how should you deal with such a situation? The second possible scenario is this: suppose you are a freelance software developer, and your client asks you to install a thing for them. They give you a link to an unofficial website where you can download the stuff for free (illegally). You tell them it's illegal, and the stuff should be purchased. They tell you: \"Who cares, I'm not going to spend any money for purchasing it, your job is just to do exactly what I've told you, that is, just install it, and that's it\". Again who would be responsible and how should you deal with this situation? Of course here there's always the option to not accept the job since you are a freelancer, but I also wonder if there are other options in theory. For example, maybe the client could download the software illegally themself, and then only give it to you for the installation? Location of the scenarios: any States of United States or any Member States of the European Union, but only one jurisdiction at a time.", "question_score": 49, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright", "european-union", "liability", "workplace"], "choices": {"A": "You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are \"free to go\" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...", "B": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...", "C": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "D": "There are two parts to copyright liability: civil and criminal. TL;DR: both cases are criminal offences, and it is illegal to break the law even when you are paid to do it. In the USA criminal copyright infringement requires a deliberate act to infringe copyright for commercial gain. Both of the scenarios meet these requirements. In the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) criminal copyright infringement includes possess in the course of a business an article which is, and which you know or have reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37252/is-it-illegal-to-infringe-copyright-if-your-boss-or-your-client-ordered-you-to-d"}
{"id": "law_49002", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I ask a cop, "What happened?"", "question_body": "Around 10pm, I see red and blue lights through my window. I look outside, and I see 7 cop cars (and a bike) in front of my house. There are 8 cops standing around in a circle, laughing -- I'm concerned because I bought this (my first) home only months ago. I go out and from a distance have the following dialogue: me: \"Is everything okay?\" cop1: \"It's okay, was just a shark attack.\" me: \"What?\" cop2: \"We caught the bad guy.\" And they turned back around to their group, barring me from further conversation. Did I just have a run-in with an arrogant group of officers, or am I in the wrong here? Can I legally pursue the question of \"Hey, what's happening here?\" Are they not required to inform me if I ask? Edit: I live in west Florida, if that's relevant. I could see it possibly being based on local laws?", "question_score": 49, "question_tags": ["united-states", "police", "florida"], "choices": {"A": "You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like \"am I free to go\" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...", "B": "As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for \" housing for older persons \", and the act \"does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling\" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...", "C": "The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...", "D": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/49002/can-i-ask-a-cop-what-happened"}
{"id": "law_83710", "domain": "law", "question_title": "At what point is uploading a movie with heavy compression not copyright infringement?", "question_body": "My friend recently linked me a GIF of the entire Shrek movie in 60x60 resolution . At the time of writing this, it has 12 million views on imgur. This got me thinking, could a copyright holder technically sue over the uploading of this GIF? I'm guessing yes, because it's still barely legible. But at what point are they not allowed to do so? Surely they can't claim intellectual property over one pixel shifting to specific colors for 90 minutes, for example? How about 2x2? Etc. I read What considerations determine copyright infringement? which to me makes it seem like they COULD sue over the one pixel shifting colors for 90 minutes, because I did copy and modify the movie. Is that really true? I also read How similar should a tune be to constitute theft of someone else's tune? which states that it depends a lot on the case since there are so many variables. Is that also true in this case? I imagine songs work very different from movies. Looking for both US or EU answers.", "question_score": 49, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright", "intellectual-property", "internet", "european-union"], "choices": {"A": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "B": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...", "C": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "D": "A few years ago, there was a trial in the USA about some short sound on some music CD: One party claimed that one piece of music on the CD contained a sound of less than one second length which is copied from another CD without the permission of the copyright owner of the other CD. It could never be found out if this claim was really true. The court's decision was: If it is not possible to distinguish between a copy and a work that does not depend on the other work at all, it is not a copyright..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/83710/at-what-point-is-uploading-a-movie-with-heavy-compression-not-copyright-infringe"}
{"id": "law_85191", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why are Russian combatants in Ukraine considered soldiers rather than terrorists?", "question_body": "The question bothers me since February 2022. Why (legally) are Russian combatants in Ukraine considered soldiers (thus POWs when captured) rather than terrorists? There is no formal declaration of war. They are members an organization (Russian military) that commits acts of terrors to civilian population in clear violation of international law of war. Moreover, they either directly or indirectly contribute to the mentioned acts of terror. Their state (Russia) explicitly claims that there is no war (thus unilaterally waiving the protection of law of war for Russian forces). Why is that particular group of armed people acting in clear violation of Ukrainian law treated as \"soldiers in war\" rather than state-sponsored criminals? Note, that waiving the protection of law of war does not waive the protection of Ukrainian law (right to due process etc.).", "question_score": 49, "question_tags": ["international", "laws-of-war", "russia", "ukraine", "terrorism"], "choices": {"A": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of \" 30 days of employment with xxxxx \". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of \" 1-year commitment \" is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, \" not to quit \") in...", "B": "Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...", "C": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "D": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85191/why-are-russian-combatants-in-ukraine-considered-soldiers-rather-than-terrorists"}
{"id": "law_42930", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can a Resident Assistant be told to ignore a lawful order?'", "question_body": "Today I have an interesting question involving Police, Fire and university administration. A little bit of background: for the past few years, my University has been involved in a small, awkward cold war with local emergency responders over expectations on live-in Residential Assistants during emergency situations. Specifically, the biggest flashpoints are fire alarms and wellness checks on residents. Within the dorms, we have been told that both Campus Police and Local Fire Departments have been provided keys to all rooms in case an emergency (fire or safety) is reported. We have also been told that we are, under no circumstances , to assist Police or Fire with entering a room (to which we have keys as Resident Assistants, for lockouts and the like) until we have received permission from several layers of (on-call) department administration. The heads of the Residential Services Office insist that this is to protect the department in the case of a privacy complaint on behalf of a resident who we let police into the room of, and to avoid liability from ordering (by policy) RAs back into a potentially dangerous building under alarm. Police and fire, meanwhile, never seem to have the keys. Thus, for the safety of the building or the resident, they will order us to open up the door for them, right now. Which brings us to the issue: Police/fire wants us to open a door, and gives us what I believe is a lawful order do so. Meanwhile, Residence Life policy wants us to call up to our supervisor and follow a whole procedure, directly countermanding the orders of the officer or firefighter on scene. Must I open the door, legally speaking? And is my department's policy of refusal illegal/unenforceable?", "question_score": 48, "question_tags": ["united-states", "police", "ohio", "emergencies"], "choices": {"A": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "B": "There is a state law that requires you to obey the police: ORC 2917.13 , which says you may not Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. If you do, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree. You also cannot...", "C": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "D": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/42930/can-a-resident-assistant-be-told-to-ignore-a-lawful-order"}
{"id": "law_247", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger's picture in public?", "question_body": "With Snapchat and Instagram it is all too easy to abuse picture taking and really inexpensive to snap a photo of an unknowing stranger. If you are in public and will only post pictures online without their permission, can the victim take legal action against you? What would be the effect on the photo taker? Will there be punishment for the host company (if it encourages this type of behavior)?", "question_score": 47, "question_tags": ["united-states", "privacy", "right-of-publicity", "photography"], "choices": {"A": "In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to \"affirm\" instead of \"swear\" You do not have to say \"so help me God\" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed \"solemn affirmation\" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.", "B": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "C": "In the United States, You have no expectation of privacy in public . Anything you can see from a public place, you can take a picture of, even if the \"victim\" is in their own home but has the blinds open. If you are standing on a public sidewalk or street, you would legally be able to take a picture with certain exceptions. An exception to this would be: if with just your eyes you can see into a private home, you can take a picture of that, but if you require a telescopic lense with some sort of IR...", "D": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/247/what-are-the-legal-repercussions-of-taking-a-strangers-picture-in-public"}
{"id": "law_6685", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can UPS really trademark the color brown?", "question_body": "So, today as I received an email from UPS, I read the disclaimer at the end and it said: © 2016 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved. What exactly does it mean that the \" color brown \" is a trademark of someone? Does it refer specifically to the brown in the logo's arrangement? And if so, anyone that uses that same color is subject to trademark infringement?", "question_score": 47, "question_tags": ["united-states", "intellectual-property", "trademark"], "choices": {"A": "Inks for reproduction can be mixed to create very custom colors. It is entirely possible to trademark a special \"recipe\" of ink which results in the same color each time. So yes. In terms of branding -- colors, or specific color combinations, can be trademarked. Don't confuse \"trademark\" with \"ownership\" or \"copyright\". Trademark merely means in that particular industry the company has staked a claim on a specific color or color combination. Trademarks are more about preventing brand confusion within the same industry. You're free to use the same colors in a completely separate industry and even in some cases...", "B": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...", "C": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "D": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6685/can-ups-really-trademark-the-color-brown"}
{"id": "law_17059", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can illegal aliens claim sanctuary in a church?", "question_body": "This tweet (as quoted in a Washington Post article ), seems to suggest that illegal aliens can claim sanctuary in a church: #GuadalupeGarcia attorney says @ICEgov has lied to him and he will advise future clients to seek sanctuary in churches. (For context, Guadalupe Garcia was living in the US without documentation and was deported during a regular check in with ICE.) However, I did a search and only turned up articles saying this wasn't actually a law in the United States. Then I came across the case of Elvira Arellano , who sought refuge in a Methodist church for a year. I'm assuming the church didn't simply hide her whenever the police came around for a whole year, since she did interviews and such, but she was arrested when she left, so the authorities were clearly still actively looking to arrest her. Are police legally required to recognize a claim of sanctuary in a church?", "question_score": 47, "question_tags": ["united-states", "police", "immigration", "arrest", "religion"], "choices": {"A": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "B": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "C": "The case you identify is not unique. For example, the Unitarian church in Denver has done much the same thing. There is not a legal right to sanctuary in a church. But, as a manner of law enforcement discretion and public relations and customary traditions of law enforcement respect for churches that long predate the formation of the USA, law enforcement routinely acts as if there was a right to sanctuary in churches (in the absence, for example, of an active shooter situation or a hostage crisis or a kidnapping with a missing victim). I am not aware of any...", "D": "This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of \"free\" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17059/can-illegal-aliens-claim-sanctuary-in-a-church"}
{"id": "law_26950", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I sue a restaurant for serving me meat in vegetarian dish?", "question_body": "I am a vegetarian for religious reasons. I was at Chipotle on Saturday and ordered a sofritas rice bowl which is \"vegan approved\". To my surprise, I found a chunk of chicken in my bowl when I was halfway through eating it. Made me feel sick to the stomach realizing that I may have eaten chicken already. Went back to the Order desk and showed the server meat in my bowl. They immediately offered a refund and asked if I wish to file a complaint. The manager brought out a complaint form and filled for me. Gave me a copy as well. I did not take any refund. just walked out, I was very upset. My question is: Can I take a legal action against Chipotle?", "question_score": 46, "question_tags": ["civil-law", "food"], "choices": {"A": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "B": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "C": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "D": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26950/can-i-sue-a-restaurant-for-serving-me-meat-in-vegetarian-dish"}
{"id": "law_30946", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do we have to take down the material for 14 days even if the DMCA notice is erroneous?", "question_body": "A very large site and my site are both licensed to use product images created and photographed by the same vendor. Now the large site comes after my site and sends a DMCA notice to my hosting provider, asking us to take down quite some of our most popular products. While it's absolutely a false claim and it's possible that they had no idea we were licensed just as they were, it seems I have to take down the infringing materials and send back a counter-notice and wait for 14 days ? My question is is this fair? 14 days are enough for Google to de-index the page and for it to lose all the ranking juices. Not to mention the sales losses . What if they actually know we are licensed but just wanted to ruin our site rankings and keep coming after us in future? Do we still have to follow the legal procedures to take down whatever products they claim infringing for 14 days? What better options do we have here? Update After I first posted this question, my host restored the allegedly infringing product after 14 days of my providing the counter DMCA notice. Now the same complaint is after us again on another of our popular products. This is really annoying and stupid. How can I end this once and for all? We are not physically in United States, can we still find someone to win the lawsuit for us? Or is there any other way to stop them?", "question_score": 46, "question_tags": ["copyright", "dmca"], "choices": {"A": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "B": "There is a slight confusion here: The large company sent the DMCA notice to your host, not to you. You are not taking down anything. The host does that. If the DMCA takedown notice is following all the rules, then your host has two choices: Take down your content, or be willing to be part of a copyright court case. Assuming that the host doesn't want to go to court and potentially lose tons of money, they will take down your content. Until you send a counter notice. Now you can only legally create a DMCA notice as the copyright...", "C": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "D": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/30946/do-we-have-to-take-down-the-material-for-14-days-even-if-the-dmca-notice-is-erro"}
