Comment by abustamam
5 days ago
When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"
We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.
Well, it is an insult and the insulted always, before the internet and now, has the right to sue for it. Only because it happened on the internet doesn't change the law.
This was later deemed inappropriate by courts. Shit happens -- as long as the corrective mechanisms work it is just exceptions.
I'm not super convinced that we can call something like that as "shit happens." in the US "shit" like this happens where cops wrongly raid someone's house and someone often dies because of of this. Though, I think it may be an example of corrective mechanisms not working, but this shouldn't have even happened once.
4 replies →
Why is it even allowed to raid someone for victimless crimes? It's a fundamental issue, not just a mistake.
2 replies →
> it should always be assumed
Who dictates the "should”?
The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.
"it should always be assumed"...wow good luck with your life.