Literally it'll sort itself out, as the bans are unconstitutional and more, law just takes long time and we have other shit to sort out before starting to panic about 3-5 Cloudflare IPs getting banned for 2 hours a week...
What do you think are your chances of winning this in the constitutional court?
If you're talking about that "gendered violence" gets different penalties compared to just "general violence", I think that's less about "different prison terms for men and women" but again, maybe you're talking about something else?
Check articles 153, 171, and 172 of the Spanish Penal Code.
For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.
Which, to be clear, does explicitly discriminate depending if the aggressor is a man or a woman, since it defines gender violence as something that men do to women, explicitly.
You are not even disagreeing. You are arguing in favor of such discrimination and justifying it. This is not the place to argue such matters but the point that generally considering a law to be constitutional or not is no guarantee is more than proven.
The law does explicitly create sex-asymmetric criminal treatment in these partner-violence offenses, I wouldn't deny this. A man assaulting, threatening, or coercing a female partner can fall under the LIVG-linked "violencia de género" provisions while a woman doing the equivalent to a male partner generally does not.
But our Constitutional Court has ruled that this asymmetry is constitutionally valid, because it treats the offense as gender violence tied to structural inequality, not as punishment merely for being male. This is why I think this isn't considering discrimination, and why it isn't unconstitutional.
I think the disagreement comes from what actually is discrimination, rather than me being OK with discrimination and others not, or vice-versa. I'm trying to explain the legal situation as objectively as I can, based only on what the legal texts actually say, and I'm trying to help you understand the reasoning of the Constitutional Court here, as obviously they don't agree with this being discriminatory.
> The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.
a weak argument when stated that absolute. Constitutional Courts occasionally shift in their opinions over time. If they do change -- has the previous court violated the constitution? Or is the constitution flexible enough to hold opposite viewpoints without being violated? Doesn't it become very flimsy at that point?
I think a better wording would it is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It might be in the future if the court changes. Naturally that only happens over longer periods of time as old judges die and are replaced with younger judges who were born in a different era and raised with different values.
Moreso if the crime was done with a man as the that woman was "most likely coerced".
As a gay dude in the UK the fact we have a specific MP for violence against women and children confuses me in that men suffer from way more incidences of violence - but what I get told is "yeah but men are doing the crimes mostly" aka a sexist judgement applicable to all men regardless of what sort of person they actually are.
Honestly, I'd rather be harassed for being gay than every join the heterosexual ecosphere; the interactions between opposite sexes are just ridiculous and illogical.
Does it mean "agrees with what I interpret the constitution to mean" or "agrees with what the constitutional court interprets it to mean"? This law is unconstitutional in the first sense, constitutional in the second.
This is not unique to Spain – the US Supreme Court has a long history of interpreting the US constitution to mean a lot of things which aren't obviously in the original meaning of the text. Its recent conservative turn has seen it overturn some of those precedents, but many of them still stand.
Spain's constitutional court – much like the US Supreme Court – is a politicised body – if one doesn't agree with its jurisprudence, the answer is to vote for parties who will appoint judges with different jurisprudence.
You missed a few zeroes there buddy
> According to LaLiga itself, around 3,000 IP addresses are blocked every weekend[1]
[1] https://cybernews.com/news/cloudflare-spain-laliga-piracy-bl...
I've been trying to keep track myself and so far in my months of collecting, I've noted down one service which is unavailable during the matches for me, Docker Hub, everything else seems to work today.
Keep in mind, when they first started the blocks, a lot more was taken offline than what gets taken down when a match happens today, as they seem to continuously adjust it. The article you linked is from almost exactly a year ago, fwiw.
My own company would get taken down.
Most companies who used to use Cloudflare and actually want to be available to users, moved away a long time ago, it's a lot easier than many think.
They've also blocked Fastly in the past. I doubt any large CDN is immune.
> if you know that doing so will make it unavailable for 2-3 hours per week?
You expect companies all across the world to abandon their CDN providers because two countries (Spain and Italy) are being dicks about futbol?
When was this exactly? Last time I heard about Fastly and La Liga in the same paragraph, was when Fastly and La Liga joined up to combat piracy together, I'm guessing what you speak of predates this? Not finding any information about this online though, either in English nor Spanish.
> You expect companies all across the world to abandon their CDN providers because two countries (Spain and Italy) are being dicks about futbol?
No, where are you getting that from?
Parent says their company gets blocked when the Cloudflare IPs get blocked, so that makes it sound like they're Cloudflare users. If they've experienced these blocks for two years already, yet still are complaining about it instead of fixing it, then I expect them to actually try something else than just complaining about it. But I'm also a pragmatist, and I know not everyone in this country is, so this might be why it feels so obvious to me.
I get why you would feel like this since it sounds pretty obvious. However, especially if we are being pragmatic, we should consider that reality is a little bit more complicated:
- We don't know the terms of their contract: how much does it cost them to use CloudFlare services, if they have a chance of "cancelling" just the CDN (in the case of them having more stuff contracted), etc.
- If they decided to pay for CloudFlare services and not some other companies, they might have reasons for not wanting to migrate.
- It does not change that a 3rd party unilaterally decided to start this practice (let's remember that even CloudFlare has finally talked about this and they are obviously pissed) affecting other businesses because apparently theirs is more important.
Honestly this doesn't affect me, but that doesn't change that I get why they feel like even if they could (which we don't know) move away from CloudFlare, they don't think they should just because Tebas said so.
EDIT: Formatting
I'm not sure you understand how these blocks in practice works, no private individual is "letting a football company" do anything, these are legal blocks enforcing the ISPs via courts and judges to block the Cloudflare IPs, you don't "let them" do it or not, it happens regardless of what you want.
I think you're missing a vital piece of the puzzle, the reason Cloudflare IPs are being blocked is because Cloudflare are not listening to legal take-down requests. Other CDN hosts are, which is why you're not seeing piracy streams using Fastly, because La Liga collaborates directly with Fastly.
So, given that CDN generally respond to legal requests, yet Cloudflare does not, I think this loop wouldn't happen if people move to CDNs that respond to legal requests, to be fair, is most of them.