You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.
No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.
Calling that murky is missing the point.
Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).
We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right
We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.
‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.
This would only make sense if Nintendo’s legal actions either actually prevented emulation or piracy of their games or recouped the lost revenue (lol).
But they don’t you can still emulate the switch and still get games for it (which was never a grey area unlike emulators). You could do for most of it’s lifetime. You could also pirate on original HW, sometimes without HW modification at all.
Emulators have existed and still exist for older nintendo systems and you can still get old nintendo games despite decades of nintendo’s legal efforts, just like you can get pirated movies or music despite decades of legal efforts…