“We are raising funds to support a critical legal defense in the fight against unchecked corporate power and a system that continues to favor the few over everyone else. This case isn’t just about one individual—it’s about challenging a status quo that protects the interest of the powerful at the expense of justice and fairness,” read one of the fundraising pages that was quickly removed by GoFundMe.

    • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Eh, I’m talking about speech that isn’t the direct result of real harm being done. I think the distinction is pretty clear don’t you?

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        No if it was then debates on what constitutes “speech” or “harm” wouldn’t occur.

        People can AI generate convincing CP images. Should those be allowed? Who was actively harmed? What about animation?

        I didn’t say who individually to kill I’m just saying people should go kill a certain group. Should that be allowed? Who was actively harmed? I can’t be held accountable for actions of randos who take my jokes and sarcastic comments literally!

        • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          People can AI generate convincing CP images. Should those be allowed?

          I don’t see why not, if nobody is being harmed in its creation. Just because something is disturbing doesn’t mean it needs to be illegal.

          saying people should go kill a certain group.

          Saying it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s the people doing it who cause harm, that seems pretty clear cut to me.