[embedding-shape]

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...

[nekzn]

In Spain we have a domestic abuse law that is unconstitutional (different prison terms for men and women) and it has been there for a very long time.

What do you think are your chances of winning this in the constitutional court?

[embedding-shape]

Are you talking about "Juzgados de Violencia Sobre la Mujer" or "Organic Act of Protection Measures against Gender Violence" or what are you lamenting? What law exactly and how is it unconstitutional?

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?

[nekzn]

I’m talking about the LIVG which sets different prison terms for men and women for the same crimes.

Check articles 153, 171, and 172 of the Spanish Penal Code.

[embedding-shape]

It is not a general "men and women get different prison terms for all the same crimes" rule, it applies to specific offences and specific relationship/victim categories. The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.

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.

[Levitz]

>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.

[embedding-shape]

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, nor providing justification, I'm just giving more context for people who might be reading about this and not having the full context or background of the wider conversation.

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.

[luckylion]

I have no idea about that law in particular and no dog in that fight, but I find

> 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.

[fennecbutt]

Tbf it seems pretty common internationally that women get lower sentences for the same crime regardless of any legal framework behind it.

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.

[skissane]

I think the issue is, what does "constitutional" mean?

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.

[swiftcoder]

> about 3-5 Cloudflare IPs getting banned

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...

[embedding-shape]

Which IPs that you use daily are actually affected by this though?

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.

[dbbk]

> Which IPs that you use daily are actually affected by this though?

My own company would get taken down.

[theendisney]

It seems an interesting argument that more people will watch soccer or races if they cant do other things. They shouldnt enjoy extra benefits.

[embedding-shape]

Maybe don't use Cloudflare in front of your business if you know that doing so will make it unavailable for 2-3 hours per week? These blocks been happening for years, if you're still letting you be affected, maybe you want to provide a poor service to your users?

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.

[swiftcoder]

> Maybe don't use Cloudflare

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?

[embedding-shape]

> They've also blocked Fastly in the past. I doubt any large CDN is immune.

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.

[arielcostas]

Yeah, I'll let a company I don't do business with dictate who I actually do business with just because of their money interests. I don't like or use Cloudflare, I believe they are not good for the internet due to how centralised everything gets on them, and their blocking of non-mainstream setups (browser, OS, Javascript, no VPNs, no Tor and so on); but I'm not letting a football company say "we don't care about screwing you, we are blocking this"

[embedding-shape]

> but I'm not letting a football company say "we don't care about screwing you, we are blocking this"

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.

[j1elo]

That's very shortsighted, this pragmatism might work for a while but when enough companies do the same then some other infra provider would become the new big one, pirate sites would move to it, and La Liga would also block it, bringing everybody to square one.

[embedding-shape]

Ok, so what company is La Liga going after now, since most companies in Spain already moved off Cloudflare? Since these blocks been happening for some hours per week, for years now.

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.

[dbbk]

Yes thanks that is what I did, you'll see I used the past tense

[embedding-shape]

Right, but that's slightly misleading when we're talking about how people are affected (or not) by the current blocks today, not a year ago...

[dfxm12]

"Constitutional" is a matter of opinion. Don't take for granted that opinions can be bought. Don't take for granted that fighting for your rights in court is cheap. In this case, La Liga has more money then you.

[selfhoster1312]

Law enforcement killing citizens is also unconstitutional, and so was slavery in many countries. What a piece of paper says is far from reality.

[embedding-shape]

Yes, and we're supposed to have freedom of speech in Spain too, guaranteed by our constitution, yet we do not. What other irrelevant details should we bring up that is currently missing from the conversation?