Sentences with phrase «moral rights claims»

In the New York suit, Sperone Westwater asked the judge to make a declaratory judgment that the archive has no moral rights claims and also seeks damages «for the Defendants» injuries to the gallery's business and reputation,» on counts of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and interference with business relations.

Not exact matches

This «flexibility» is one reason why liberalism has not committed suicide but instead renews itself in every generation as something different yet recognizably liberal and always claiming the moral right to rule.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

Federal civil rights officials have absurdly claimed that they are the true heirs of Martin Luther King's moral legacy, by virtue of their having remained loyal to his «color blind» ideal — as if King's moral leadership consisted of this and nothing else.

Most things are, but it is worse when the people doing it are so fervent in their «knowledge» of what is right and moral and good and the stakes they claim are involved.

Those with any moral clarity at all have heard a better voice in this campaign: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification, but the test of values and integrity, and a president who respects family and rights of faith is better than one who, like you, claims a religious label but then opposes family and faith.

Sure, the church you attend... whatever,... but the religion you believe in teaches right from wrong and claims a connection to, or understanding of, or words directly from, the supposed ultimate moral authority does it not?

Accordingly, the remainder of this essay will proceed as follows: I will first seek to show that the meta - ethical character of every claim to moral validity includes a principle of social action by which a universal community of rights is constituted, so that no moral theory can be valid if it is inconsistent with these rights.

The great issues of our time are moral: the uses of power; wealth and poverty; human rights; the moral quality and character of society; loss of the sense of the common good in tandem with the pampering of private interests; domestic violence; outrageous legal and medical costs in a system of maldistributed services; unprecedented developments in biotechnologies which portend good but risk evil; the violation of public trust by high elected officials and their appointees; the growing militarization of many societies; continued racism; the persistence of hunger and malnutrition; a still exploding population in societies hard put to increase jobs and resources; abortion; euthanasia; care for the environment; the claims of future generations.

Bork, Arthur contends, is far afield precisely because he grounds his jurisprudence in a moral skepticism and positivism that denies «claims of natural rights» as discovered, for example, in «Jefferson's ringing endorsement of self - evident rights in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists» insistence on separation of powers and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.&rights» as discovered, for example, in «Jefferson's ringing endorsement of self - evident rights in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists» insistence on separation of powers and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.&rights in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists» insistence on separation of powers and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.&Rights.»

As to your claim about the keys being used to determine moral right and wrong, I don't see that anywhere in Matthew 16 or Isaiah 22, and although the Jewish people may have understood this as referring to such judgments, they understood then (and even today) that moral judgments are made by God alone and through a proper understanding of what God has said in Scripture.

the only real control one has is the outward interactions with others and if those who claim to hold to a moral code show a lack of understanding on said claims then it is the duty of those seekers of truth to right the wrongs committed in the names of others by ignorant fools.

In personal life, choices of right and wrong come down to balancing the competing moral claims of self and family, personal security and professional interests, short - term and long - run good.

Without casting Enlightenment rationalism as categorically evil, Wright details some of the problematic consequences of Enlightenment assumptions regarding the biblical text: false claims to absolute objectivity, the elevation of «reason» («not as an insistence that exegesis must make sense with an overall view of God and the wider world,» Wright notes, «but as a separate «source» in its own right»), reductive and skeptical readings of scripture that cast Christianity as out - of - date and irrelevant, a human - based eschatology that fosters a «we - know - better - now» attitude toward the text, a reframing of the problem of evil as a mere failure to be rational, the reduction of the act of God in Jesus Christ to a mere moral teacher, etc..

McNeill is right in pointing to the claim in Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah et al. (Harper & Row, 1985) that the therapeutic mentality of the liberal middle class renders it uncomfortable with moral argument.

How many times do we hear you folks claiming that the religious right is stuffing their morals down your throats, when it is clear that in reality it is the other way around.

The free market, he argued, permits a beneficial moral modesty that trusts people acting in pursuit of their own self - interest far more than it trusts avowals of disinterested benevolence or claims to morally superior rights.

And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

The right to choose abortion is grounded in claims to moral agency and bodily and psychic integrity.

Least of all, right - thinking people, people who want human beings to live freely but without overt reference to universal ontological and moral claims.

I confirm that no part of the Content violates or will violate, or will infringe, any trademark, trade name, contract, agreement, copyright (whether common law or statutory), patent, literary, artistic, music, dramatic, personal, private, civil, property, privacy or publicity right or «moral rights of authors» or any other right of any person or entity, and shall not give rise to a claim of slander or libel.

So, in essence, the NTP is a treaty where the countries who have nukes work together to prevent anyone else to get them, which is perfectly logical from a strategical point of view, but has no right to claim any moral high ground.

Moral rights as stated in section 6 is not accompanied with some number of years hence the author of the literary work has the sole moral right to claim authorship of the work.

Speaking outside the House of Lords, he said the British government's defence of this law «gives lie to their claim to have an ethical foreign policy on human rights» and was an example of «moral and ethical hypocrisy».

As such, it is only right / moral / ethical to claim the unclaimed land once consent has been gathered from everyone on the planet.

He went on to warn that society would only prolong this adolescent predisposition if it instructed the individual «that he must be his own ultimate judge of what is right and wrong and that the - moral censure» of anyone claiming authority over him is mere opinion.»

In a 2012 article, «Civil Rights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to Be Learned,» Black suggests that charter schools have succeeded because of their ability to make moral claims, whereas civil rights advocates have tended toward data - based claims in recent years that do not always resonate with local communRights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to Be Learned,» Black suggests that charter schools have succeeded because of their ability to make moral claims, whereas civil rights advocates have tended toward data - based claims in recent years that do not always resonate with local communrights advocates have tended toward data - based claims in recent years that do not always resonate with local communities.

