Maybe for the mask issue, but this illegal explicit material might have more weight.
Also, what might not work for one area might work for another area. The group bringing this action have been working on this for many months now, and I have confidence that this will get us somewhere.
The article basically stated that a regular joe was not an appropriate claimant. It wasn't about the issue, per se, it was about the person brining the claim. Which seems like nonsense to me. As you say, these are matters of illegality.
Did you read that link? Basically it says they don't work.
Maybe for the mask issue, but this illegal explicit material might have more weight.
Also, what might not work for one area might work for another area. The group bringing this action have been working on this for many months now, and I have confidence that this will get us somewhere.
The article basically stated that a regular joe was not an appropriate claimant. It wasn't about the issue, per se, it was about the person brining the claim. Which seems like nonsense to me. As you say, these are matters of illegality.