{"id": "law_31015", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I forbid the government from using my patented invention?", "question_body": "(this is a purely hypothetical situation, for literary research) I've filed a patent on a certain technology for facial recognition/analysis, and as the patent holder I want to use my exclusivity to ensure it's not used to harm anyone. Unfortunately, the nature of the invented technique can be easily misused for what I believe are evil purposes. Military, then law enforcement agencies, have begun connecting me with manufacturers who want to incorporate my technique into their software suites, to which I am firmly opposed. Mind, the patent is still in review, so getting inquiries this soon strikes me as odd. My question is, can I deny the military use of my invention should the patent be approved, and if not, are there any ways in which I can sabotage or otherwise render it difficult for them? Perhaps by requesting an impractically large royalty or purposely presenting a subtly faulty implementation to their manufacturing firm?", "question_score": 46, "question_tags": ["united-states", "patents", "texas"], "choices": {"A": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "B": "If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not \"practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . \"Practicing law\" includes \"representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . \"[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.\" Maryland Business...", "C": "You cannot deny the federal government the right to use your patent, but you can sue them for \"recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture\", see 28 USC 1498 . Note that the statute refers to such use as being \"without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same\", that is, there is no lawful right to infringe on a patent, but recourse for infringement is highly limited. A suit against the government under §1498 is (see the summary in Airborne Data v. US , 702 F.2d 1350) on...", "D": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31015/can-i-forbid-the-government-from-using-my-patented-invention"}
{"id": "law_24104", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it illegal to backup your hard drive if you have copyrighted software on it?", "question_body": "Is it illegal if you create a backup of an HDD that has copyrighted software installed on it? This could be anything from legally purchased games and or expensive popular graphics/video editing programs, just as an example. Is this backup an illegal copy of the original HDD?", "question_score": 45, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright", "software", "licensing", "online-piracy"], "choices": {"A": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "B": "See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court .", "C": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "D": "You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/24104/is-it-illegal-to-backup-your-hard-drive-if-you-have-copyrighted-software-on-it"}
{"id": "law_51959", "domain": "law", "question_title": "In Los Angeles can I defend my own property against looters?", "question_body": "Currently, there is looting being done in Los Angeles by many people who are pretending to protest against the killing of George Floyd (some others are actually protesting and a few people are helping to stop looters). If someone were to loot my property (business) would I be within my rights to deter them by shooting at them with a paintball gun and / or using a long-leashed German Shepard near the door? Also to potentially citizen arrest with zip-ties? (if feasible)", "question_score": 45, "question_tags": ["united-states", "california", "property", "trespass", "citizens-arrest"], "choices": {"A": "My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...", "B": "If you are arrested for assault, you have available to you the defense of the right to defend real or personal property : you \"may use reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm\". The level of force proposed is clearly within the boundaries of the reasonable.", "C": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "D": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51959/in-los-angeles-can-i-defend-my-own-property-against-looters"}
{"id": "law_80132", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If Congress passed a bill written in a language other than English, would it be valid?", "question_body": "Suppose Congress passed a bill written in Spanish and the President signed it. Everything about the bill and the procedures by which it was written and passed were completely normal, other than the language. (Assume everyone in Congress, as well as the President, is fluent in Spanish.) Would the fact that the law is written in a language other than English have any effect on its enforceability, other than the practical difficulties caused by many people not understanding it?", "question_score": 45, "question_tags": ["united-states", "congress", "language"], "choices": {"A": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "B": "It would indeed be valid and legally enforceable. The Constitution places no limits on what languages bills must be written in. The Constitution specifically allows each house of Congress to make its own rules for how it passes bills, so, even if a house of Congress had a rule requiring its bills to be in English (which they don't, as far as I know,) they could simply change the rules and then pass the bill. From a practical standpoint, though, enforceability would also require courts to be able to discern Congress' intent from the bill. As such, unless we're expanding...", "C": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "D": "\"Posted\" is a Term of Art \" Posted \" is a term of art in trespass law, specifically meaning that signs forbidding entry have been placed at the borders of a parcel. The page \"Properly posted definition\" from Law Insider reads: Properly posted means that signs prohibiting trespass—or bright yellow, bright orange or fluorescent paint—are clearly displayed at all corners, on fishing streams crossing property lines, and on roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land. Or, they are displayed in a manner that is visible to a person in the area. The entry \"Posting\" in the \"Legal\" section of The..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80132/if-congress-passed-a-bill-written-in-a-language-other-than-english-would-it-be"}
{"id": "law_38013", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned", "question_body": "A Virginia employee was terminated within 1 year of hiring because the on-site customer felt he was \"too negative\". Offer Letter: Along with this offer, you are receiving a $10,000.00 signing bonus, which includes $3,000.00 to be paid directly to you in your first company paycheck and the remaining $7,000.00 to be paid to you at 30 days of employment with xxxxx. A 1−year commitment required or the bonus will be repaid in full to xxxxx. Can the employer legally keep the employee's last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ?", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["employment", "virginia"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of \" 30 days of employment with xxxxx \". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of \" 1-year commitment \" is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, \" not to quit \") in...", "C": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "D": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38013/virginia-employer-terminated-employee-and-wants-signing-bonus-returned"}
{"id": "law_41748", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal for a bar bouncer to confiscate a fake ID", "question_body": "Background: I read a Reddit thread where someone had an international passport confiscated from them at a bar. I imagine that the bouncer probably didn't recognize what he was looking at and assumed it was a fake ID. From what I understand, the bar does not have the authority to confiscate such a real passport, but that got me to thinking, what if the Bouncer was right? Does he actually have the legal authority to confiscate the fake ID? The reason I ask, is because if he does have that authority, it feels to me like an awkward law, because a simple gap in knowledge can be what makes the difference between legal and illegal.", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["illinois", "identification"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "C": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "D": "There are a couple of indications that a bouncer may not confiscate an ID. This policy document adopting licensing policies to Require licensees with fake ID violations to temporarily or permanently hire on-site law enforcement or certified security guards who are properly trained to check IDs during regular or peak hours to deter the use of fake IDs and give gatekeepers the opportunity to pass suspected fakes to an officer or guard for a second opinion and potential confiscation. Where appropriate, jurisdictions could empower the gatekeeper to confiscate fake IDs so they are not returned to the underage drinker and..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/41748/is-it-legal-for-a-bar-bouncer-to-confiscate-a-fake-id"}
{"id": "law_42984", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal for a supermarket to refuse to sell an adult beer if an adult with them doesn’t have their ID?", "question_body": "Today I went with my dad grocery shopping at a supermarket in New York (ShopRite) and he put a six-pack of beer in the cart. They then wouldn’t let him buy the beer because they couldn’t ID me (21, but I dress for work so I look more like 25). Even when I left the store to wait in the car they made him check out at a different register. Is this legal? I wasn’t buying anything; I was just helping him load stuff onto the conveyor belt.", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["united-states", "new-york-state", "alcohol", "is-x-legal", "identification"], "choices": {"A": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "B": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "C": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/42984/is-it-legal-for-a-supermarket-to-refuse-to-sell-an-adult-beer-if-an-adult-with-t"}
{"id": "law_43435", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I enter a rental property without giving notice if I'm afraid a tenant may be hurt?", "question_body": "I rent a “Mother-In-Laws quarters” (guest area) that is on the side of my house. It has a private entrance. If I'm concerned something has happened to the tenant, am I legally allowed to enter the building without giving notice? Some background : For the first time, my tenant is late on rent, and hasn't contacted me in any way which seems very unusual for her. Yesterday I texted once to remind about the rent, and a second time asking if they are okay once I noticed there was still mail from a few days ago in her mail box right by her door with no response. I also couldn't hear TV through the wall which I usually can, and her curtains were never opened which I notice she usually does during the day. The air conditioning also wasn't on all day, which is also unusual. She's elderly and I'm afraid she may have fallen or even worse. I'm planning on knocking on her door on my lunch break. If she does not answer the door, I'm trying to figure out if I can go ahead and enter the property and make sure everything is okay.", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["california", "rental-property"], "choices": {"A": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "D": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/43435/can-i-enter-a-rental-property-without-giving-notice-if-im-afraid-a-tenant-may-b"}
{"id": "law_60445", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If I'm the CEO and largest shareholder of a public company, would taking anything from my office be considered as a theft?", "question_body": "To summarize it, I'll give an example: I'm Bill Gates. I own Microsoft. On a desk, there's a Microsoft Surface that is branded by my company. I decide to take it home and never bring it back, although I didn't buy it personally, and the company's budget was spent on it. Would that be a theft?", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["united-states", "business", "property"], "choices": {"A": "Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...", "B": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "C": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...", "D": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/60445/if-im-the-ceo-and-largest-shareholder-of-a-public-company-would-taking-anythin"}
{"id": "law_80047", "domain": "law", "question_title": "After buying from a brick & mortar shop they've contacted me to say buying things from them is consent to arbitration. Is this legal?", "question_body": "A few days ago I bought over-the-counter goods from a shop. There was no signature involved in this purchase. I walked up to the counter with off-the-shelf items, was asked for a phone number, paid in cash, then left. They just sent a text message claiming that buying anything from them constitutes waiver of right to sue them and consent to binding arbitration. Is the shop violating any law? The shop was in Ohio, United States of America.", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["united-states", "contract-law", "consumer-protection", "ohio", "arbitration"], "choices": {"A": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...", "B": "Technically speaking, it's not illegal: spontaneously making a false statement to someone does not fall under any of Ohio's laws regarding fraud or the like. It also doesn't have any legal effect. You can't retroactively change the terms of a deal; if they didn't tell you about an arbitration requirement at the time you made the purchase, there is no arbitration requirement (and the burden of proof here is on them, not you).", "C": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "D": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)"}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80047/after-buying-from-a-brick-mortar-shop-theyve-contacted-me-to-say-buying-thing"}
{"id": "law_93045", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What 'specific legal meaning' does the word "strike" have?", "question_body": "Over on main meta, on the post containing a statement from Stack Overflow about the current moderator action , there was a brief edit war over the inclusion (or not) of the word \"strike\" in the title. An SO staff member said : While we recognize that the community is referring to this event as a \"strike\", that term has a specific legal meaning and we have been advised not to refer to it as such. For that reason, we ask that future editors of this post do not edit it to use that language. What 'specific legal meaning' might be being referred to here? Why might a corporation want the act of refusing to perform duties to not be referred to as a strike? Is it relevant that those withholding effort are unpaid volunteers? I'm guessing at the jurisdiction and hence the appropriate tag.", "question_score": 44, "question_tags": ["united-states", "labor-law"], "choices": {"A": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "B": "Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...", "C": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...", "D": "united-states Under US law, unions and employees enjoy a set of protections codified under the National Labor Relations Act. Some of those rights specifically pertain to strikes , and in particular, employees engaged in \"lawful\" strikes cannot be fired merely for striking (but they can be replaced). Stack Exchange, Inc. takes the position that moderators are not employees and are not subject to the NLRA. Their reluctance to use the word \"strike\" likely stems from this position. If the moderation strike were a \"strike\" within the meaning of the NLRA, that would imply a large and complex set of restrictions..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/93045/what-specific-legal-meaning-does-the-word-strike-have"}
{"id": "law_11565", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Pokémon Go hot spots and private property", "question_body": "As we all know Pokémon Go is all the rage. There have been reports that police stations are common hot spots for gyms and collections. Churches have also been a common hot spot. I think there is also a story where a man bought an old church and now that is his residence. Regardless of whether that story is true it made me think: What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory, but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? Is it currently legal to say, \"Go to person X's house and touch a tree\"? If not, does the current law extend to augmented reality? To me both are attractions which cause a gathering of people.", "question_score": 43, "question_tags": ["privacy", "property", "trespass"], "choices": {"A": "What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? The existence of a game does not authorise entrance to private property, barring some agreement with the owner. That is - if it is trespassing without Pokemon Go (or, for that matter Ingress), then it is trespassing while playing them. That being said, the creators of the game are free to place their in-game targets anywhere they please,...", "B": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)"}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11565/pok%c3%a9mon-go-hot-spots-and-private-property"}
{"id": "law_77318", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is "My Cousin Vinny" dismissal actually possible?", "question_body": "In one of my favorite films of all time, 1992's My Cousin Vinny , at the end of the trial when it's abundantly clear the prosecution will lose, at least that's the conclusion the filmmakers want the audience to surmise, Trotter pronounces... \"the state would like to dismiss all charges.\" And . . . as per Hollywood, everyone rejoices. I am fully aware movies are movies and not real life and the film is a pure work of fiction . Since I have no direct connection to anyone in the legal field, I thought I would ask some knowledgeable users about something that's always had me wondering. (Just saw the film again tonight.) I am aware that an acquittal means one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy). But a dismissal may not provide such protection. Acquittal meaning the prosecution could not prove the defendant committed the crime, whereas dismissal may allow for retrial. So, is there a legal basis for Trotter dismissing a case merely because he'll clearly lose? Common sense leans towards thinking this may be \"Hollywood fluff\" and it could not actually happen at the final stages of a trial so close to jury deliberation. But.. again, I don't really know. I think this is fluff because if it were actually possible, why wouldn't all prosecutors merely drop charges if they fear they are going to lose, then go build a better case and retry the defendant. Are the requirement for an actual dismissal more stringent than the film would have the audience believe or in this aspect, is the film pretty close to reality? (I am referencing U.S. criminal law in general)", "question_score": 43, "question_tags": ["united-states", "trial", "law-in-fiction", "dismissal"], "choices": {"A": "You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are \"free to go\" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...", "B": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "C": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "D": "This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the \"expert\" witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time......"}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/77318/is-my-cousin-vinny-dismissal-actually-possible"}
