Top Stories
"One lemonade company..."
GiphyOne lemonade company had to up the sugar in one of their products, cause it was called "Die Limo" (german word for lemonade) and in order to call something "lemonade" in Germany you have to have at least a certain percent of sugar in it. German logic at its finest.
"In Montreal..."
In Montreal, Canada, there's a municipal regulation that says you can't build or store a nuclear weapon within city limits. The fine is $100.
"Not so much a single law..."
Not so much a single law as the unintended effects of how two laws interact.
- It's illegal to dig up a specimen of an endangered plant species (sensible).
- Sometimes the authorities need to hold controlled burns to prevent uncontrolled wildfires (sensible).
- Want to rescue endangered species plant specimens growing in a place slated for a controlled burn area? Scrooged.
"In Pennsylvania..."
In Pennsylvania, there's a state law that you can't buy a car on Sunday.
Also, it's illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator at night.
"Not passed yet..."
Not passed yet, but in order to reduce the consumption of beer, some lawmakers want to make it illegal for the sale of COLD BEER in MEXICO CITY.
"I can enlist..."
I can enlist, train, and see combat in the armed forces, fly home and still not be old enough to legally have a beer while talking about it.
"Dressing up like a member of the armed forces..."
Dressing up like a member of the armed forces is illegal and punished by a 0.00036$ 0.28$ in today's money fine, however soldiers take it to mean that wearing camouflage is illegal which they use as an excuse to beat up civilians.
"In the Netherlands..."
In the Netherlands it's forbidden to insult a foreign head of state. The only exception is if we are at war with that nation. The only foreign leader assholy enough to charge someone over this law was Erdogan.
"In Connecticut..."
In Connecticut, the law states that for a pickle to be considered as such, it must be able to bounce.
Otherwise, it's just a salty cucumber that's "unfit for human consumption." Thanks CT!
"I know it's a thing here..."
GiphyThe "cannot collect rainwater" laws baffle me. I know it's a thing here in Canada, probable elsewhere?
"Civilians..."
Civilians cannot wear camo patterns in Barbados. Even if it's pink camo it's illegal and the police can request that you take off the offending garment. If customs find camo clothes in you belongings when you enter the country they will confiscate it.
"Oh there are a BUNCH..."
Oh there are a BUNCH of super dumb laws in the US, and in specific states:
California: It is a $500 fine to detonate a nuclear device
Hawaii: it is illegal to stick a penny in your ear.
Alabama: Sticking an ice cream cone in your back pocket is illegal.
The entire USA: You can vote, join the army, and are required to pay your taxes when you turn 18. You are not allowed to drink, rent a car, purchase a pistol (or rifle in certain states), or in some states, smoke, for another three years.
Also the entire USA: Except for Maryland and California, it is legal to own and use a flamethrower. There is no background check for this.
California YET AGAIN: It is illegal to attempt to ride a bicycle underwater.
The Entire USA: The National Firearms act has very specific requirements for what is considered an "NFA" firearm that requires a tax stamp. Here's a helpful guide
And many... many other laws...
"It's illegal..."
It's illegal to kill a whale in Nebraska. IN NEBRASKA! Where are you going to get a whale in Nebraska?!
"In Korea..."
In Korea, the libel laws are so broad that you can be sued for telling the truth, even if you have demonstrable proof that you are telling the truth. The only way to get out of this is if you can prove that your telling of the truth is "for the good of the country".
I'm not Korean, but I live here, and I can tell you the most common way this affects the non-Korean community is when we are looking for jobs. We will get approached by a company, and start asking around in online forums to see if anyone has worked there before and if they have a good reputation.
No one will ever respond, because... well, if you are found to have ever said anything bad about a company, no matter how much proof you have of it, they will sue you for defamation.
There are also cases where rapists (yes, actual rapists) have sued their victims for naming them because it "defames" them. This has actually been a factor in the Korean MeToo movement, because victims cannot name their abusers or harassers without threat of being sued (which is something that has happened).
DQ: What's the dumbest law on the books in your area?
The campaign is part of the Scottish government's One Scotland project in an effort to reduce hate crime.
"The provocative ads were produced by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland as part of the One Scotland campa… https://t.co/KjinQL9xXT— Lizanne Foster (@Lizanne Foster) 1537935300.0
One letter reads:
"Dear transphobes, do you think it's right to harass people in the street? Right to push transgender people around in clubs? Right to humiliate, intimidate and threaten them online? Well we don't."
"That's why if we see you doing harm, we're reporting you. We believe people should be allowed to be themselves. Except if they're spreading hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(In another letter, the country says it has a "phobia" of homophobic behavior.
"If you torment people because of who they love, shout word that we are not going to write, or use violence because you don't like who someone is holding hands with, you should be worried."
"If we see or hear your abuse, we're calling the police. That's because love lives in this country, not hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(One Scotland's website describes the organization as one that aims to continue building an inclusive society while recognizing the significant strides made so far towards equality.
"One Scotland embodies the inclusive society we want in Scotland, where equality and human rights are respected and every individual and minority group feels valued."
There is a new ad campaign against hate crimes in Scotland. “We are a caring nation, not a hating one”.… https://t.co/rfsiFjIq6V— Jen Yang Mezei (@Jen Yang Mezei) 1537975493.0
The website defines hate crimes as abuse that "can be verbal or physical and has hugely damaging effects on the victims, their families and communities, and we all must play our part to challenge it."
"Police Scotland takes hate crime very seriously. In the last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland1."
"However, there are many more incidents that go unreported. We all have a responsibility to report hate crime if we witness it – it's the only way we can challenge it, and put an end to it for good."
The fact that the Scottish government and police are behind this ad campaign is incredible. It's good to see at lea… https://t.co/zMrqDVrhed— TransgenderDate (@TransgenderDate) 1537900917.0
Justice minister Humza Yousaf is familiar with being a victim of a bigotry and is encouraging people to call out and report any incidents involving harassment.
"As somebody who has faced Islamaphobic and racial abuse over the years, I know how upsetting being a victim of hate can be. Hate crime and prejudice are completely unacceptable and we are absolutely committed to tackling it."
"We all have a role to play in stamping out prejudice and I would ask anyone who witnesses a hate crime to play their part and report it. Justice agencies such the police and Crown Office will deal sensitively with reports made and people should have confidence in how they will be treated. Last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland but there are still many incidents that are going unreported."
New Ad Campaign launching on billboards and ad spaces all over #Scotland tackles #hatecime. The Police Scotland a… https://t.co/VJFH0jprjP— Pinksixty (@Pinksixty) 1537896702.0
Henrietta Mochrie identifies as transgender and has been the victim of repeated harassment and abuse. She emphasized the importance of speaking out against the hatred.
"I'll often get street harassment, sometimes this has escalated to the point where I've been followed by people shouting abuse at me, just because of who I am."
"It makes me feel really down and scared to leave the house. It's important that if you witness hate crime that you report it to take a stand against hate."
One Scotland's ad campaign officially launched on Wednesday.
Hopefully, it won't take too long before other nations follow suit in this bold, yet necessary fight for equality.
H/T - OneScotland, PinkNews, Twitter
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
