Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
Lemmy.World ToS and the murder of the UHC CEO
Hello World,
following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.
Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we're primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don't consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.
Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.
We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don't review each individual report or moderator action unless they're specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.
We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn't allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins' criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.
We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.
As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.
You're viewing a single thread.
Really? Jury nullification???
Glad I didn't join your instance because that is fucking insane.
this post kinda makes me sad I'm in this instance now. 😔
You could always move to a better instance, one of the advantages of the fediverse.
Yeah, I'm about to pick my shit up and move. World on fire.
To where? Shitty is on the rise globally.
Honestly its sort of fair and just basic ass-covering. If some dummy out there gets the bright idea that they can kill someone because they'll get a jury nullification anyway, and it turns out they discussed that here, it's not great legally. No one wants to end up like 8chan.
That is such a terrible defense of banning speech about perfectly legal actions.
Is telling criminals they are allowed to hire shady criminal defense lawyers also banned? It makes them more comfortable committing crimes, right?
Read what you wrote in a few hours and see if it still holds up in your own mind. Simple talking about a legal action should always be allowed
Why do some people have such an insatiable urge to lick on boots?
No one is saying we should allow child porn and allow mass murderers to celebrate their kills. Trying to compare this to 8chan is disingenuous at best.
Elderly grandmothers are celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson. Think about that for a moment.
What does this mean
If I am understanding your question correctly: It means I am not on lemmy.world, I'm on sh.itjust.works, which is federated with lemmy.world but our users are not hosted on your website. I am reading this and posting from a different website.
So you can post to other instances of lemmy like sopuli.xyz or startrek.website as well as your own home instances, as long as they are federated (connected). If you find you don't like how one instances is being run, you can always stop using it and register with a different instance (website) while still being able to post to various Lemmy instances.
Sorry I was asking about jury nullification and what that means and what the mod meant since you seemed to get it.
Thanks for explaining that though. Do you prefer your instance?
Aah, sorry, so jury nullification is a legal concept that basically says if a jury thinks someone should not be punished for a crime, even if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as proven by the evidence presented, they are still technically allowed to rule not guilty. This might be because they think the law itself is unjust, the circumstances of the crime still warrant a not guilty verdict, or some other reason entirely.
Not surprisingly, it's a controversial subject, but it is an established legal concept in the United States and, even if certain people try to quash discussion of it or spread awareness of it, it is 100% lawful. In my opinion, censoring legal discussions in this way is a step too far and claims of liability are very overblown.
Thanks for explaining it! I had googled it but it seemed so harmless I didn’t get it. That’s kind of insane to ban discussion of a standard law….
What would lemmy admins have to gain?
A false sense of security I guess?
Lol
Hold on, think this one through.
The admins aren't worried about jury nullification per se. They're worried about what regulatory authority can do - shut down the instance, hold admins personally accountable etc - if the instance is classified as a media source + has content which could influence a jury.
This is no different from the advice given to other media outlets globally.
Maybe spin it this way. If the very act of having articles celebrating his actions on lemmy.world means his defense is compromised would you be OK with that?
I don't buy that argument: Almost nobody knows what lemmy.world even is and removing discussion of jury nullification (which is what they outright said) isn't even something that sites that have actual significant user bases are doing. It's a step too far.
Site size doesn't matter; prosecution of the actual people who are associated with it still occurs.
There is practically zero risk for users of lemmy instances, but those who host the instance are identifiable through domain registration, hosting or similar.
I don't blame the admins for acting in self interest - ultimately they're putting in the effort and wear the risk.
If you don't agree with it you're welcome to host your own instance - with blackjack and hookers etc.
Prosecuted for discussing jury nullification?
No.
That is fucking ridiculous.
I don't agree with it, and I am also not on their instance.
Enjoy your censorship though.
What's fucking insane is the way people were practically making a checklist of people to kill
This place was turning into thedonald, where abuse was upvoted
You know it's bad when even 4chan people were acting normal in comparison
Tell me you were born with a silver spoon without telling me....
We are fighting for our lives. Literally
Violent begets violence. Do you expect people to bend over and take it?
Class war is here, and it sounds like you're picking the wrong side.Wtf are you talking about?
So it's ok to act like a bunch of fucking terrorists and just start targeting people?
You know nothing about me. I am definitely not rich and I'm definitely not taking the side of the wealthy. I'm definitely on the side of you guys getting free health care or public health insurance like here in Australia
You need to take a step back though and see how weird and radicalised people some people here are acting. 2 years ago we would have called them loonies and reported them, but now suddenly it's ok?
If you guys want the network to be shut down or taken over by authorities, this is the way.
No, it's not ok to start just listing people and suggesting people attack them.
What some people are doing will get us all on a watchlist
Were the French wrong to remove the heads of their oppressors?
The universal opinion is that they did the right thing.Interestingly, their inequality was not nearly as bad as it is today in the United States.
Shut down or taken over by authorities? Is this China or Russia?? We have freedom of speech here, as well as the right to bear arms.
Do you understand that that watch list would be half of the population of the United States? Lol
Elderly grandmothers are celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson. Think about that
It's awesome that you have been insulated from the realities of our healthcare system, but maybe once you turn 26 you'll understand.
the way people were practically making a checklist of people to kill
No they are not, you are making this up to derail the discussion.
No. I'm not.