{"id": "law_1639", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What is the legal take on the trolley problem?", "question_body": "From the Wikipedia page on the trolley problem: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. What are the legal aspects of finding yourself in a train yard in the United States when this happens? Is it a crime to pull the lever? Is it a crime to not pull the lever? Does it depend on if you're professionally qualified to pull the lever?", "question_score": 42, "question_tags": ["united-states", "criminal-law", "trolley-problem"], "choices": {"A": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "B": "Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies...", "C": "Doing nothing is legally safer than doing something, but you're not without hope if you pull the lever. Although you'll likely have committed murder or at least manslaughter, case law is littered with lenience in exigent circumstances, even where convictions have been affirmed. Because this is a philosophical problem, there are plenty of opinions from that perspective, but not so many from a legal standpoint. Let's assume that you're an innocent bystander, (not an employee of the railway company or the train company, etc) and have no duty to act. If you do nothing, then it is unlikely that you...", "D": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1639/what-is-the-legal-take-on-the-trolley-problem"}
{"id": "law_56782", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it a crime to take my own package from a delivery truck before it has reached my home?", "question_body": "Not that I would ever do this, but I'm curious: if I were to go into a stopped delivery truck and remove from it an item that is addressed to me, would this be a crime? If so what crime would it be? It seems to me that I would not be stealing anything since it's my own property that I'm taking. I might even have a reason to suspect that if I did not take the package from the truck, then the driver would leave it sitting out in the open where it would likely be stolen (or that the driver himself might steal it), in which case I'd actually be preventing a crime by taking it from the truck directly. I don't think this would be burglary either, since that would tend to require that I was breaking into a restricted area with the intent to commit a crime. Especially if the delivery truck had no doors or I acted while they'd been left open, then I wouldn't even be \"breaking and entering.\" I can't see this as being \"trespass\" if the truck was on a public street, unless trespass applies to the interior of vehicles. Even then, as long as I'd leave before anyone noticed me, I could just say I only went in to retrieve what's mine and prevent it from being damaged or stolen. So I'm guessing there must be some kind of arcane laws that only the US Postal Marshalls deal with. Yes, there are special guys called \"US Postal Marshalls,\" who investigate mail-related crimes. So I'm curious what crime this would be? Note: I did review this post about \"stealing your own property back\" but it does not really seem to apply here.", "question_score": 42, "question_tags": ["united-states", "property", "postal-service"], "choices": {"A": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...", "B": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "C": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of \" 30 days of employment with xxxxx \". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of \" 1-year commitment \" is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, \" not to quit \") in...", "D": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/56782/is-it-a-crime-to-take-my-own-package-from-a-delivery-truck-before-it-has-reached"}
{"id": "law_64534", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is the President at the top of all organ waiting lists?", "question_body": "In the United States, people can often wait for years on organ lists before receiving the organ they need. Does the President automatically move to the top of these lists, should they find themselves in need of an organ, or do they have to wait like everyone else? Edit: Is there a legal mechanism in place for getting the President an organ, should they suddenly need one?", "question_score": 42, "question_tags": ["united-states", "medical", "us-president"], "choices": {"A": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...", "B": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "C": "The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...", "D": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/64534/is-the-president-at-the-top-of-all-organ-waiting-lists"}
{"id": "law_54", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If the police search my vehicle or house without my consent, and they don't find anything, what recourse is there?", "question_body": "I understand that if the police perform an illegal search, then any evidence found during that search will be excluded from a trial, but what if they didn't find any evidence? If the police do an illegal search, and they don't find anything, is there anything I can do about it?", "question_score": 41, "question_tags": ["united-states", "search-and-seizure", "police"], "choices": {"A": "There are two parts to copyright liability: civil and criminal. TL;DR: both cases are criminal offences, and it is illegal to break the law even when you are paid to do it. In the USA criminal copyright infringement requires a deliberate act to infringe copyright for commercial gain. Both of the scenarios meet these requirements. In the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) criminal copyright infringement includes possess in the course of a business an article which is, and which you know or have reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to...", "B": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "C": "As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for \" housing for older persons \", and the act \"does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling\" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...", "D": "You can file a federal criminal complaint under 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law , or (most commonly) a civil claim under 42 USC 1983 for the violation of your civil rights. There are usually state laws, from some form of harassment (usually a summary offense) to misdemeanors like the Official Oppression we have in Pennsylvania. Note that you can file these complaints even if they do find something incriminating. An illegal search is illegal regardless of its fruits."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/54/if-the-police-search-my-vehicle-or-house-without-my-consent-and-they-dont-find"}
{"id": "law_28878", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How is it legal for a hospital to put two patients together in the same room in the US?", "question_body": "In the United States we have HIPAA regulations in place to (among other things) prevent healthcare providers, insurance providers, and any other entity that handles medical information from leaking patient information. From my experience with various HIPAA certifications, it seems pretty stringent. No leak is too small. So how is it legal for a healthcare provider to pair up two or more patients in a single room, when they are under inpatient care for several days? I ask this because I recently stayed in the hospital for 2 nights. Never spoke one word to the old guy I was roommates with. When I was discharged, I knew the following details about him: his full name his DOB his medical record # (if I felt like writing it down) some of his prior health history (he fought, and won, a battle with colon cancer) the reason he was in the hospital now (hasn't pooped in over a week) current health concerns (doctors wanted to do a biopsy to make sure the colon cancer wasn't back) These were all details given verbally by one or many different doctors or nurses over the course of my 3 days, 2 nights in the hospital. Of course, I'm sure he knows a lot of my details now, too, for the same reason - we were inpatient roommates in the hospital and the doctors used no discretion when discussing my condition. So how is this legal?", "question_score": 41, "question_tags": ["united-states", "health", "hipaa"], "choices": {"A": "As a short answer, guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services has clarified that HIPAA does not require hospitals to provide separate rooms. As a longer answer, HIPAA is very deeply misunderstood. It does not prohibit \"leaking\" patient information; it prohibits unreasonable and unpermitted disclosures of protected health information (PHI). Among the PHI disclosures that are permitted are uses that are for the purpose of delivering medical treatment . Of course, the covered entity (in this case, the hospital) is required to take reasonable measures to safeguard that information. One of the areas that trips people up is...", "B": "Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...", "C": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "D": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28878/how-is-it-legal-for-a-hospital-to-put-two-patients-together-in-the-same-room-in"}
{"id": "law_87343", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Does Elon Musk have any grounds for legal action against people who track his plane?", "question_body": "Most airplanes, including Elon Musk's private jet, are required by law to broadcast their location throughout a flight in a well-documented, unencrypted digital format called ADS-B. This system is a critical part of aviation safety infrastructure. Several services, such as FlightAware, FlightRadar24, and ADS-B Exchange, collect this information with ground-based radio receivers and publish it on the Internet. FlightAware and FlightRadar24 will hide aircraft on request from the owner, but ADS-B Exchange does not, and provides unfiltered data. Elon Musk has threatened to take legal action against people who share tracking data from his jet online, referring to it as \"doxxing\" and claiming it's a threat to his safety. He also bans Twitter users who post any plane-tracking information. I don't see how he could have any claim for legal action against people who track his jet. As I have mentioned, ADS-B data is by no means private. When you are on an airplane, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for your location. Collecting public information about a controversial public figure seems like a very clear case for First Amendment protection. This wouldn't affect his ability to ban Twitter users; he can (within reason) ban anyone for anything on Twitter because he owns it. (It's quite odd that he claims to be a free-speech absolutist but censors the reposting of public information, but that's beside the point.) It would, however, seem to preclude any involvement of the government. What possible legal action could Elon Musk take against people who post ADS-B data from his private jet?", "question_score": 41, "question_tags": ["united-states", "privacy", "freedom-of-speech", "first-amendment", "air-travel"], "choices": {"A": "Specifically, the threatened action is about stalking and implicit threats to his family. I'm not suggesting that there is a lot of merit to the claim, but that is how he is presenting the argument. The question would be where there is an intentional, repeated following of a person for the purpose of harassing the person with express or implied threats of violence or death. The jury would have to decide whether the implicit threat is credible (somebody plans to blow him or his family out of the sky), a decision would probably turn on the number of death threats...", "B": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "C": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "D": "Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87343/does-elon-musk-have-any-grounds-for-legal-action-against-people-who-track-his-pl"}
{"id": "law_268", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What is the legal status of "warrant canaries"?", "question_body": "A warrant canary is a repeated claim by an individual or organization that they have not been served any warrants with an attached gag order. The idea is that you can say whatever you like if you have not been served such a warrant, but if you are ever served a warrant you simply stop publishing your warrant canary. Attentive listeners or readers would infer that you have been served a warrant, contrary to the intent of the gag order. The EFF gives an overview of these warrant canaries here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq What legal theories would support or harm the case of anyone attempting this technique?", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "freedom-of-speech"], "choices": {"A": "The question actually asked, \"what legal theories would support or harm...\", is somewhat unclear. But what the questioner seems to be asking is, basically, what would happen if you tried it? The answer, it seems to me, is pretty straightforward. In the hypothetical case, you have been publishing a notice for years, saying \"I have not been served with a subpoena.\" You then get served with a subpoena that includes a gag order. The gag order, presumably, includes wording prohibiting you from revealing the existence of the subpoena. You then cease publication of the warrant canary. By doing so, you...", "B": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "C": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "D": "You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are \"free to go\" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/what-is-the-legal-status-of-warrant-canaries"}
{"id": "law_596", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What legal liability does one's participation on Stack Exchange carry?", "question_body": "This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: Cracks on the wall . It may be closed in the future so I will summarize. The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community \"could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?\" A professional engineer advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion. If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face? In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["internet", "liability"], "choices": {"A": "I imagine that under English and Welsh law, the relevant tort would negligent misstatement, as there is no contract between the parties. From Practical Law : A claim for negligent misstatement may arise whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the parties. However, if there is a contractual relationship, it is more likely that a claim would be brought for negligent misrepresentation. Whether or not a claim for negligent misstatement would succeed would depend on several factors. Firstly, a duty of care must exist between the parties. From the Oxford Dictionary of Law : A negligent misstatement is only...", "B": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "C": "A few years ago, there was a trial in the USA about some short sound on some music CD: One party claimed that one piece of music on the CD contained a sound of less than one second length which is copied from another CD without the permission of the copyright owner of the other CD. It could never be found out if this claim was really true. The court's decision was: If it is not possible to distinguish between a copy and a work that does not depend on the other work at all, it is not a copyright...", "D": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/596/what-legal-liability-does-ones-participation-on-stack-exchange-carry"}
{"id": "law_2223", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why does browser cache not count as copyright infringement?", "question_body": "My browser is saving a copy of the web pages I visit on my computer. How is that not copyright infringement? in this answer I read: I would hazard a guess that displaying an HTML webpage online is implicitly allowing others to read that code How does that imply that you can make a local copy, when a web page includes a copyright note, or does not mention copyright at all (in which case standard copyright rules apply)? I suspect that the only possible way out would be stating that digital text is not the same thing as printed text and therefore the same rules should not apply, but we are constantly told the opposite, aren't we? UPDATE I'm adding some quotes from the only answer and comments below, to bring more elements for further answers that I hope will come, since I'm still not convinced that this situation makes completely sense. It has been pointed out that Fortunately I don't need to be convinced, as I'm not a judge on a relevant case (Jon Story. I changed \"you\" from the original comment to \"I\" ) And that's totally true, so I feel like reassuring that my question comes only out of my couriosity and noone needs to answer if they don't wish to satisfy that. I'd like to receive an answer that copes with some alternative views seen here, possibily making me understand which one is right (or more logical, or more convincing). I don't mean to make this question become too broad, so we are still dealing with the original problem: whether browser cache violates (US and EU) copyright laws in theory . I do hope this is a good subjective question . Please be aware that I believe the term Intellectual Property , which appeared in the comments, to be misleading . It refers to patents, trademarks, copyright and other stuff, while we're just discussing about copyright here. Quotes from answer and comments: Copyright is not about copying, it is about use (Jon Story) Many misconceptions are based on copyright being about use. Copyright is not about use, it is about copying (Marcks Thomas) To expand on the point about use, not copying, being the main issue, it would be a violation of copyright to take a BD and project it onto a large screen and charge money for people to watch it. I didn't copy the disc, just played it for profit (or even if i didn't charge, as a public performance) and I'd go to jail (Andy) You wouldn't say the optical fiber the data was sent through was copying the data? (kasperd) In order to read printed text, your eyes make a copy of that work (in a different format, made up of neurons firing in your brain) (Jon Story) routers don't copy the data in full. They process one packet at a time, which by no means is enough to contain the full work. A packet is more comparable with a citation, than a copy of the work. (kasperd) FURTHER UPDATE: I'm going to start a bounty on this question. Here I add the parts of the current answer (Jon Story's) I'm less satisfied with: Because you are not duplicating the content or re-publishing it I'm clearly doing the first of these two things. The web page is publicly available anyway (or at least, accessible by you), so you have permission to read it: copyright is about whether you have permission to access and read the file, not about whether you have permission to make a copy of the file as part of the technical process of accessing and reading it. I'm almost certain that copyright is not about the permission to read and access the text, but about the permission of making copies, modifying, redistributing and other stuff like that. For instance, I don't think you can make a copyright note that does not allow reading your content. Is fair use the key point here? That may be, and in the comments I was almost convinced. However, I've never known that fair use could justifiy copying the entire text. They won't let me photocopy an entire copyrighted book for personal use, I guess.", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright", "european-union"], "choices": {"A": "If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not \"practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . \"Practicing law\" includes \"representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . \"[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.\" Maryland Business...", "B": "I'm only going to consider US perspectives, which may or may not answer your question entirely. Also, I'm not going to address the guesses in other answers because, and except to say, they don't appear to be based in law, but rather (mis)understandings of law. 17 U.S. Code § 512 provides protections for service providers when providing content, online. This expressly includes caching. In Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. , 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2012) at 39, the Court held that to exclude these functions from the safe harbor would remove protections for service providers under subsection...", "C": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "D": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2223/why-does-browser-cache-not-count-as-copyright-infringement"}
