• PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    The headline isn’t clear. The article goes into quite a lot of detail (the situation is much more complex, and the headline is probably a pretty misleading summary) and is perfectly clear.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      I read the article but I did not find it clear at all. They quote the court’s reasoning but what is the implication of it? Or is it just an opinion without any consequences?

      • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s not really clear in actuality. Different people have different opinions on what might be the results, and a few of them are quoted in the article stating their takes on it. The fact that the reality isn’t clear yet isn’t exactly the article’s fault.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I believe the only relevant quote was from the defense lawyer, and he’s not exactly an uninvolved expert. I was hoping for more analysis or context on the German legal system and how this could play out. But they didn’t include any such information.

          • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Hm… yeah, maybe so. They linked to taz, they quoted a random member of Masch, and they cited some other cases, but yeah maybe it would have been good to have an actual legal expert weighing in on how realistic it is that this will mean anything significant.