![](/static/213bde8/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/ed7bd7d8-a25a-496b-8c3c-3715ec09b129.png)
It’s actually counterproductive! People who want to screen stuff about abuse from their internet experience can set up filters. Those filters are broken when you censor the relevant words!
It’s actually counterproductive! People who want to screen stuff about abuse from their internet experience can set up filters. Those filters are broken when you censor the relevant words!
That’s not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can’t pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn’t create jobs or lower prices – and raising taxes won’t destroy jobs or raise prices.
The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn’t say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There’s also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it’s $160,000 per victim. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one’s image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)
Depends on the income period – I’d do 25% of daily income for a first offence.