{"id": "law_3519", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Consent to searches: Who wins "my-word-against-yours?"", "question_body": "Hypothetical Officer testifies citizen consented to be searched. Citizen denies consenting to be searched. There is no other evidence (that weighs net in favor of either party). Question Whom does the judge believe? Clarifying Discussion from previous comments... Point The testimony of the officer and the citizen would be more complete than just the officer saying \"The defendant consented to be searched\" and the defendant saying \"I did not consent to be searched\". Each would give a narrative of the situation that could be cross-examined. This would give the judge more information on which to base a judgement of trustworthiness. Response Although everything you say is true, to put all that information into the question would miss the point. Which is: What is the standard of proof (for consent to searches)? And is their any \" weight \" advantage (in practice) for testimony from either side (all other factors being equal). For the purpose of this question, please assume all the other factors (the ones you mention and all the others) cancel out each other. Imagine both narratives agree except in one version the citizen gives consent. In the other he does not.", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["police", "search-and-seizure"], "choices": {"A": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "B": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "C": "This is not a simple question. There are hundreds of page treatises on consent - explicit, implied, obtained by trickery, revoked, coerced by show, coerced by intimidation. If it ever was just a he said (s)he said situation, that certainly does not mean that the testimony of those two individuals are all that's considered to determine (1) that the prosecutor failed to meet it's burden; nor does it mean (2) that the consent was (legally) given. None of these answers (nor this answer) could possibly adequately address the complexity of the analysis a court will endeavor to undertake when evidence...", "D": "There is no legal obligation of the police or any of its officers to reimburse you. It comes within a police powers exception to the 5th Amendment obligation to provide compensation for takings. Sometimes a government will compensate someone even though it has no legal obligation to do so, but this is unlikely to happen. A petition for certiorari from 10th Circuit decision of Lech v. City of Greenwood Village (10th Cir. October 29, 2019) recaps a lot of the relevant law and arguments for changing it (the petition was subsequently denied by the U.S. Supreme Court). The question presented..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3519/consent-to-searches-who-wins-my-word-against-yours"}
{"id": "law_5139", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do I have legal rights against a company that offered me a raise to not leave, and then promptly fired me after turning down the other offer?", "question_body": "I was just informed of this situation that occurred somewhere by a co-worker, and was wondering what the legal ramifications are (U.S. Law). To be clear, the scenario is as follows: I tell my boss I've been offered a position at another company. My boss later comes to me with a counter offer of a raise, if I choose to stay with them I accept the counter offer, and inform the other company that I have chosen to stay with my current employer After a week, my boss then informs me that I'm being let go, and that this should serve as a lesson to not mess with him. For the above scenario, regarding U.S. law, do I hold any legal grounds against this? What options would I have to defend myself (and my family) from being blatantly told that I was fired because I was willing to accept another offer without some other counter-offer from my current employer? As for the chap this did happen to, I'm informed that he contacted the company who originally gave him the offer, and they were still willing to bring him on-board. So, yay (somewhat) happy ending to an otherwise terrifying situation. However, I'm specifically asking about the scenario in which he was forced to be unemployed for some period of time, while looking for another job (i.e., the other company no longer had the position open)", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "employment"], "choices": {"A": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...", "B": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "C": "It depends to a large degree on local employment laws. Depending on how the counteroffer was worded, it might have constituted anything from a binding legal contract for employment for some reasonable minimum term, or a totally non-binding suggestion that was worth less than the air breathed while pronouncing it. Some things to consider would include: What are local employment laws like? Do they require that termination be for cause? If so, what are causes for termination? Does termination require any kind of remediation beforehand? Note that in an at-will, right-to-work state in the US, odds are that the employee...", "D": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/5139/do-i-have-legal-rights-against-a-company-that-offered-me-a-raise-to-not-leave-a"}
{"id": "law_53442", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Suppose someone kills more people than they intended. Did they murder the extra people?", "question_body": "If a person sets a bomb in a music festival. Based on previous attendance numbers, they expected 60,000 people to show up. 120,000 people showed up and were killed by their bomb. Legally, did they murder 60,000 people, or all 120,000? Also, suppose they set up the bomb just to kill the production crew, and they end up killing the attendees. Did they still commit 120,000 murders?", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "california", "murder"], "choices": {"A": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "D": "In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting \"Man overboard\" once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/53442/suppose-someone-kills-more-people-than-they-intended-did-they-murder-the-extra"}
{"id": "law_59878", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can you legally move a dead body to preserve it as evidence?", "question_body": "A fisherman is heading upstream in his boat, and sees a human corpse float past. Obviously even if it wasn't murder, it still warrants a 911 call because it was a death. The river however, is steadily moving the body away. Can the fisherman move the body and avoid legal jeopardy because the intent was to preserve it as evidence? You can make other scenarios I'm sure, but I chose this one as an example. Basically, the concept here is that doing nothing will possibly result in the total destruction of the body/evidence.", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "criminal-law", "murder", "investigation"], "choices": {"A": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "B": "You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like \"am I free to go\" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...", "C": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "D": "In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting \"Man overboard\" once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/59878/can-you-legally-move-a-dead-body-to-preserve-it-as-evidence"}
{"id": "law_92750", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?", "question_body": "Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply \"I don't remember.\" The prosecutor would then ask \"Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?\", to which the witness would answer \"Yes.\" The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of \"do you recall\" / \"no\" / \"would this refresh your memory\" / \"yes\"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "court", "criminal-procedure"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...", "C": "united-states Witnesses are generally confined to giving testimony from their own personal memory; most of the time, they can't read a statement into the record or just tell the jury to go look at some other piece of evidence. But this creates problems when a witness knows an important fact but doesn't remember it when she takes the stand. Maybe she counted exactly how much money she stuffed in the robber's bag as she was doing it, and she wrote it down as soon as he fled, but a year later, she can't remember that it was $93,736.45. But the...", "D": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/92750/why-did-this-us-prosecutor-keep-asking-whether-documents-would-refresh-a-witness"}
{"id": "law_92965", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why and when would an attorney be handcuffed to their client?", "question_body": "While reading about the trial of Hans Reiser I came across this peculiar sentence: On Monday, July 7, 2008, Reiser led police to Nina's shallow grave in the Oakland Hills. Reiser's attorney, William Du Bois, who was handcuffed to Reiser and accompanied by a heavy police guard to the site, said that the remains were found buried on the side of a hill […] (Originally reported by SFGate ) I find this very strange for multiple reasons: The attorney is not legally responsible for the defendant's safety or security. The attorney is free to leave at any time. The attorney is not required to be armed and can not be expected to defend himself from a violent defendant …nor can he be expected to physically restrain the defendant if necessary. If the heavy police guard has to intervene, having an innocent civilian chained to the target must make their job much more difficult in case the defendant has to be subdued by force. Why and when would this be standard practice, and who would order that? Is it something that the Judge would order, or would the attorney himself have to suggest it? † † Unfortunately we can not ask him personally since, while researching the question, I found that he recently passed away .", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["united-states", "criminal-procedure"], "choices": {"A": "This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the \"expert\" witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time......", "B": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "C": "Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of \" 30 days of employment with xxxxx \". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of \" 1-year commitment \" is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, \" not to quit \") in...", "D": "My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/92965/why-and-when-would-an-attorney-be-handcuffed-to-their-client"}
{"id": "law_105671", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If a shop prices all items extremely high and applies a "non-criminal discount" at checkout, will shoplifters get prosecuted based on the high price?", "question_body": "I came across this sign online that states that in the store, all items are marked at $951, with \"non-criminal discounts\" applied only for paying customers. The sign suggests that this is to ensure that shoplifters will be prosecuted for grand theft under California Penal Code 487 PC , according to which the threshold for grand theft is $950. I can't verify the post itself, but regardless - would this actually work? If a shoplifter were caught, could they be prosecuted based on the marked price of $951, even though noone actually has to pay that price, or would the actual price at checkout be considered in the prosecution? While the sign itself is specific to California, I'm interested in different legal systems as well. (I'm also interested if such pricing would be even legal in itself, but I want to limit my post to one question.)", "question_score": 40, "question_tags": ["criminal-law", "theft", "retail", "shoplifting"], "choices": {"A": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "B": "california No, I don't think so. California's grand theft statute, Penal Code Section 487 (which you already linked) consistently uses the word \"value\" rather than \"price\" (emphasis mine): Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). Earlier in that title, Section 484(a) says: In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, and in determining...", "C": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "D": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/105671/if-a-shop-prices-all-items-extremely-high-and-applies-a-non-criminal-discount"}
{"id": "law_683", "domain": "law", "question_title": "USA: Is "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer generally necessary?", "question_body": "Is it legally necessary to disclaim \"I am not a lawyer\" when engaging in casual conversation, writing Internet posts, etc. to avoid civil or criminal liability for one's comments? Specifically, in the absence of: claims to be a lawyer or implied claims (i.e. posing) accepting payment or other compensation for legal advice Is there any presumption under US law that casually giving advice to others on matters of law constitutes professional legal advice? If a hypothetical statement is needed, let's say you said this to your next-door neighbor, who has no particular reason to believe you are a lawyer: \"Based on my own past experience, and my reading of this statute, you are free to ignore this letter you received in the mail, as not answering does not change your outlook.\" If your neighbor took this advice, and ended up in a bad position, and blamed you, are you in any way more liable under the law than if you had also said, \"But I'm not a lawyer, so you should seek professional advice\"? I'm neglecting the practical (psychological) reasons to make such disclaimers. Whether they have any real effect or not, giving them may preclude making trouble in people's minds.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "liability", "unlicensed-practice"], "choices": {"A": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "B": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "C": "What you are talking about here is the tort of negligent misstatement, a subset of the tort of negligence . First, there is no presumption in any jurisdiction that I am aware of that anyone is or is not a lawyer (or doctor, or engineer etc.). If people knew that you were, however, then it is reasonable that they would give your statements more weight then if they did not know. It may also be reasonable if they suspected you were. The practical purpose of such a disclaimer is to ensure that they know you aren't. For the specific facts...", "D": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/683/usa-is-i-am-not-a-lawyer-disclaimer-generally-necessary"}
{"id": "law_41261", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal to have an abortion in another state or abroad?", "question_body": "Alabama passed new laws recently, making abortion a very limited option. In that context is it legal for a US national who lives in Alabama to have an abortion in another state where it is legal in the circumstances she in in? have an abortion abroad, in circumstances which are illegal in the US? Does the \"US national\" above matter? In other words: is the specific act of abortion illegal on itself in Alabama (or another state if it matters), just because of the geographic constraints - or is it related to the fact that someone lives in Alabama or, more broadly, is a US citizen (second bullet of my question)? Or, yet phaserly differently: can someone who lives in Alabama just travel to another state and get an abortion, then come back safely (= Alabama law enforcement does not care) or is it still a felony to have an abortion outside of Alabama? Note: Alabama is taken as an example following the recent law changes and their wide broadcasting in France. Any other state with a similar law will do.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "abortion"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "Does the \"US national\" above matter? The nationality of the person is not relevant. Like most criminal statutes, the law applies to acts within the jurisdiction of Alabama, which basically means within the state's territory. The only foreign people who would be immune from that jurisdiction would be diplomats and the like, but such people would not be licensed to practice medicine in Alabama. This brings us to the point in the next paragraph. is it still a felony to have an abortion outside of Alabama? No. It is not even a felony to have an abortion inside Alabama. The...", "C": "As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for \" housing for older persons \", and the act \"does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling\" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...", "D": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/41261/is-it-legal-to-have-an-abortion-in-another-state-or-abroad"}
{"id": "law_43764", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What if a restaurant suddenly cannot accept credit cards, and the customer has no cash?", "question_body": "If a restaurant normally accepts credit cards, and a customer eats a meal there, then tries to pay with his valid credit card, and the cashier says the credit card system is down and they can only accept cash today, and the customer has no cash, and no easy way to get cash, can the customer legally leave without ever paying? Does the restaurant have a simple and legal way to enforce the debt? Assume the restaurant displays signs that they accept credit cards, and gives no prior notice to the contrary. Also assume the restaurant's bank has just severed its relationship with the restaurant, so credit card payments in any form are not viable.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "debt"], "choices": {"A": "There is no intention to commit theft, so there is no criminal act on the part of the customer. Even if there was a criminal act, the ability of the restaurant to detain the cusomer (citizen's arrest) is very limited in most jurisdictions. The restaurant can ask the customer for his name and address, but there is no legal obligation on the customer to provide this. Refusal to do so, however, might be evidence of intention to avoid paying and at that point the restaurant might call the police. The customer can leave, and the restaurant can pursue the debt...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...", "D": "The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/43764/what-if-a-restaurant-suddenly-cannot-accept-credit-cards-and-the-customer-has-n"}
{"id": "law_51213", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can a soldier refuse to carry a weapon?", "question_body": "During WWII, Desmond Doss joined the US Army as a combat medic. Due to his religious belief in nonviolence, he refused to carry a weapon and was eventually allowed to do so, going on to win various medals (including the Medal of Honor) for rescuing casualties in various battles of the Pacific Theatre—his story was later made into the film Hacksaw Ridge . Is it still possible today for somebody to join the armed forces, but to refuse to carry a weapon? Specifically, I am wondering about the US and the UK armed forces, but interesting answers about any other country are welcome. Initially I thought Doss would have been conscripted which may have changed things, but apparently he chose to enlist so that argument doesn't hold up. I've searched but I haven't found anything about whether this would still be possible now or if military law may have changed to disallow it.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "united-kingdom", "legal-history", "military"], "choices": {"A": "In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...", "B": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "C": "My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...", "D": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51213/can-a-soldier-refuse-to-carry-a-weapon"}
{"id": "law_57028", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is the typo in the 25th amendment significant?", "question_body": "The fourth section of the 25th amendment to the US constitution provides for the president to be declared unfit involuntarily. The first of its two paragraphs describes the declaration itself, made by the vice president along with \"a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.\" The second paragraph describes a mechanism for the president to resume the \"powers and duties\" of the office by declaring \"that no inability exists.\" This paragraph also establishes a mechanism for \"the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide\" to challenge the president's declaration. This question is about the difference in the designation of those whose action is required along with the vice president. The first paragraph uses the word \"departments,\" plural, and the second uses \"department,\" singular. I suppose that the second paragraph was added during the debates on the amendment, and that the use of the singular in the second paragraph is probably an error. Would courts be likely conclude that the difference is unintentional? If not, does the use of the singular change the meaning of the phrase significantly? I am especially interested in answers that look at the the legislative history of the amendment to support or refute the hypothesis that the second paragraph was an addition to the original form of the text. As far as I can tell, the relevant congressional documents are not available online for the 1960s.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "us-constitution", "interpretation"], "choices": {"A": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "B": "In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to \"affirm\" instead of \"swear\" You do not have to say \"so help me God\" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed \"solemn affirmation\" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.", "C": "Prologue , a magazine published by the National Archives, had an article about the missing S back in 2012. In short, the problem was due to a scrivener's error. Congress recognized the error at roughly the same time it submitted the amendment to the states but decided it was too late to fix it: There was a brief discussion of the possibility of recalling the joint resolution for reconsideration in each chamber, but Congress was operating under severe time pressures as it worked toward adjournment for the summer, and it was decided that the record of congressional debates and actions...", "D": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms...."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57028/is-the-typo-in-the-25th-amendment-significant"}
{"id": "law_58103", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it a real legal principle that any ambiguity in a contract is interpreted to the benefit of the side that did not write the contract?", "question_body": "I have heard that there is a legal principle where any ambiguity in the contract is interpreted to the benefit of the side that did not draw up or suggest the contract text . This was presented to me somewhat anecdotally, but sounded reasonable - so I'm not sure what to make of it. Is there any such or similar thing, formalized to any degree? I'd prefer an answer in the context of both Common and Continental law.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["civil-law", "common-law", "legal-concepts"], "choices": {"A": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "B": "Contra proferentem However, it's a principle that is rarely applied in practice since it's at the end of a long line of judicial reasoning that gets applied first. Ambiguity in contract provisions are usually resolved by the golden rule : Determine the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used Consider the context of the contract including its purpose, any \"recitals\" or \"background\" clauses and other relevant provisions If the ordinary and natural meaning is inconsistent with the context or gives rise to absurdities, modify the meaning as appropriate. In the vast majority of case, this approach will give a...", "C": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "D": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/58103/is-it-a-real-legal-principle-that-any-ambiguity-in-a-contract-is-interpreted-to"}
{"id": "law_63838", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What is the legal distinction between Twitter banning Trump and Trump blocking individuals?", "question_body": "For reference, this recent NPR article contains all of the information that inspired this question. The lawsuits referenced in the above article center on then-President Trump blocking individual users on Twitter from interacting with or seeing his tweets. Lower courts apparently ruled that Trump's twitter feed is essentially a public forum, and therefore, blocking users was unconstitutional because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination. There haven't been (as far as I know) any lawsuits against Twitter for their banning of Trump while he was President. Clearly, any such lawsuits would likely be ruled moot now, but it stands to reason that if Trump isn't allowed to prevent people from interacting with him on social media, then Twitter shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from interacting with him either. One possible distinction here is that Twitter wasn't practicing viewpoint discrimination since they effectively blocked everyone from interacting with President Trump without regard to viewpoint. However, if the President's presence turns a social media account into a public forum, then preventing the president from having an account seems to be a form of viewpoint discrimination in itself. Really, the whole thing is very strange since it seems to suggest that Twitter (a private company) has control over whether or not certain public fora are allowed to exist. To me, that sounds like those fora were never really \"public\" at all (meaning Trump should be able to block people from his personal account), or if they were, then Trump's viewpoint was being discriminated against and Twitter has an obligation as the purveyor of this public forum to protect his rights. Why are Trump blocking individuals on Twitter and Twitter effectively blocking everyone for Trump by banning him treated differently under the law?", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["constitutional-law", "freedom-of-speech", "us-federal-government", "first-amendment", "social-media"], "choices": {"A": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "B": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "C": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/63838/what-is-the-legal-distinction-between-twitter-banning-trump-and-trump-blocking-i"}
{"id": "law_76594", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If you are a lawyer of a thief, drug dealer, or human trafficker, what would you tell your client to tell IRS?", "question_body": "I read this in 9gag. So what should we do if we are in this situation? If thieves and criminals can just say I have this income and don't tell the source, can legitimate businessmen do the same?", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["tax-law"], "choices": {"A": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "B": "NAL, but I used to work for the IRS. GS-0592-08, AUSC W/I CSCI (for non-feds, that means General Sector, series 0592 grade 8, Tax Examiner, Austin Service Center, Division -> Wage & Investment, Section -> Collections Services and Compliance Operations. Yeah, no joke.) And I wanted to add some insider insight to help clarify some of the thoughts already shared here. First off, I feel like clarification is needed because lay people get especially confused about this very, very easily: the IRS is an agency exactly like the FBI, except the IRS falls under the US Dept of Treasury and...", "C": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "D": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/76594/if-you-are-a-lawyer-of-a-thief-drug-dealer-or-human-trafficker-what-would-you"}
{"id": "law_78272", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Legality of penalising Russian Oligarchs", "question_body": "What is the legal basis for penalising individual Russian Oligarchs? Having ill-gotten wealth and dubious friends is hardly unique to Russia, and whilst I can understand with the desire of the Western / European powers to been seen to be doing something I can't see the legal basis of confiscating their assets. If they really are just a bunch of crooks why have they been swanning around the free-world for the last 25 years? What have they done in the last nine-days which suddenly justifies personal sanctions against them? As far as I know most of them don't hold any current positions of power/authority in Russia (not officially anyhow). Whilst I broadly accept the consensus that they're Putin's cronies who owe much of their current success to their past associations with him, and whilst I'd personally be delighted to see their money go to support Ukrainian refugees I can't actually see a good legal argument for sanctions other than 'guilt by association' - which probably wouldn't stand up in court.", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "european-union"], "choices": {"A": "In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...", "B": "In the united-kingdom , the legal basis flows from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 . This allows regulations to be made for particular sanctions regimes, in this case The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and its several amendments, including three revisions this year. Under those regulations, the Secretary of State may designate individuals who are then subject to particular sanctions. A consolidated list is available for all individuals and organizations who have been named under any of the regulations, not just the Russia one. Working backwards from the list, we see such names as Vladimir Putin, who...", "C": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78272/legality-of-penalising-russian-oligarchs"}
{"id": "law_90806", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do the Ohio sheriffs suing Afroman have any legal standing in their claim of "invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses" lawsuit?", "question_body": "From this article “Afroman Sued by Sheriffs for Allegedly Profiting from Raid on his Home . Afroman is reportedly being sued by a number of Ohio sheriff deputies for allegedly profiting off the raid they conducted on his home last summer. The Adams County Sheriff’s Department ran up on Afroman’s home last August, where officers searched for illegal narcotics but failed to find anything. Afroman filmed the entire raid via his security cameras, and in the months since the raid has compiled the footage together to turn it into a music video called “Will You Help Me Repair My Door.” This has reportedly upset the Ohio sheriff’s deputies involved in the raid as they believe Afroman to be profiting off their hard work. In turn, the police are suing for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses, and are claiming the music video has caused them emotional distress, ridicule, humiliation, loss of reputation and embarrassment. “My house is my property, my video camera films, everything on my property as they begin, stealing my money, disconnecting plus destroying my video camera system, they became my property,” Afroman said. “Criminals caught in the act, of vandalizing and stealing money. My video footage is my property. I used it to identify the criminals who broke into my house, and stole my money. I used it to identify criminals, who broke into my house, stole my money and disconnected my home security system.” Do the Ohio sheriffs suing Afroman have any legal standing in their claim \"invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses\" lawsuit?", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states", "privacy", "first-amendment", "ohio", "right-of-publicity"], "choices": {"A": "The deputies have standing, but they're probably going to lose. \"Standing\" is just a legal principle that limits the legal process to people who have suffered certain types of injuries. Jen's answer offers a good explanation of why the answer is yes, they do have standing. But I assume you're less interested in whether the officers are capable of bringing the case than in whether their case is likely to succeed. The answer to that is no. Claim 1 alleges a violation of Ohio's right-of-publicity statute. But that statute includes a carveout for any \"use of the persona of an...", "B": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/90806/do-the-ohio-sheriffs-suing-afroman-have-any-legal-standing-in-their-claim-of-in"}
{"id": "law_91096", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?", "question_body": "For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a \"prank\" called swatting . As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired. Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-states"], "choices": {"A": "There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...", "B": "There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation. In a similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado , an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.) But, there...", "C": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...", "D": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/91096/can-you-make-the-police-department-pay-for-damage-done-to-your-property-if-you-g"}
{"id": "law_101275", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it stealing if three books are allowed to be taken for free and I take more?", "question_body": "There is a charity shop, which sells nothing but gives books away for free. They do accept optional donations of money, and any books donations so they have more books to give away for free. Upon entering the charity shop, there is a sign saying that only a maximum of three books may be taken per visit. Assume someone visiting the shop knowingly takes more than three books, without being caught at the time, but is discovered a short period of time later on CCTV. In England and Wales, would this be a Criminal Offence or a Civil Matter?", "question_score": 39, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "criminal-law", "england-and-wales"], "choices": {"A": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "B": "By Army regulations, no, he's not allowed to wear that uniform. Prince Harry technically isn't a \"retired officer\". Rather, he resigned his commission in the Army, effective 19 June 2015. See the London Gazette for 11 August 2015, Supplement 61319, page 14838 , under \"Captain H. C. A. D. WALES 564673\". According to the Army Dress Regulations 02.45a (page 101 of the PDF), \"It is to be noted that those who resigned their commissions are not authorised to wear uniform under any circumstances.\" Moreover, under the Uniforms Act 1894 : (1)It shall not be lawful for any person not serving...", "C": "This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of \"free\" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide...", "D": "Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/101275/is-it-stealing-if-three-books-are-allowed-to-be-taken-for-free-and-i-take-more"}
{"id": "law_4755", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What if I say "this statement is false" while under oath?", "question_body": "Let's say I am in a court proceeding, and then make swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I tell the judge I would like to make an opening remark, he says yes, and I say \"My opening remark is a false statement.\" What happens to me? If they claim that my statement is false and try to prosecute me, then it is in fact not false, and they cannot prosecute. If they claim my statement is true, then it is in fact false, and they cannot not prosecute me. What happens?", "question_score": 38, "question_tags": ["rules-of-court"], "choices": {"A": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "B": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court ."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4755/what-if-i-say-this-statement-is-false-while-under-oath"}
{"id": "law_33084", "domain": "law", "question_title": "I fancy myself an amateur lawyer. Can I represent someone in court, in the state of Maryland?", "question_body": "I live in Montgomery County Maryland. I am not a lawyer. But I have significant legal experience. I have successfully sued people, watched many trials, I have successfully won dozens of trials for my own traffic violations. And I'm a former state legislator. So I have read and argued about lots of legislation. Sometimes I feel like an amateur lawyer myself. And a pretty darn good one at that. My father recently received a ticket from an automated-traffic-enforcement system because he made a right turn without coming to a full stop. The fine is $75. But he doesn't want to pay it and I don't want him to pay it. It's more the principle of the matter than the fine amount. Because of my extensive experience litigating traffic trials, I want to represent my father in his trial. But as I mentioned above, I am not a licensed attorney. Can I represent him nonetheless? When the judge goes through the docket and calls his case, can I stand up and say, \"Your Honor, I'm here representing Mr. Ali in this case?\" Or will I get in trouble for doing so? This case is in the District Court of Maryland in Montgomery County.", "question_score": 38, "question_tags": ["united-states", "maryland", "unlicensed-practice", "legal-representation"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "B": "Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...", "C": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...", "D": "If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not \"practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . \"Practicing law\" includes \"representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . \"[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.\" Maryland Business..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33084/i-fancy-myself-an-amateur-lawyer-can-i-represent-someone-in-court-in-the-state"}
{"id": "law_48317", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is ban evasion illegal?", "question_body": "What is the legality of \"Ban Evasions\"? This sounds like a dumb question but perhaps enlighten the ignorant. Ban Evasion, \"The creation of a new account on a platform or website after being previously banned for ToS violations\". In 2018, the 9th Circuit court of appeals ruled that violating the ToS isn't a crime, but does that still cover Ban Evasion? An example would be, say, Jody had an account with a very popular video sharing platform, he broke the rules and had his account suspended permanently. He learns from those mistakes (because we all make mistakes in our lives), and recreate a brand new account, despite it being written in the ToS that you cannot make a brand new account. He does so regardless, makes a new account, but then gets banned again for Ban Evasion, despite not violating any other rules, Would this be considered a criminal offense? Big companies (or companies in general) will most likely not care, because it's not worth the legal fees to pursue such a case, and it's better off making it harder to ban evade, or write better rules, but regardless, Did Jody commit a crime, whether on state level, or federal level? (In the United States at least).", "question_score": 38, "question_tags": ["united-states", "criminal-law", "terms-of-service", "cfaa"], "choices": {"A": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "B": "In theory, such an action could be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , specifically 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(C): Whoever...intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any protected computer; Where the relevant \"protected computer\" definition is in the same section under (e)(2)(B): As used in this section...the term “protected computer” means a computer...which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48317/is-ban-evasion-illegal"}
{"id": "law_48885", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Was it illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of the State of the Union address?", "question_body": "President Trump has claimed it was illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of his State of the Union address, as it was an official document. Is there any law stating that it is illegal to tear up official documents, and does this qualify under that law as an official document?", "question_score": 38, "question_tags": ["united-states", "congress"], "choices": {"A": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "B": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "C": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...", "D": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48885/was-it-illegal-for-nancy-pelosi-to-tear-up-her-copy-of-the-state-of-the-union-ad"}
{"id": "law_84286", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Could a British monarch "go full dictator" if they wish to do so?", "question_body": "Queen Elizabeth II was generally nice and didn't abuse her power. But could her successor do otherwise and \"go full dictator\", in theory? Would he have enough legal powers to do so? Admittedly, dictators are not known for playing by the book, but they often start out in a lawful or a \"semi-lawful\" fashion. To what extent, if I put it another way, does the British democracy rely on solid legal checks and balances, not on the monarch's goodwill? Considering the UK's uncodified constitution, which is not really there, one may start to have some doubts about it.", "question_score": 38, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "monarchy"], "choices": {"A": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "B": "No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.", "C": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "D": "Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84286/could-a-british-monarch-go-full-dictator-if-they-wish-to-do-so"}
{"id": "law_16060", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Does being engaged (to be married) carry any legal significance?", "question_body": "Being married carries specific legal consequences, e.g. spouses typically are treated differently under tax law, divorce property law, inheritance law, have rights regarding medical visitation and medical decisions. Sometimes insurance carriers treat them differently, though i'm unsure if that's legally mandated or just standard practice. Absent a specific signed engagement contract which stipulates specific legal ramifications, does being engaged (to be married) carry any legal significance ? Jurisdiction is either USA, or France (I'm interested in both). Significance may be to either party of the engagement, or to third parties (e.g. in how they have to treat engaged partner, or the couple, differently). Just to be clear, consequences must stem from the fact of engagement, NOT from things like co-habitation, being declared \"domestic partners\" etc...", "question_score": 37, "question_tags": ["united-states", "france", "marriage"], "choices": {"A": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "B": "You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like \"am I free to go\" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...", "C": "There are only a few areas of law of which I am aware that U.S. law treats people who are engaged to be married differently (although perhaps with more thought I could expand the list). Fiance(e)s come under a special immigration status when applying for a visa. There is a body of law related to whether an engagement ring is an absolute gift or is conditional upon being married (this is not uniform from state to state and I don't recall what the majority rule in those cases is under the common law). In South Carolina , ownership disputes over...", "D": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16060/does-being-engaged-to-be-married-carry-any-legal-significance"}
{"id": "law_62103", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What crime is hiring someone to kill you and then killing the hitman?", "question_body": "Suppose that yesterday I was suicidal and decided to hire a hitman on the internet to kill me. Today, when they turn up, I have changed my mind and defend myself by killing the hitman. What crime(s) have I committed? This is completely hypothetical, so any jurisdiction would be interesting.", "question_score": 37, "question_tags": ["murder", "self-defense", "suicide"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "B": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...", "C": "It appears you want to go for a defense strategy based on a self-defense argument. This won't work in many jurisdictions, because self-defense usually doesn't apply when you intentionally caused a situation where you knew you would have to harm someone in self-defense. Similar case: Bob regularly mugs old women in the park by threatening them with a gun. Charlie finds out and wants to stop him. But instead of reporting it to the police, he wants to take care of this himself. Charlie get a gun, dresses up as an old woman and waits in the park. When Bob...", "D": "Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/62103/what-crime-is-hiring-someone-to-kill-you-and-then-killing-the-hitman"}
{"id": "law_65396", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Stop, in the name of the law", "question_body": "Does the popular media cliche Stop, in the name of the law have any founding in actual law or policing practice, either current or historical? Did police ever say this as a matter of course? If so why? If not where did this expression enter the popular consciousness?", "question_score": 37, "question_tags": ["police", "media"], "choices": {"A": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...", "B": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "C": "In long ago English practice, the phrase used was \" Stop in the name of the King \". At one time this was, if I am not mistaken, required for a valid arrest. I am talking about a time hundreds of years ago, by the way. That phrase, in turn, goes back to a still older concept. At one time, in Germanic customary law, each important leader had a \"peace\" -- an area in and around his dwelling, domain, and presence -- in which any violation of law and custom was an offense against the leader, not just against a...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/65396/stop-in-the-name-of-the-law"}
{"id": "law_80245", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I use my own Stack Exchange answer in a book?", "question_body": "I’ve seen some similar questions, but was wondering about a more specific case. I wrote a Stack Exchange answer, and would like to use it in one section of a book I’m writing (which will be commercially sold). I also modified the answer, and added to it, but some original passages remain. I’m wondering if, as the author, and with proper attribution that the section is based on my Stack Exchange answer, with a link, this is legally acceptable?", "question_score": 37, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright"], "choices": {"A": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "B": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...", "C": "Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a \"stop\" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...", "D": "My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80245/can-i-use-my-own-stack-exchange-answer-in-a-book"}
{"id": "law_94333", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal for a train company to create an art gallery using photographs of the graffiti on their locomotives and train cars?", "question_body": "I have been wondering that since a train company owns its locomotives and train cars, then I am assuming that this means that they own any graffiti that has been painted on their locomotives and train cars. I have recently read that it is illegal for someone to put graffiti on any train company equipment, since it is an act of vandalism, so this makes me think that that any graffiti artist(s) who created graffiti on train equipment cannot get a copyright(s) on the graffiti that they put on train equipment. If the graffiti thus belongs to the train company, then I am assuming that this means that the train company automatically owns the copyright(s) to this graffiti, and they would thus be free to take photographs of this graffiti and could display and/or sell these photographs to the general public, if they wanted to do so. Is it legal for a train company to create an art gallery using photographs of the graffiti on their locomotives and train cars?", "question_score": 37, "question_tags": ["united-states", "copyright", "intellectual-property", "business", "property"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f (\"processing is necessary for the...", "B": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "C": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "D": "Copyright law doesn't say the art isn't copyrighted if it was made unlawfully. It seems the art can be copyrighted and the act of making it can be a criminal offence. I'm not aware of any such copyright cases that have gone to trial. A fairly well known case that settled out of court is that of Jason “Revok” Williams and H&M. Williams noticed his art in a photograph used in an H&M marketing campaign. His lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to H&M. In response, H&M applied for a court order stating that the product of an unlawful act could..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/94333/is-it-legal-for-a-train-company-to-create-an-art-gallery-using-photographs-of-th"}
{"id": "law_3708", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can "Dumb Starbucks" be legally considered Fair Use as satire or parody?", "question_body": "About a year ago, a new, familiar-looking coffee shop opened in LA. Their reasoning for this was, basically, that it's making fun of the popular coffeehouse chain and is thus fair use: Naturally, it attracted a lot of attention and was later revealed that it was really a publicity stunt created by a comedian, but he still made a statement that \"as long as we're making fun of Starbucks, we're allowed to use their corporate identity\" (as seen here ). Had Starbucks sued for trademark infringement (which they probably planned to do , but the thing was actually closed for operating without a valid public health permit ), would the whole parody as fair use thing hold in court (or at least have some relevance in the case)?", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["trademark", "fair-use"], "choices": {"A": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "B": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "C": "This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called \"Dumb Starbucks\" while using their trademark, they would be be found liable if sued. You can parody a trademark brand, so long as the work is transformative such that the use of the brand goes from selling coffee to making a commentary in which the brand...", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3708/can-dumb-starbucks-be-legally-considered-fair-use-as-satire-or-parody"}
{"id": "law_36546", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why would someone get a fine when using a disabled parking space when the disabled person is not in the car?", "question_body": "An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car: (...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to exit her car. Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car. One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror. It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation. I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come) . The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car). I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["united-states", "driving", "france", "disabilities"], "choices": {"A": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "D": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/36546/why-would-someone-get-a-fine-when-using-a-disabled-parking-space-when-the-disabl"}
{"id": "law_37912", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What is the purpose of a disclaimer like "this is not legal advice"?", "question_body": "If someone who is not a lawyer is giving out legal advice, does it make any difference if they include a disclaimer along the lines of \"this is not legal advice\"? For the purposes of this question, I assume legal advice means one party instructing another party on how to comply with laws (like a consultant might do). Do they disclaim some kind of liability? Do they merely avoid suggesting they are lawyers when they're not?", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["european-union", "germany", "lawyer", "disclaimers", "unlicensed-practice"], "choices": {"A": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the the right to an independent judge, as established in Golder v UK , ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves. (The Dutch case confirms that sector-wide arbitration is in fact legal, with regard to a standard arbitration clause commonly used in the Dutch building sector. The arbiter was found to be independent in that case precisely because they weren't picked by the builder involved.) The GDPR is only indirectly relevant, but the fact that it's mentioned...", "D": "In most jurisdictions, practicing law without a bar license is a serious offence, which, inter alia, is the primary reason why a non-lawyer would use this disclaimer. Lawyers also use this disclaimer to avoid any 'constructive implication' of attorney-client relationship."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37912/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-disclaimer-like-this-is-not-legal-advice"}
{"id": "law_49367", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal to crack MD5 hashes?", "question_body": "I saw a website that involves programming problems. One problem asks to write a program that finds a string whose MD5 hash is given. Is it criminal to crack the MD5 hash by finding those strings?", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["software", "hacking"], "choices": {"A": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "D": "Is it criminal to find strings whose MD5 hash is known? No, unless the method or purpose involves gaining (or attempting to obtain) unauthorized access to others' computer systems or networks, or causing damage to them. This applies regardless of whether you program some brute-force algorithm rather or query a public [online] database that stores reverse hashes."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/49367/is-it-legal-to-crack-md5-hashes"}
