And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph.
Let me try rephrasing it: Why do you think a manufacturer of a non-conformant product (who wants to be perceived as conformant) would intentionally use a nonstandard version of the mark, instead of the standard one? Note that the standard mark is not a certification or proof of conformance of any kind; it is merely a way for the manufacturer to affirm that they are conformant. It is illegal to sell non-conformant products in the European Economic Area regardless of if they carry the standard CE mark or not.
Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
Did you think we’re looking at an actual non-conformant product, and that it used a non-standard CE mark to deceive consumers? I thought it was pretty clear we were looking at a satirical fake product, and I assume the non-standard version of the CE mark was used unintentionally. If it was intentional, it was certainly not to deceive consumers but perhaps could have been an overcautious artist worried about trademark infringement.
I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
Why would you be inclined to believe that manufacturers of non-conformant products would be intentionally using a nonstandard version of the mark instead of the correctly-proportioned one which they can use just as easily?
And why haven’t you edited your comment to remove that image making the false claim that a CE mark with nonstandard proportions is a “China Export Symbol”?
“First-term state Rep. Roger Wilder, R-Denham Springs, who sponsored the child labor measure and owns Smoothie King franchises across the Deep South, said he filed the bill in part because children want to work without having to take lunch breaks.”
Yes he could be extradited and found not guilty No member of the press deserves to go to jail For doing that’s job
So, I guess you’re either being disingenuous or you haven’t followed the case much. If it’s the latter, I highly encourage you to read the two links in my earlier comment, and/or any of these: 1, 2, 3
Are you aware of anyone besides yourself seriously arguing that he has any chance of being found not guilty in a US espionage trial, while also saying that he doesn’t deserve to go to jail?
As far as I’ve seen, any remotely informed commentator who argues that he could get a “fair trial” in the US is also arguing that it would be “fair” for him to be convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison.
🤨 did you read any of the links in my last comment?
(are you suggesting you think that he could actually be extradited and found not guilty, or are you saying you think he deserves to go to prison and that is what you mean by saying he would be “better off” not fighting extradition?)
First amendment is given to us by our creators it says so in the us constution everyone gets it period
Neither the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of its other amendments use the word “creator”. You’re probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence (the famous second sentence of which is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”). The DoI predates the Constitution and its amendments by over a decade and has no force of law.
There is a strong legal argument to be made, including some historical court rulings, that at least some of the rights in the Bill of Rights do apply to non-citizens - although some of those arguments are limited to when non-citizens are on US soil (which Assange was not when he engaged in the acts of journalism which he is being prosecuted for).
Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment […]
Former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo also wrote in his memoir Never Give An Inch:
Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.
Last month, the British High Court gave the US prosecutors until April 16 to submit a declaration including assurances that “the applicant is permitted to rely on the first amendment” and that he “is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen” (those are the British court’s words).
The assurance the US has now submitted did not actually repudiate the prosecutors earlier explicit statement that the “the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment” but instead said merely that he can “seek to raise” the first amendment in his defense. But, he has already been seeking to raise the first amendment to stop his extradition, and these “assurances” that he can seek to raise it again in the US come from the same prosecutors who explicitly argued (and again, have not repudiated their argument) to the British court that he is not entitled to first amendment protection because he is a foreign national.
You didn’t answer my question: Better off than what?
He is better off in the USA he can clam first amendment rights freedom of the press
The US position is that the first amendment doesn’t apply to non-citizens, and also that it isn’t possible to make a public interest defense to espionage charges.
also he won’t get death the worst is 20 to life
The current set of charges carry up to 175 years and the US has thus far refused to guarantee to the British court that they won’t add more charges after they extradite him.
And even if he was “only” facing 20 to life, what would that be better than? He isn’t charged with anything anywhere else.