NGL my first impression was no sarcasm because of the lack of s/. I thought Lemmygrad just had another leak.

I think most of this is attributable more so to the abolition of serfdom and the industrial revolution than the communist one. The US also had those improve during the same period too.

The result has been recognised by Venezuelan allies China, Russia and Iran.

The three countries most well known for their open and fair democratic processes.

/s

Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying “No person shall dump oil in the river”.

You don’t need permission for true parody but changing the lyrics (unless you do so to comment on the original work or author) isn’t that.

Take Amish Paradise. It commented a bunch on the Amish. But it didn’t say anything about Coolio or Coolio’s work.

The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it’s meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn’t necessary commentary.

What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don’t like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from “Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton”? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.

While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.

Legal Zoom

If anything granting it satire status is generous.

It’s a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that’s meant to be funny. That’s parody.

That’s satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.

Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most “music parody” like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.

The video’s maker claims this is parody but seems more like just (at best) satire which receives less legal protections typically. It doesn’t seem that there’s any commentary on the work original IPs, given the rest of his body of work.

For the sake of clarity is my claim is that most nations won’t accept the legitimacy of any ICJ ruling against them as there is no practicable means of holding a nation to account. A judiciary without an executive is an exercise in futility.

There is no crime without a consequence.

Any nation at the point of which informed reasonable third parties declare them to have committed war crimes isn’t likely to just slap their knee and say “you know what, my bad” after a ICJ ruling.

It’s one thing to respect the ICJ when you are a third party. It’s another when you are in the nation subject.

If the ICJ declared that many European countries violated human rights by not allowing criminals defendants to face their accusors, I doubt many of them would reform their justice system.

Seemingly not among the involved party. What punishment can flow for this crime and the court’s finding that wouldn’t be levied otherwise.

The indica of respect and legitimacy of a court is if their rulings are abided. Convince Israel a court with no Israelis should be the final arbitrator of their nations course of acts.

A global judicial body unrecognized is effectively moot. You, me, and a few other here on Lemmy could all denounce any nation’s treatment of others but that wouldn’t mean much. We’d just be some random people complaining on the Internet.

Legitimacy and respect are critical to any court. Without them the courts have no merit.

Elections aren’t just about the President. That’s arguably the least impactful person on the ballot. Look at your local reps running for state positions, find ones you like, they’ll have much more impact on your daily life.

Also even if you could generally, you couldn’t do it for this as America has very strong free speech protections.

They considered themselves to be Englishmen, and have the rights of one, even after the Battle of Bunker Hill for some time. Also you’re thinking of Sam Adams, who was a brewer. But Franklin is pretty much dead on the money. Didn’t even wear a wig just showed up all slovenly and slayed.

The blade was inside a sheath and could be released from the sheath with the press of a button.

And approached could simply be he was intent on walking past them on the sidewalk.

Brandish is a stretch nothing in that article noted an intent to intimidate others, it is simple possession of a tchotchke. Unless you count the author’s flavor text.

4 months in prison for having a novelty pocket knife

To be fair they used to have a right acknowledged in the 1689 Bill of Rights

If it actually has quality output this could be great for jargon filled non fiction works that are impenetrably dense for people outside of the field, like in law or science.

Forestalling legislation is one of the most pernicious aspects of certain judicial rulings. Rather than concrete protections we get thin shells waiting for a new ruling to crack.