• schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    195
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s a TOS violation to discuss one of the very real and legitimate responsibilities you have as a juror?

    Like, nullification is a thing because it’s very much the absolute very very last defense against bullshit laws being used against people by a corrupt judicial system.

    It’s a moral imperative and something anyone sitting on a jury should understand and be willing to use.

    What an absurd take, especially since it sounds like it’s all the .world admins having it.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    169
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I consider human life sacred

    Like the lives of those cut short by denying treatment so CEOs and shareholders can make more money?

    only God may judge us

    Oh, fuck off. If God exists and actually cared, he/she/they would have “judged” the guy a long time ago for introducing needless suffering and cruelty.

    • Localhorst86@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 month ago

      only god may judge us

      Is a great argument for jury nullification. Because that will allow for god to decide the shooters verdict.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 month ago

      god is the most cruel entity in the entirety of the bible. kills the most people, causes the most suffering. how anyone can read that book and come away with a positive view of that beast is unfathomable.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I agree, but that wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make.

        The moderator was on a moral superiority high-horse by suggesting that “only God may judge” a guy who served as the judge for other’s lives through complacent inaction and encouraging policies that put personal gain over humanity.

        The only way that argument wouldn’t have been hypocritical is if he agreed that God was a cruel bastard, and I don’t think that was the case.

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m as much of a god as anything or anyone else, and I hereby give you all permission to judge anyone you want for any reason. This applies both going forward in perpetuity, and retroactively until the Big Bang.

  • moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    1 month ago

    Banning people for encouraging continued violence is one thing, but banning people for encouraging others not to imprison someone is actually ridiculous, regardless of their actual guilt.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 month ago

    “only God may judge us”

    It’s okay, as an atheist, I only recognize the moral authority of humankind, so judge away.

    More seriously speaking, PTB. It would be one thing if the justification was “We REALLY do not want any legal trouble and we are just not equipped to take on any challenges, so we’re playing it safe”, but “i consider human life sacred”? They can fuck off.

    • WadeTheWizard@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 month ago

      Human life is sacred, which is why I’m celebrating this POS no longer being able to abuse the sick to make a few extra bucks.

    • limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Also, WTF does the mod think “jury nullification” is? Wouldn’t he be against all jury trials? You’d think he’d support nullification if he really believes only God may judge us…

      I know, I’m trying to make sense of the rantings of a True Believer.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 month ago

    They keep claiming all these things against the TOS yet you can read that and none of it’s in there. I don’t know what it is about these mods but they sure seem to be trying to push their own agenda.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Remember how the !world@lemmy.world mods kept pushing for months the propaganda bot from a pro-Zionist and very rightwing (so much so that their definition of a Rightwing news media was pretty much only the Far-Right ones) organisation trying to tell everybody which news to trust and which to not trust?

      Also, curiously and back some months ago when I was making anti-Zionist posts in my Lemmy.world account, all of a sudden I started getting e-mails on the account I used to register on Lemmy.world from an Israeli organisation doing “Education about Israel” courses and they knew not just my e-mail but also the country I lived in (the e-mails were in my native language) even though I didn’t share my email on any posts.

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      I was questioning a certain mod why they banned someone for TOS violations but left up the offending comments and they were confused why anyone would question them about it.

      Like if something is that bad you ban and remove it but they thought it was better to use as an example.

      Simply put they just use it as their go to excuse.

  • young_broccoli@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 month ago

    Imagine describing the denial of medical care to thousands in the name of profits as a “mistake”.

    What a clown!

  • nimble
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 month ago

    How is jury nullification against .world ToS? It is part of the law! Or more specifically it is literally created from the absence of a law, to allow a fair trial by your peers.

    Courts don’t want you to know about jury nullification but it is not illegal. It is a required part of the judicial system.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      so trying to prevent people knowing about is is more akin to trying to prevent people from knowing what rights they have?

  • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 month ago

    Also, isn’t lemmy.WORLD supposed to be a worldwide instance? I can discuss jury nullification as much as I want because I’ll never be in the US jury. From my point of view, if I discussed jury nullification and got banned for it, I would treat that as a quite aggressive restriction of free speech.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      1 month ago

      Based on past behaviour, the .world ToS generally gets modified to justify whatever actions they’ve taken AFTER they’ve already taken it.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 month ago

        The lemmy.world terms of service are not exactly a work of clear legal craftmanship. I don’t always think it’s a bad thing to change the TOS to match this situation that just came up, so that we’ll have a consistent policy written down that everyone’s had time to look over. But it’s clearly been thrown together by a bunch of amateurs who are, for some reason, cosplaying as a mini-Facebook with all the mode of speaking and fake professionalism that entails.

        Read our Terms of Service carefully before using this website (“the website"). These Terms of Service (“the Terms of Service” or “the document”) govern your access to and use of the website. The website is available for your use only on the condition that you agree to the Terms of Service set forth above and below. If you do not agree with all of the Terms of Service, then do not access or use Lemmy.World. By accessing or using the website, you and the entity you are authorized to represent (“user” “you” or “your”) signify your agreement to be bound by the Terms of Service.

        That part sounds very lawyerly. Then the rest of the document is clearly a wiki that’s been edited by a variety of volunteer admins as time goes on as different situations come up, with random pieces of general internet advice intermixed with what the rules of the site are, not clearly separated into which one is which.

        Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other people or groups of people. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t give you the right to harass them. Discuss ideas and be critical of principles. Show the respect you desire to receive.

        Everyone has a right to browse and interact with Lemmy.World and other federated instances free of harassment and/or threats of violence. Please try and be kind to your fellow human, or at least civil. Trolling users is only funny if both parties find it funny. Trolling mods and/or site admins is ill-advised.

        Do not engage in content manipulation such as posting spam content, vote manipulation through using several user accounts or consistently down-voting a user. Vote for the content, not for the person.

        Those are all good advice. Will I get banned for violating them? If I consistently downvote a user I don’t like, or if I don’t show the respect I desire to receive? Or if I’m trolling, and someone doesn’t find it funny?

        Do I just need to intuit that if I use multiple accounts to make fake downvotes, I’ll be banned, but if I just consistently downvote another user when I see them, I won’t be? The whole reason for having a TOS is so that users, and admins, won’t need to intuit things like that.

        Then there’s this. Wait for the end, there’s a punchline:

        1. Violent Content

        No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content should be tagged NSFW.

        6.1 War Footage

        Any graphic war footage taken by either private individuals or media outlets is prohibited. Exceptions may be made for photos and videos of historical significance.

        6.2 Violent Content (Exceptions)

        Depictions, imagery or otherwise ancient artwork in any form, other publicly available media entertainment content depicting gore or sexual content may be excluded and allowed, as long as they are fair use, in the public domain, or tolerated by the copyright owner, and in compliance with our Content Policy, as well as all applicable laws and their local laws. For example, films depicting war or historical reenactments.

        Well, that seems perfectly clear. Any graphic war footage is prohibited, except war footage. That’s allowed.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 month ago

          It sounds lawyerly to a layman, but they’re defining lowercase words, which is not a thing (no offense intended). It looks like they tried to copy a legalistic style without understanding the point of writing in that style

        • ochi_chernye@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Third TOS candidates, hmmm.

          • Tears of the Sun
          • Tits-out Sunday
          • Turtle Ossification Syndrome
          • Telescoping Oscillating Syringe

          Any number of possibilities, really!

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah its called whatever the fuck a mod wants to make up whenever the fuck they want to make it up. See some of the main mods in politics and world news.