Non-interference is a prerequisite for privacy, but here it does not require omission but rather that a person wanted the state to perform an action through third parties. I know that balancing rights is always difficult and never leaves everyone satisfied, but such an extreme interpretation is even dangerous, it is almost an absolute shield capable of invalidating much of the law; btw, it would be fun to see the brazen court uphold controversial laws like those against prostitution or hard drugs.
But there remains the original problem, that anti-abortion law exists because they consider the fetus to be another third party, that's a fundamental issue here and from the news I've seen the court seems to have ignored it.
If someone wants to establish abortion as a european right I am fine with that, but it is something that must be done through legislative processes, it is not the competence of a court on its own and even less so in a veiled and botched way.
Making abortion illegal is contrary to the right to privacy and family life?
Great result for polish women, but this is not a real right to abortion, but a court twisting the law in an astonishingly blatant way.
The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it's not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of "X people don't deserve human rights" and "those who don't support taking rights away from X are equal to X" is especially atrocious.
For those who do not read the articles, in the store they sold more than music, they are not neo-nazis but probable neo-nazis or former neo-nazis. It's not just the names either, it's also their phone numbers, addresses, and social security numbers.
Screwing neo-nazis can be fun, until some of the innocent ones get harassed and their lives ruined, or when anyone on the list ends up tortured and/or killed.
Great idea, let's share our sovereignty with a flawed democracy filled with corruption that does not meet the requirements and values of the EU. We can deal with this, not that it is a moralistic whim, or that the EU has enough internal stability problems already.
Yep. In fact my comment seemed so clear to me that I assumed it was some kind of joke, but looking at the votes, maybe swapfiles aren't as well known as I thought.
Morality is complicated (especially online), there are many ways to interpret things and almost everything is wrong to different degrees for different people. It's easier to appeal to the hard limits of what people have or don't have the right to do.
Morally, one can also say that feeding a troll or arbitrary censorship is wrong. Which is not the same as saying that the platform has no right to block trolls and have content rules.
There is nothing criminal in creating, using and sharing those mods (as hateful as they are), the modder could have simply said he did it because he felt like it, but the mediaval theming justification is really stupid and inflammatory.
The community reaction is very counterproductive, they have only succeeded in making the mod very visible now. And nexusmods as usual accepting all kinds of horrible mods but censoring only according to drama. All badly here.