绿光森林
《GTA6》"正戏"要来了！葱哥暗示下一条实机公布剧情_我的网站
一 | 《GTA6》近日遭遇了一系列严重的泄密事件，黑客“葱哥”Cyberleek不断地放出游戏的实机视频。昨晚，Cyberleek放出了第12段实机片段，而据Twisted Voxel，他随后还暗示称，未来公开的视频可能会包含重大的剧情剧透。 New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.
Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.
"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.
"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?
Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.
On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.
"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.
"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.
"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.
He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.
The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.
Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:
Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?
Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?
What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?
UNI SM BAV GNK。 据了解，Cyberleek透露称，下一段泄露视频或许会展示游戏的序章，并有可能曝光一段涉及两位主角露西娅和杰森的重要剧情。
二 | Twisted Voxel指出，如果这条视频真的被公开，那么无疑意味着持续不断的《GTA6》泄露事件进一步升级。
三 | 此前流出的素材主要集中在游戏系统、游戏环境以及其他要素上，而非至关重要的剧情内容。 目前，Take-Two正寻求法律手段追踪Cyberleek，其已向法院提交申请，要求微软和Discord提供可能与Cyberleek相关的用户数据，以协助识别其真实身份。
四 | Xbox首席技术官Scott Van Vliet也已公开发声，承诺微软将全力支持Rockstar和Take-Two保护知识产权的行动。 据分析，公司正试图通过法律手段锁定CyberLeek的真实身份，后续可能对其提起刑事诉讼并追讨巨额经济赔偿。不过，Rockstar和Take-Two尚未就法院传票的进展及CyberLeek的最新威胁做出进一步公开回应。本文由游民星空制作发布，未经允许禁止转载。更多相关资讯请关注：GTA6专区。
Current article:http://www.tourunbiaodubaicubangninan.shop/it1c/wmlau.html
Published on:00:36:02