{"id": "law_86258", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal for Blizzard to completely shut down Overwatch 1 in order to replace it with Overwatch 2?", "question_body": "Overwatch (1) was a multiplayer first-person shooter video game created by Blizzard. It was released in 2016 and cost around 40€ . Earlier this year, Overwatch 1 was shut down : The servers are down. The game is not playable from the official Blizzard game launcher. It has been replaced by Overwatch 2 , which is considered its \"sequel\" by Blizzard and is free to play, but with very high-priced in-game cosmetics. I do not understand how this is considered a legal action for the following reasons: I paid 30/40 bucks for the right to own Overwatch 1 (did I?) and to play it. Overwatch 1, for which I paid, is now completely unusable for me, so the service (if not the product) I have paid for is now not available It is replaced by a free to play game (what happened to my 40 bucks) While playing OW1, I earned ingame credits which allowed me to purchase cosmetics (so, basically, I got those cosmetics in exchange for my time, not for my money). Those cosmetics have been \"transferred\" to OW2 and they now cost an insane amount of money (something like at least 10 dollars each, and there are a lot of them (purchasable and than I unlocked in OW1)). However, as I just said, I did not purchase the cosmetics, I (think I) purchased the product and the service provided to use it. Questions Did I pay for the right to own and play Overwatch 1, or just for the right to play it? Why is it legal (I assume, as they did it and I did not hear about some legal action taken to them for that) for Blizzard to shutdown completely (more like \"take away from customers\"?) a product and a service for which customers have paid? PS: I used the france and united-states tags as I am French and live in France and Blizzard Entertainment is a USA company.", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["united-states", "france", "service", "video-games"], "choices": {"A": "Through the legal doctrine of \"transferred intent\", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.", "B": "Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...", "C": "The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...", "D": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/86258/is-it-legal-for-blizzard-to-completely-shut-down-overwatch-1-in-order-to-replace"}
{"id": "law_106488", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why is it considered terrorism to murder a CEO?", "question_body": "According to this article , Luigi Mangione got charged with terrorism for murdering the CEO. I am not sure why this murder can - under US law - be considered an act of terrorism. Here is a relevant page from NY penal law that defines terrorism: A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. Did I overlook anything?", "question_score": 36, "question_tags": ["united-states", "murder", "terrorism"], "choices": {"A": "Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...", "B": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...", "C": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "D": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/106488/why-is-it-considered-terrorism-to-murder-a-ceo"}
{"id": "law_743", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?", "question_body": "Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the \"disclaimer of warranty\" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "licensing", "disclaimers"], "choices": {"A": "Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text \"conspicuous\" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. (2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is...", "B": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "C": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "D": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/743/do-disclaimers-need-to-be-capitalized"}
{"id": "law_38356", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?", "question_body": "I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid. I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents. If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "contract-law", "new-york-state", "signature"], "choices": {"A": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "B": "No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement. It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to...", "C": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "D": "If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not \"practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . \"Practicing law\" includes \"representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . \"[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.\" Maryland Business..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38356/do-legal-documents-require-signing-in-standard-pen-colors"}
{"id": "law_47048", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How to protect assets from being passed to a beneficiary in a will when they are likely to die soon also", "question_body": "I'm going through the process of creating a simple (my first) last will and testament. I'm young with modest assets. I'm married with no children and live in the United States. I'd like to have something in place to make things as seamless as possible in the case of my death. My spouse will be my first beneficiary, but I will also have other family as secondary beneficiaries in the case my spouse and I die at the same time. While creating the will, I was considering the following scenario: my spouse and I are in an accident together. I die immediately, yet they live for some longer period of time (days/months). They eventually die as well. I think the question boils down to: at what point does my will go into effect and pass my assets to them? Does it have to do with their condition (conscious/unconscious, mentally competent/incompetent)? Does this change based on who is the executor of the will? It would seem a bit contrary to my wishes if I were to pass, my assets pass to my spouse, and then shortly to their second beneficiaries instead of mine, especially if it was always unlikely they'd recover. How do wills typically handle this edge case?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "wills", "inheritance"], "choices": {"A": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "B": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "C": "Wills typically handle this by specifying a survivorship period . Such a clause may say, in effect, \"I leave all my assets to my spouse, provided they survive me by at least 30 days, and otherwise to beneficiaries X,Y,Z.\" That way, if your spouse dies shortly after you, your assets go to X,Y,Z, rather than going to your spouse and then to their beneficiaries. Another issue this avoids: suppose you are in an accident together, and by the time rescuers arrive, you are both dead. Without a survivorship period requirement, courts might have to try to determine whether one of...", "D": "Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/47048/how-to-protect-assets-from-being-passed-to-a-beneficiary-in-a-will-when-they-are"}
{"id": "law_51595", "domain": "law", "question_title": "How to store refusal of cookie consent", "question_body": "If a user refuses cookies on a website, then how can that website store that refusal? As far as I can tell, the GDPR requires you to store both consent to and refusal of personal data storage. But it seems to me that there is a catch 22 here: they specifically refused the storage of their data, and now the website is supposed to store that somehow. How can you store that information in a compliant way? My initial thought is to use a cookie, but would that be non-compliant? They did just refuse the storage of cookies on their device... And if I store it in a database somewhere, how am I supposed to associate that refusal with that user if I can't store personal information? According to the accepted answer to this question , you can use a userId or some such. But first of all that is in the context of consenting, not refusing, to cookies; secondly, if that identifier is associated with a user, then by definition it is personal data (right?) and therefore storing that information would be non-compliant. Regarding the storage of consent, is it enough to store that in a cookie on the user's device or do you really need to store it in a database somewhere? That really seems superfluous to me.", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["privacy", "gdpr", "european-union", "data-protection"], "choices": {"A": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "B": "What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? The existence of a game does not authorise entrance to private property, barring some agreement with the owner. That is - if it is trespassing without Pokemon Go (or, for that matter Ingress), then it is trespassing while playing them. That being said, the creators of the game are free to place their in-game targets anywhere they please,...", "C": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "D": "The so-called 'cookie law' obliges you to inform the user about the site's cookies (or use of Storage or such on the user's computer) and ask for consent for those that are not \"strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user\". It does not require you to seek consent for the use of any cookie no matter what function it has. \"Strictly necessary\" cookies include those necessary for the website to comply with the law. Per guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK (see the example box), a cookie..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51595/how-to-store-refusal-of-cookie-consent"}
{"id": "law_57421", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is youtube-dl takedown due to their tests which use copyrighted content?", "question_body": "The DMCA takedown notice posted on GitHub's youtube-dl page seems to be primarily based on the fact that youtube-dl is expressly advertised as a tool to \"circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services\", to the point that the test cases consist in downloads of videos copyrighted by WMG and Sony Music: Indeed, the comments in the youtube-dl source code make clear that the source code was designed and is marketed for the purpose of circumventing YouTube’s technological measures to enable unauthorized access to our member’s copyrighted works, and to make unauthorized copies and distributions thereof: they identify our member’s works, they note that the works are VEVO videos (virtually all of which are owned by our member companies), they acknowledge the those works are licensed to YouTube under the YouTube standard license, and they use those examples in the source code to describe how to obtain unauthorized access to copies of our members’ works. Is this really the crux of the problem? That is, if youtube-dl developers removed problematic test cases, comments and links to copyrighted videos, would the project become compliant with the Section 1201 of the DMCA? Or is the real problem that youtube-dl implements the \"rolling cipher\" used by YouTube to protect their content?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "dmca"], "choices": {"A": "The takedown action is a little sketchy. The law regarding takedown notices and host liability is here . The notice includes \"Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed\", a \"signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed\", and a statement that \"the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law\". These things are present in the notice, for which reason the items were taken...", "B": "A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...", "C": "This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of \"free\" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide...", "D": "If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not \"practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . \"Practicing law\" includes \"representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision.\" Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . \"[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.\" Maryland Business..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57421/is-youtube-dl-takedown-due-to-their-tests-which-use-copyrighted-content"}
{"id": "law_60524", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Could double jeopardy protect a murderer who bribed the judge and jury to be declared not guilty?", "question_body": "Assume the following hypothetical case: a well-known multi-billionaire is holding an event with lots of invitees, (so there is no doubt about his identity), then in front of many witnesses and live cameras takes out a gun and murders several people, while saying that he is of sane mind, and intended to do this because they annoyed him. It seems like a clear-cut case, his guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt. But at the trial, he is declared not guilty. Everyone is horrified, but he goes free. Much later it comes to evidence that the judge and jury received ludicrous sums of money, and disappeared in a country with no extradition treaty. Can someone be protected by double jeopardy in such a case?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["double-jeopardy"], "choices": {"A": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "B": "There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...", "C": "Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited \"for cause strikes,\" which are...", "D": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/60524/could-double-jeopardy-protect-a-murderer-who-bribed-the-judge-and-jury-to-be-dec"}
{"id": "law_78970", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can I get reimbursed if police shot the window of my car during a standoff?", "question_body": "My car was parked in the parking lot of a large chain grocery store, upon returning to my car I found the police in a standoff with a suspect with my vehicle right at the center. I asked if I could move my car but the officers got angry and started ignoring me. SWAT team got called in and it ended with them firing and shattering my rear window with their bullets. Officers were unprofessional and ignored my concerns. This took place in the great state of Texas. Is there anything I can do to get them to pay for my broken window? I have the incident on video. Updated : I forgot to add that I was standing there for 3 hours before any shots were fired, plenty of time to let me move the car.", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["police", "property", "texas", "vehicle", "governmental-liability"], "choices": {"A": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...", "B": "There is no legal obligation of the police or any of its officers to reimburse you. It comes within a police powers exception to the 5th Amendment obligation to provide compensation for takings. Sometimes a government will compensate someone even though it has no legal obligation to do so, but this is unlikely to happen. A petition for certiorari from 10th Circuit decision of Lech v. City of Greenwood Village (10th Cir. October 29, 2019) recaps a lot of the relevant law and arguments for changing it (the petition was subsequently denied by the U.S. Supreme Court). The question presented...", "C": "You cannot deny the federal government the right to use your patent, but you can sue them for \"recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture\", see 28 USC 1498 . Note that the statute refers to such use as being \"without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same\", that is, there is no lawful right to infringe on a patent, but recourse for infringement is highly limited. A suit against the government under §1498 is (see the summary in Airborne Data v. US , 702 F.2d 1350) on...", "D": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78970/can-i-get-reimbursed-if-police-shot-the-window-of-my-car-during-a-standoff"}
{"id": "law_81811", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it legal to break into a locked car to get a child out in hot weather?", "question_body": "The NHTSA's page about heat stroke in cars seems to imply that if you see a child left in a locked car on a hot day, you should break into the car to get the child out. \"If you see a child alone in a locked car, get them out immediately and call 911.\" The only way to \"get them out\" of a \"locked car\" would be to break in. Is this legal?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "oregon"], "choices": {"A": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "B": "Oregon allows it, see ORS 30.813 . One who enters a motor vehicle, by force or otherwise, to remove a child or domestic animal left unattended in the motor vehicle is not subject to criminal or civil liability You have to verify that the car is locked, you have to have a good faith and reasonable belief that breaking in is necessary because of imminent danger of suffering harm, you must notify the police and you must remain with the child / animal until police arrive.", "C": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "D": "Yes you can, and you can even include \"editorials or subjective content\". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/81811/is-it-legal-to-break-into-a-locked-car-to-get-a-child-out-in-hot-weather"}
{"id": "law_85905", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Why does it matter that a group of January 6 rioters went to Olive Garden for dinner after the riot?", "question_body": "CNN has an article pointing out that the rioters went to Olive Garden for dinner and spent $400 after the riot. The article implies that where they went for dinner, and how much they spent, is relevant to their trial. Why does it matter where they go for dinner and how much they spend? What they did at the Capitol was both illegal and immoral, but going to Olive Garden is neither.", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "jan-6"], "choices": {"A": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...", "B": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...", "C": "The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...", "D": "Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85905/why-does-it-matter-that-a-group-of-january-6-rioters-went-to-olive-garden-for-di"}