By posting or uploading any Content on the Website: (i) you understand that if your Work is in aliterary categoryincluded on the Book Country Website, and complies with these General Terms of Use, your Work may be made accessible to users of the Website and members will be able to review, comment on it and rate it; (ii) you represent and warrant that (A) the Content does not contain any libelous matter or matter otherwise contrary to law or violate any rights of privacy or other personal or property right whatsoever and (B) you own or control all rights in your Content, that such Content is original and does not, and will not, infringe the copyright, trademark or any other right of any person or entity, and that any «moral rights» in the Content have been waived; and (iii) you grant to us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty - free, irrevocable, perpetual, transferable right and license (A) to display the Content on the Website, and (B) with respect to Content other than your Work, to use, display, reproduce, distribute, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, perform, make, sell and export such Content, in whole and in part, on the Website or in any formats and through any media, as we see fit, and you shall have no claims against Book Country for such use or non-use.

Impermissible Uses.You understand that you may not: • modify, adapt or hack the Service or modify another website so as to falsely claim or imply that it is associated with the Service, AuthorMarketingClub.com, AMC, Author Marketing Club or any other AMC service; • reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion (including, without limitation, the contents of the AMC email or similar notification, the look and feel of the AMC website, and the contents of the web pages of the Service, use the Service or access the Service without the express written permission of Author Marketing Club; • verbally, physically, or otherwise abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) any AMC member or AMC employee, agent or officer; • upload, post, host, or transmit unsolicited email, SMSs, or spam messages; • transmit worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature; • as a Reader Member, utilize the information provided in a Query other than to provide a relevant response to a Specific Query posted by a Author Member; • violate any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations; or, • plagiarize, violate or otherwise infringe upon the trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, or any other rights of any person, firm or entity, expressly including but not limited to libel, slander or invasion of rights of privacy, publicity or «moral rights».

In a January 2008 suit by the archive against the gallery in Milan, the archive sought declaratory judgment that it is not liable to the gallery for not authenticating the works in dispute, and additionally claims that the gallery violated its «moral rights» by exhibiting, publishing, and selling works of art attributed to Boetti.

Claiming some moral high ground while they try to legislate themselves a free pass to same things that good, right - minded people earned through hard work.

So when urban Australia can claim to have reduced their emissions to 1910 levels then, and only then, would they have any moral right to demand reductions in livestock emissions.

But in putting humans at the centre of our moral universe, do we imperil future generations; is a call to «human» rights also an imperious claim against our place in the natural order?

«[A] t this time, if the U.S. is willing to deport people who are fleeing persecution to the risk of human rights violations, then I think we have a legal and moral obligation to not abide by that agreement and allow any asylum seeker to make their claim here in Canada,» says Pillay.

As Hollywood, Esq. explains, the plaintifs claim that because Jay - Z altered «Khosara, Khosara» by sampling and looping parts of it and adding his own lyrics on top of it, he violated a concept called «moral rights,» which exist under Egyptian copyright code:

In its decision, one of the judges referred to the claim for equal human rights protection as an effort to seek «the validation of homosexual relations, including sodomy, as a protected and fundamental right... rebutting a millennia of moral teaching» and then shockingly went on to liken the protection of sexual orientation in human rights legislation with the «violently aberrant sexual configurations» of mass murderers Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen.

In 2010, Lorne Waldman, a Canadian attorney, filed a statement of claim against Thomson Reuters Corporation for infringing Waldman's moral right to control the reuse of his writings included in Thomson's «Court Documents Collection» (CDC) database (available via Carswell Litigator).

Ultimately, Ms. Doyle brought a claim against Zochem for wages in lieu of notice of termination; damages for sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code (Ontario); and moral damages for Zochem's treatment of her — which included the alleged failure to properly investigate her sexual harassment claim.

But each had the same characteristics as the intellectual - property revolt going on right now: an economically powerful social class with the law solidly on its side; increased enforcement accompanied by increased resistance from an identifiable group claiming the moral high ground; and, ultimately, a complete and often dramatic reversal.

I question the moral turpitude of a liberal democracy's claim that it has the right to force a religious hospital to allow physician assisted dying, even though it is morally repugnant to the conscience of the institution.

Like feudal lords of yore, legal publishers (authors or creators claim only their moral rights) stake their rights to past, present and future rents in kind and specie.

By submitting an entry, you: (a) irrevocably grant the Sponsor, its agents, licensees, and assigns the unconditional and perpetual (non-exclusive) right and permission to copyright, reproduce, encode, store, copy, transmit, publish, post, broadcast, display, publicly perform, adapt, modify, create derivative works of, exhibit, and otherwise use your entry as - is or as - edited (with or without using your name) in any media throughout the world for any purpose, without limitation, and without additional review, compensation, or approval from you or any other party; (b) forever waive any rights of copyrights, trademark rights, privacy rights, and any other legal or moral rights that may preclude the Sponsor's use of your entry, or require any further permission for the Sponsor to use the entry; and (c) agree not to instigate, support, maintain, or authorize any action, claim, or lawsuit against the Sponsor on the grounds that any use of the entry, or any derivative works, infringes any of your rights as creator of the entry, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademark rights, and moral rights.

However, the decision of the High Court may have moral or political suasion for future native title claims or claims for commercial rights over the sea:

The [Native Title Act] sets up a real conflict of duty for many of our clients; the duty of prosecuting a claim to ensure that substantive rights and interests are recognised while simultaneously discharging their moral duty to their claim group to exercise procedural rights to negotiate fair compensation for mining on their ancestral lands.