ImJamal

There are a few issues with your argument.

1. If murdering the victim would help a pedo avoid prison then why wouldn't they just murder all of their victims today? The guy in this case already got 15 years in prison, surely he would have wanted to avoid that? I don't think a child rapist is doing some sort of calculation today saying I am not going to kill the kid because 15 years in prison is acceptable, but if I might be in jail for my entire life then I will kill the kid.

2. I don't think a 5 year old knows the difference between 15 years in prison and life in prison so I don't think it would make a difference with the current situation and what I am advocating for.

3. If some family member is trying to avoid life in prison for the uncle, then why wouldn't they also do that for 15 years?

I do not think he should ever be let out of prison. Pedophilia is a crime that I wouldn't want to risk letting prisoners out of jail if they committed such a crime.

If somebody is stupid enough to let a pedo out out of jail, I don't want him to have access to the same tools he used previously to interact with these children. This is no different than when a drunk driver loses their drivers license.

I am completely willing to accept that some people might be rehabilitated in prison, but I am not willing to take the chance with pedophilia. Certain crimes I would be more lenient with, but one of the most heinous crimes is not something I feel comfortable releasing.

I would much rather pay to keep a pedo in jail then risk any child is hurt.

Seems like the better solution is don't give a pedophila such a low sentence. Throw them in jail for decades. If you are going to release them, which I would not be in favor of, you ban them from all electronic devices. Any device that had "numerous sexually explicit messages and images" of children should be destroyed.

Problem solved.

Isn't that the purpose of CAA? You can choose which CAs can sign a cert for your domain?

They are innocent under the law, not necessarily innocent.

They have hosted instances as well though. Not sure their market share though.

Are you saying it is sad that American courts do not enforce foreign laws if they violate the US constitution? If so, then are you in favor of Russian, Chinese, various Muslim countries' laws being enforced in the US?

My high school blocked websites with a proxy set in IE. To bypass this we would install Firefox on a flash drive and run Firefox from it. When Chrome came out everybody switched instantly because it worked so much better for our use case. Maybe a regularly installed Firefox could have been competitive, but my first use of Chrome was a night and day difference compared with Firefox.

It is not based on race, but nationality. If you are an Indian but are a citizen of Singapore your quota will be based on Singapore quotas, not based on you being ethnically an Indian.

You can be grandfathered in, but since this was about somebody returning to Europe, it likely doesn't apply to them

Well they do depending on which country they are citizen of and where they are working.

The UK is considered non-EU so there would need to be a visa for a Brit working in the EU.

The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.

I don't think you are listening to yourself. You are literally saying that standing on the side of the road quietly and not impeding anybody is harassment.

If you think that is harassment then this is hopeless. Have a good day.