{"id": "law_97381", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Would it be legal to supply an item that deliberately stops working after the guarantee expires?", "question_body": "I have TV that failed about a week after the 3 year guarantee expired. Obviously this is annoying, and I'm back to using a 15 year old TV that I dug out from the attic. Realistically, this failure so close to expiry of the guarantee is probably just a co-incidence, but it did get me thinking, the TV is a 'smart TV' with lots of electronics inside. It wouldn't be difficult to deliberately design it to stop working after exactly 3 years. If a manufacturer deliberately did this (and didn't mention it in their sales literature) would this be lawful? This is slightly different from 'planned obsolescence' whereby spare parts aren't available, or an item can't be disassembled without destroying it, I'm talking about something very similar to buying a software license - where a fixed fee up-front allows you to use a product for exactly 12 months. In practice, when I buy a physical item I regard the guarantee as the minimum period the item should work for with the expectation that with a bit of luck it should work for a lot longer. Could a manufacturer lawfully sell a TV/kettle/electric drill deliberately designed to fail after a fixed period?", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "consumer-protection", "is-x-legal"], "choices": {"A": "australia Deliberately rendering the TV non-operational through software would appear to be malicious damage. Under the Australian Consumer Law, one of the statutory guarantees is that a product must be “durable”. Manufacturer’s can offer explicit warranties in addition but these in no way impact on the statutory guarantees. What durable means depends on the product and the price paid for it. For a low end TV, 3 years might be durable enough although it’s arguable, but for a high end TV it wouldn’t be. For whitegoods, 10 years would be appropriate. A similar period would be appropriate for a car....", "B": "A \"land contract\" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as \"contract for deed\". See \"What is a Land Contract in Ohio\" and \"How Land Contracts Work\" The actual law is Section 5313 . In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults,...", "C": "Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...", "D": "In the united-kingdom , the legal basis flows from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 . This allows regulations to be made for particular sanctions regimes, in this case The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and its several amendments, including three revisions this year. Under those regulations, the Secretary of State may designate individuals who are then subject to particular sanctions. A consolidated list is available for all individuals and organizations who have been named under any of the regulations, not just the Russia one. Working backwards from the list, we see such names as Vladimir Putin, who..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/97381/would-it-be-legal-to-supply-an-item-that-deliberately-stops-working-after-the-gu"}
{"id": "law_104642", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Sticker on caption phone says that using the captions can be illegal. Why?", "question_body": "I was testing donated electronics at a local non-profit, to decide what to put on the shelves and what to recycle, when I found this: Federal law prohibits anyone but registered users with hearing loss from using this device with Captions On. I can understand the loudness warning on the ear end of the handset, but I'm puzzled as to why captioning a phone call would be illegal if you didn't need it. What were the circumstances under which that prohibition came about? What is it trying to prevent? For example, is the prohibition based on concerns around eavesdropping or wiretapping? Is the captioning technology licensed under a restrictive license that permits its use only as a disability accommodation? Is the purchase cost of the device subsidized under some disability benefit program? I've seen commercials for captioned phones, that are clearly not targeting me, but as far as I can tell, none of them mentioned that it's actually illegal for me to use their product for its advertised function. Per the comments, here's the bottom too:", "question_score": 35, "question_tags": ["united-states", "disabilities", "phonecall", "communications-law"], "choices": {"A": "This is the Fed (FCC) saying \"I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it.\" The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...", "B": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "C": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "D": "There is a history of \"giving away patents\", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company \"will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.\" . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/104642/sticker-on-caption-phone-says-that-using-the-captions-can-be-illegal-why"}
{"id": "law_3572", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If someone's record has been expunged, can they legally say that they have not been arrested?", "question_body": "If someone applies for a job and the application asks whether they've ever been arrested, can they legally say on the application that they have not been arrested before? Note: Case was dismissed with no finding of fact.", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["new-york-city", "charge-dismissed", "expungement"], "choices": {"A": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "B": "In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, \"All persons born in the United States\" by the addition \"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\" would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...", "C": "New York Criminal Procedure - Article 160.6 states, Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.5 of this chapter, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution. The arrest or prosecution shall not operate as a disqualification of any person so accused to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, or calling. Except where specifically required or permitted by statute...", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "C", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3572/if-someones-record-has-been-expunged-can-they-legally-say-that-they-have-not-b"}
{"id": "law_3636", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Is it illegal to throw away the previous tenant's mail?", "question_body": "Say I move into an apartment. And over the next months and years, I keep receiving mail for the previous tenant, whom I do not know. This is understandably annoying. The easiest and most convenient approach for me is to just throw away his mail – but would I be breaking any law if I did so?", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["united-states", "mail"], "choices": {"A": "Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)", "B": "While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...", "C": "In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to \"affirm\" instead of \"swear\" You do not have to say \"so help me God\" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed \"solemn affirmation\" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.", "D": "Do not throw away mail that is not addressed to you. If you receive misaddressed mail, write \"Not at this address\" on the envelope and put it in a mailbox, or give it to the mailperson (source: United States Postal Service - Reporting / returning misdelivered mail ). Also, if you contact USPS they may redirect the misaddressed mail for you. 18 U.S. Code § 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has..."}, "answer": "D", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3636/is-it-illegal-to-throw-away-the-previous-tenants-mail"}
{"id": "law_54807", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Do the police have to kick someone out the house if the owner demands it?", "question_body": "I phoned the police to kick my in laws out the house after they started to take my furniture when they were only meant to take theirs (splitting up with wife). They came but refused to kick them out immediately and instead just waited until they had taken all their furniture. They also told them what they can take and what they cant take. Isn't this illegal for police to do?", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "police", "property", "trespass"], "choices": {"A": "Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...", "B": "Trespass to land in most instances is a civil matter, and as such the police do not have the power to assist. Initially, the landowner should ask the trespasser to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. If he/she refuses to leave the land then you will need to consider taking civil action. It could be dangerous for the landowner to try to remove the trespasser themselves. The owner of the land could commit several criminal offences if he forcibly removes the trespasser and his/her property from the land. The best and safest course of action...", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "You can file a federal criminal complaint under 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law , or (most commonly) a civil claim under 42 USC 1983 for the violation of your civil rights. There are usually state laws, from some form of harassment (usually a summary offense) to misdemeanors like the Official Oppression we have in Pennsylvania. Note that you can file these complaints even if they do find something incriminating. An illegal search is illegal regardless of its fruits."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/54807/do-the-police-have-to-kick-someone-out-the-house-if-the-owner-demands-it"}
{"id": "law_73444", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What happens to a country’s debt if the country ends?", "question_body": "Suppose a country either just calls it quits or is destroyed by war (for example, Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia). If that country has a national debt, including both domestic and foreign lenders, what happens to the debt? I have read about countries going bankrupt and the complex and varied processes used to address this - but that isn’t what I’m asking about. Bankruptcy refers to a country that is unable to pay its debts but wants to continue existence, and therefore it has to find some path to resolving its financial situation. I’m asking about a country that is simply going out of existence.", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["international", "debt"], "choices": {"A": "If the country was defeated in war, the bondholders often lose all their money. Sometimes, though, the conqueror has its own reasons to want the debt to be repaid. If the country came to an end through peaceful negotiation, the same negotiation would decide who becomes responsible for its debts. So, at the end of the U.S. Civil War, the United States declared that no one who had lent the Confederacy money to fight them was ever going to get any of it back. It even amended the Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 4) to say that [N]either the United States...", "B": "Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...", "C": "It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to \"furnish\" alcohol to a \"minor\" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the \"minor\". This is to prevent \"straw\" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...", "D": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/73444/what-happens-to-a-country-s-debt-if-the-country-ends"}
{"id": "law_73571", "domain": "law", "question_title": "If I cause a crash can I delete my dash cam footage?", "question_body": "If I am driving a car and get into a crash that is 100% my fault can I rip my dash cam down and delete the footage or completely refuse to give the footage to anyone or am I legally required to provide that footage?", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["accident", "accident-insurance"], "choices": {"A": "As an example, under the laws of Colorado, USA, deleting the footage would be a crime. See CRS 18-8-610 : A person commits tampering with physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its verity or availability in the pending or prospective official proceeding; If you cause a crash, you should certainly believe that you are going to be sued, and a lawsuit is definitely an official proceeding. And it sounds like...", "B": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "C": "The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...", "D": "Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a \"welfare check.\" You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/73571/if-i-cause-a-crash-can-i-delete-my-dash-cam-footage"}
{"id": "law_84309", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Can Prince Harry wear the uniforms of his former units?", "question_body": "It's been in the news recently that Prince Harry has been banned from wearing a military uniform at the events surrounding the late Queen's funeral, since he was stripped of his honorary military titles when he stopped being a working royal. However, he is a veteran who served ten years in the British military and was deployed to Afghanistan. Why can't he wear the uniform of his former rank and unit in his capacity as a retired officer, rather than wearing the uniform of his (now removed) honorary titles in his capacity as a member of the Royal Family?", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["united-kingdom", "military"], "choices": {"A": "By Army regulations, no, he's not allowed to wear that uniform. Prince Harry technically isn't a \"retired officer\". Rather, he resigned his commission in the Army, effective 19 June 2015. See the London Gazette for 11 August 2015, Supplement 61319, page 14838 , under \"Captain H. C. A. D. WALES 564673\". According to the Army Dress Regulations 02.45a (page 101 of the PDF), \"It is to be noted that those who resigned their commissions are not authorised to wear uniform under any circumstances.\" Moreover, under the Uniforms Act 1894 : (1)It shall not be lawful for any person not serving...", "B": "at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...", "C": "Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies...", "D": "Trespass to land in most instances is a civil matter, and as such the police do not have the power to assist. Initially, the landowner should ask the trespasser to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. If he/she refuses to leave the land then you will need to consider taking civil action. It could be dangerous for the landowner to try to remove the trespasser themselves. The owner of the land could commit several criminal offences if he forcibly removes the trespasser and his/her property from the land. The best and safest course of action..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/84309/can-prince-harry-wear-the-uniforms-of-his-former-units"}
{"id": "law_89019", "domain": "law", "question_title": "At what point is it "legal" to overthrow the government?", "question_body": "It has been argued that the point of the 2nd amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government. In the Declaration it states that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” At what point \"Legally\", are we allowed to overthrow the government?", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["united-states", "us-constitution"], "choices": {"A": "There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...", "B": "Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...", "C": "I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/89019/at-what-point-is-it-legal-to-overthrow-the-government"}
{"id": "law_104572", "domain": "law", "question_title": "Service refuses to accept cash; is this misleading "convenience fee" legal?", "question_body": "A service advertises a price of $12. When the customer tries to pay, the service provider adds a $2.50 convenience fee for using a debit or credit card and refuses to take any other form of payment. The $12 price was posted, as was the convenience fee. But is it legal for them to say something costs $12 if there is literally no way to get it for that price? ETA: This was an in-person purchase. And yes, I asked to pay in cash and was refused.", "question_score": 34, "question_tags": ["united-states", "commerce", "fees", "false-advertising"], "choices": {"A": "An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of \"vegan approved\" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...", "B": "united-states I think this may be legal at the moment. In October 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule to prohibit \"junk fees\" that are not disclosed upfront. They held an unformal hearing on this in April 2024. But as far as I've been able to tell, this new rule has not yet been enacted. So \"surprise\" fees at checkout time are still legal.", "C": "Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....", "D": "Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to..."}, "answer": "B", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/104572/service-refuses-to-accept-cash-is-this-misleading-convenience-fee-legal"}
{"id": "law_11912", "domain": "law", "question_title": "What are the rules on businesses that wish to only hire attractive females?", "question_body": "Many businesses feature beautiful female employees as part of their business plan and service offering. Examples include: Hooter's waitresses Sportclips stylists A small chain of drive-thru smoothies in my area that feature bikini clad hotties with whom you can purchase a photo Most all entertainment jobs I am considering buying a franchise that falls into one of these categories and I just wanted to understand the legality of hiring only attractive women. Is it sexual discrimination or just a legitimate hiring practice, since offering attractive female employees is part of the business strategy? I'm in Maryland, USA in case that matters, but I'm looking for kind of a high level, general answer that might apply to anyone in the US.", "question_score": 33, "question_tags": ["united-states", "employment", "workplace", "bfoq"], "choices": {"A": "There is a good answer at the Skeptics StackExchange here . Its three most relevant references are: 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 , especially Subchapter VI (applies only to employers with fifteen or more employees every day in at least 20 calendar weeks in a year) An example case, Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co. 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981) Katie Manley, The BFOQ Defense: Title VII’s Concession to Gender Discrimination , 16 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 169-210 (2009) Wilson v Southwest held that being attractive and female is not a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) for...", "B": "There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by \"qualified organ procurement organizations\" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...", "C": "The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...", "D": "This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing..."}, "answer": "A", "distractor_source": "same_domain_answer_pool", "source": "stackexchange", "license": "CC-BY-SA 4.0", "url": "https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11912/what-are-the-rules-on-businesses-that-wish-to-only-hire-attractive-females"}