Posts by brightpilot6

To the users at Sportivo, I hope you’re all keeping your hands tucked firmly in your gloves, just as Stopper suggested ☕

Paul Sanders5 said:It's kinda weird to me that he doesn't vibe with AF, because the whole situation here in America has been the same for like 50 years. That’s why the comic really only took off in Italy and the old America; in other Western countries where they tried to push it, the content is just... unrealistic.🤣

I’ve always wondered why it didn't take off in England. I honestly can't wrap my head around it—it's almost as if it's part of their national character, isn't it?

What is everyone arguing about regarding McDonald's? Honestly, both McDonald's and KFC have their merits. Usually, those promotional burgers you find at McDonald's turn out to be quite substantial and genuinely tasty.

The Submarine is excellent, along with plenty of other options in that category, but there’s really no need to act like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Everything in moderation, right?

For me, the issue isn't so much the burgers as it is the constant disappointment when it comes to pizza; it is surprisingly difficult to find a decent slice that doesn't have crust as thin as a sheet of paper and cost an absolute fortune $27.

Personally, when it comes to both of those questions, I just decided to take matters into my own hands and cook at home; it isn't rocket science, after all, and you can make whatever you want, however you want it.

I still find myself coming back to Alan Ford; it holds up remarkably well even today. It feels different now that I'm older, almost as if there are these subtle layers of humor that simply slipped past me when I was just a kid.

But then again, if you weren't raised on it, is there really much chance you'll find yourself gravitating toward it in your downtime later in life?

steelharbor9 said:* googling what Dylan Dog looks like *

* laughs rofl *

🤣

😲

Believe me when I say that sheer incompetence is a massive part of why the legal system ends up being such a bureaucratic mess later on.

The way they constantly whip around focusing on minor, peripheral details instead of the actual substance is a whole other issue entirely.

I suppose this specific case is more an example of that second point, rather than the first, but I was speaking in generalities. Even by our standards, the lack of quality among the people working there is honestly staggering.

The Inspectorate is basically bottom-of-the-barrel, and honestly, they aren't even winning any awards for competence when you look at how our other institutions stack up against them.

The crew in charge of enforcing the law seems perfectly capable of reading it—and interpreting it however they please, much like some of the folks over on Reddit. But perhaps the most infuriating part of the whole mess is that any kind of legal protection against this kind of nonsense is essentially non-existent.

Just finished watching a bit of Ribic, and honestly, it looks like the libertards totally dominated him ☕

It is honestly quite pathetic when someone carries themselves with such immense arrogance, despite being so utterly devoid of basic logic or any real capacity for thought.

Paul Martinez73 said:Someone should tell Ziza that since the Congress building is basically public space, they can do whatever they want there... then maybe go explain to the Museums that they’re public spaces too, so you can just film whoever you please. Or better yet, head over to some schools and explain that you have total freedom to record people whenever you feel like it...

The thing is, you aren't grasping this at all, not even these simpler points. 🤣

It really only takes three clicks on Google to stumble upon how our judicial practice and legal theory actually define public space, which makes it perfectly clear that such an area can indeed be privately owned. Ultimately, what matters during a crisis is the function the space serves, rather than who holds the deed. But of course, it’s much easier to just swagger around flaunting your own ignorance. Total Idiocracy.

ironpanther5 said:Look, you clearly don't grasp the concept of private property. You absolutely can ban filming for the BBC. For heaven's sake, use your brain.
Try walking into a mall with a professional camera slung over your shoulder and see how fast a security guard comes running over to you.

I’ll tell you once more: you're mixing up your categories, treating pears like they're apples. You won't accept that, of course, but quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Whether or not a security guard approaches me, and what the actual limits of their authority are, is an entirely different matter altogether.

Honestly, this is just pure nonsense. I don't really have anything else to say to you all.

I only wanted to see if there was perhaps some detail I had overlooked, but based on what you've all said, it seems there’s nothing to find here other than a complete lack of understanding regarding the regulations. At this point, I don't see much value in trying to fix anyone else's flawed logic.

Amy Nelson4 said:Mass and the church are meant for the congregation, not for the press.

Journalists and camera crews enter those spaces because they are AUTHORIZED to be there. The law addresses unauthorized filming, plain and simple. I'm pretty sure you understand the distinction between being authorized and being an interloper. I think I'll leave it at that, though—it seems like you're perfectly fine with disregarding US law, whereas I am definitely not. 🙂

I’m not particularly interested in your opinion or how you would personally handle the situation; what concerns me is the existing legal framework. And since no law was broken, there is nothing more to discuss.

You seem to be completely blurring legal categories, and honestly, you might be better off staying out of this entirely, given that you're talking nonsense.

ironpanther5 said:Pure nonsense. A church isn't a public town square. And yes, I absolutely can bar you from entering a shopping mall. Go ahead, try walking into a mall with a camera and let me know how that works out for you. Why on earth would anyone give their consent to be filmed when they chose to show up at a location voluntarily? Good grief, I'm shocked and appalled that someone might discover today that priests actually set the rules of conduct inside a church. 🙂

Your entire argument is pure nonsense.

Are you really trying to suggest that I could show up at a Cathedral in the middle of the night and somehow forbid it from being filmed and broadcast on CNN 🤣?

There are thousands of cameras capturing you in public spaces every single day without a videographer ever needing your permission.

And as for filming in shopping malls, surely we can all agree that there are millions of journalistic photos and videos—not to mention private ones—taken in those spaces constantly.

So, I find myself asking once more: who actually barred this reporter from entering in the first place, such that she could even be accused of breaking a rule?

ironpanther5 said:Look, if we’re using actual common sense here, a responsible person can absolutely deny you entry. Just because the whole concept makes some people feel like it's an open door for everyone doesn't mean they aren't mistaken. It really all comes down to the Pope's good will. Seriously, try showing up with a camera and you'll quickly realize this isn't exactly some public park.

Did this "authorized official"—whoever that might be—actually prohibit them from entering or filming before it even happened?

Joseph Clark37 said:Since they open their doors during Mass, does the interior of the church become a public space subject to all the same rules as any other public area?

I would say yes. It’s much like a movie theater or a concert hall, really. There is a certain line you shouldn't cross regarding the intended purpose of the space, of course, but since the Church itself encourages filming the congregation for broadcasts, why should news crews be treated any differently when they arrive under similar circumstances? After all, isn't the ritual meant to be seen?

Whether someone is a believer or a journalist—that isn't really an argument, is it? At least not from a legal standpoint. Just because a church is considered sacred ground doesn't mean the laws of the United States suddenly stop applying within its walls.

As for the whole issue of tradition, if there were an absolute, universal ban on filming inside religious spaces, I might actually understand the sentiment. But we see journalists walking into churches every single Sunday specifically to do their jobs and provide live broadcasts. The people being filmed aren't asked for permission, nor should they have to give it—much like you wouldn't expect to be asked for consent while being captured on camera at a local farmers market, a restaurant, or a concert. By stepping out into a public space, you are essentially agreeing to waive a portion of the privacy you would otherwise enjoy in the sanctuary of your own home. In the end, we are left with millions of such recordings circulating everywhere.

What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.

Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?

And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣

ironpanther5 said:Look, I'm definitely not a lawyer, so you should probably run this by them—or maybe even a whole team of them. You've got everything from trespassing on private property without permission all the way up the ladder to deal with.

But that’s a pretty bold assertion you've made there. I assume you're basing that on something substantial, aren't you?