Helmut Vanhassel

freelance tournament operator, prev ESL/EFG/Blast

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@SamHocking12 @HarryKarl_ @0x45o The product name is dots, not dot.

[StrictlyLogic @lStrictlyLogicl]

When I hear the air fryer beep cause the dino nuggies are done

[Candy 🍁🍂🎃🦇👻🥧 @sweetAFmaybe]

I don’t care how old I am. I WANT turtle pizzas.

[Remarks @remarks]

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 US cities are terminating Flock surveillance contracts at a record pace.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

The never ending alarm

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Cy0ps @NewsWire_US As i said previously, old laws that dictate current technology. In my opinion local courts should be able to challenge Supreme Court decisions in such cases, it’s clear that a 2002 verdict of photoshopped crap is no way near the current capabilities with AI.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Cy0ps @NewsWire_US People will always make things political, the ppl responsible are the 2002 Supreme Court judges and the “free speech coalition” funny enough the primary trade association for adult content that argued “it’s just pictures it’s not real”.

Thankfully all other charges still stick.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Cy0ps @NewsWire_US You could just Google instead of putting on makeup.

https://t.co/pO0p1X2TxS

“We have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves. … [W]e leave to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Cy0ps @NewsWire_US No it doesn’t, not even god himself could change it. Lower courts have to uphold supreme courts precedents.

Then supreme court set both those precedents in 1969 and 2002, all the lower courts can do is advise the Supreme Court to revisit those precedents.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Cy0ps @NewsWire_US Doesn’t matter who appointed him.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@shotgunner101 @reinaanastasiax @IntCyberDigest The PROTECT act was created after this ruling, to be more clear, but once again this was in 2003, it’s time this goes all the way to Supreme Court again and gets revisited.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@tobiastimor @Slatzism @washingtonpost Because of the headline, and because of a 1960something ruling by a supreme court Stankley vs Georgia stating the 1th amendment protects an individual’s right to possess obscene material inside their own home.

So combining both those precedents and this is the result.

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@tobiastimor @Slatzism @washingtonpost There is already a precedent from 2002, the PROTECT act was created in 2003 in response to that ruling.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Supreme Court ruled tldr: the government cannot ban “virtual” depictions of minors in sexual situations simply because they look realistic

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@remarks This is what happens when old laws dictate current technology ladies and gents.

[Midwest Safety @MidwestSafetyYT]

Is there a reason you are slavishly reposting our exact video with no credit while monetizing your account? @SlatDontMiss

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@Tubbymcwub @samburgerbrap @RKRigney It is on Twitter!

[Helmut Vanhassel @JustHelmut]

@CoinTrader_YT @GTAVIMedia Idk about you but I’m certain no attorney is going to approach a potential suspect that casual, especially since they don’t even know who the leaker is.

[IceFrog @IceFrog]

Congratulations to Team Spirit for their victory at The International!

[I,Hypocrite @lporiginalg]

Didn't get awarded fees in my lawsuit 😔

Just to recap:

I posted on X a still image from a film combined with a screenshot from a news article.

I was sued for copyright infringement.

We filed a motion to dismiss which was granted.

We filed for fees which was denied.

I'm out about $42,000.