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.
Lmao jury nullification is legal and just.
What is this corporate bootlicking?
Jury nullification is your duty when the laws are unjust
It’s also used to tell people they should go do something because “no jury in the world would convict you”. Like when white juries in the American south actually refused to convict white people who murdered black people, no matter how much evidence there was.
When Jury Nullification is mentioned on it’s own it’s fine. When it’s mentioned in combination with calling for violence, it’s bad. And it should be bad, we’ve seen it used so badly we created the Federal Civil Rights statutes that allow the Feds to effectively step in and prosecute those racially motivated murders in a different state.
The story you tell is bad, but it’s also kind of what democracy is. Being judged by your peers. That white people should be allowed to murder black people with no consequences is what the people decided. The problem in that situation isn’t the system, it’s the people. The system was enforcing the will of the bad people who represented society.
And how did that situation get better? Heroes broke the law and used violence or the threat of violence to change society. Heroes like John Brown, who killed slavers, and Malcolm X, who armed black people on the streets. Abraham Lincoln went to war with the southern states. People died because of his orders.
It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from. Your rights were scrawled in blood.
John Brown was a hundred years before any of it stopped. He hardly helped stop it. Fight it, sure. Stop it? No. And Malcolm X may have helped Congress see the need but the majority of it stopped when the federal government was able to prosecute people for civil rights violations and force states to let black people onto juries.
John Brown seized the federal armoury in 1859, two years before the start of the american civil war. The journey to equality for black americans took hundreds of years and it’s still not complete yet.
But you know what we don’t have anymore? All white juries nullifying prosecutions. Because the federal government will prosecute them for doing that.
So, what you’re suggesting is that there is nothing meaningful that any one human being can do in their lifetime and the end of that argument is that nobody should try.
It’s like people don’t understand that fighting for equality and civil rights and human rights are an ongoing thing. Martin Luther King broke the law. Was arrested several times. Did what he felt was necessary to make a difference. But he didn’t stop racism so his contribution doesn’t matter. He hardly helped stop it.
The fight can be meaningful, I never said it couldn’t. I said he didn’t stop the jury nullification problem in the south.
That’s an oversimplification of both the history and the situation.
Look at the thread we’re in. Now come back and tell with a straight face that John Brown had anything to do with it.
Idunno what you said, but I agree
They said: