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 must log in or # to comment.
This seems like a double standard: Should any defense of the US healthcare system also be banned because it barbarically leads patients to die waiting for care in an intentional way?
What would the double standard be? Defending the US healthcare system is deranged behavior but doesn’t qualify as “advocating for violence” under any standard.
And besides, you can hardly defend it without blatant misinformation, and that’s banned anyway so it doesn’t really make a difference.
As a non US citizen defending the US healthcare system certainly seems at least a little insane.
So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.
Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.
This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.
If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.
The ToS don’t specify anything about jury nullification, they just said it explicitly in this thread because apparently they removed comments about it in the past even if it was about crimes that already happened, and they wanted to make it clear where the (new) line exactly is.
There is genuinely only 1 thing that matters. People are desperate for change, while Democrats are viciously protecting the status quo, and Republicans are actively making it worse, and enriching themselves. Healthcare, inflation, over charging for milk, literally everything down to the fact they can’t even time stop lights well enough to curb traffic jams so cars break down faster and you pay more to fix it. I do not envy your position being forced to exist by their laws. The day is coming when sides will be required to be chosen. Probably by them. How many ip’s have you already turned over? Keep this in mind. They are the ones that get eaten, no matter how powerful they may posture to be now. They are weak without the people they are enslaving, and the people they need to maintain control are starting to starve.
Wow what a crock of shit
Why does shit always come in crocks? Why can’t it come in a jeroboam?
What a jeroboam of shit!
Reddit was the free speech instance all along? Honestly, with the mods clarifying this I’m asking myself - why the fuck am I on Lemmy again?
deleted by creator
using volunteers for moderation is the root of the problem on both Lemmy and reddit. Its how the zionists took over r/worldnews.
I mean, people paid for it on Facebook and the likes are arguably even worse at their job so…
ha, fair point.
The other dude is confusing. Did you find an answer
What do you want an answer for, “why is Lemmy better than Reddit”?
No they want to know the instance for the greatest free speech, without someone saying “discord bans hexbear links”, repeatedly as if anyone asked about what discord does.
First, that’s not what you asked.
Second, there’s not a single mention to Discord in their comments.
Third, they literally listed instances under the US law, which I suppose is what you’re asking for.
Jury nullification should not be a banned topic. It’s perfectly legal and is the only direct way citizens can object to interpretations of the law. The very fact that the courts and government don’t want people to know of it is a testament to its effectiveness in cases where the public will opposes the government in matters of law. Particularly when public opinion differs drastically from a strict interpretation of the law, but most especially when citizens find a law, its often limited proponents, or its execution to be objectionable, unconscionable, cruel, or unwilling to take circumstances into consideration. It’s crucial for us to all understand our limited power over the government, especially when it’s acting in an oppressive manner, violating human rights, ignoring the principle of justice in favor of a literal interpretation, or is otherwise objectionable by the majority of citizens as opposed to the minority of lawmakers.
Wasn’t jury nullification historically used to sanction hate crimes against minorities? I agree that it shouldn’t be a banned topic, but I also understand how it could be a call to violence in certain contexts.
And it’s not a banned topic, in fact.
Talking about the concept of jury nullification, about the times where it was applied, and how it could be applied to current cases are all allowed, according to what they wrote.
The only thing that’s not allowed is using it as a motive to incentivize future crimes (violent ones specifically, as other types of crimes would obviously not fall under “advocation of violence”). Aka “they should kill (guy), whoever does it will probably not even go to jail because of jury nullification”.
How dare you point out the nuance of what the admins said. Downvotes for you!
I’m seriously worried about most commenters here’s reading comprehension. This whole post is saying “you know all the stuff mods deleted recently? We had a talk and 99% of that is now allowed” and people are still acting like this turned into some insanely policed pro-capitalism instance.
Are all these people really that upset at not being able to use this specific instance to convince people to kill more CEOs? I mean, if someone is already that fed up with the system I don’t think a random Lemmy comment is what will push them over the edge.
Now that humanity’s younger generations have advanced to 100% screen world, reading comprehension and critical thinking skills have been lost.
I mean, I think reading has become even more important now that a lot of what we do and see is in the “screen world”… I just fear that social media and in general the clickbait culture brought people to only read/understand what aligns with their beliefs. And sadly older generations are just as affected as younger ones.
I think this is a good time to remind everyone that the strength of federated social media (and a big reason why we’re all here) is that no private company or country’s laws can have total control over the fediverse.
Everyone who runs an instance is going to have a different risk-tolerance for legal issues however, and I can’t fault anyone for making a judgment call that they feel best protects the server and their users. I don’t know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I’ve seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.
In my interactions with the .World admins, I’ve seen nothing but people trying to run an instance in the most fair and neutral way they can, and I personally trust them to make the hard calls when they come up. That being said, if you’re frustrated with the legal concerns of a host’s country or have had a run-in with a mod that upset you, it only strengthens the fediverse if you spread out or create similar communities elsewhere.
people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American)
Might want to get used to the idea come 2025…
Yeah, if you run an instance, and you decide this is a hobby for you not your main job and you’re also not a lawyer and hence you just go “Sorry, all denied” then honestly, more power to you. It’s a hobby, not a job. If anybody disagrees, they have just volunteered to be the named person of legal representation for this instance, tbh.
Woah, I get not allowing advocating for violence, but restricting people from discussing the topic of jury nullification is pretty messed up regardless of how you feel about the killing.
But aren’t they saying They’re restricting it less? Or am I reading it wrong?
You’re reading correctly.
That’s the oldest trick in the propaganda arsenal, there ain’t one English speaking legal or education system that wants every citizen to know they can just decide to let it slide. They actively, and with insane propaganda levels, push this “rule of law” bullshit that results in jurors on the news after the trial saying shit like “I didn’t know we could just let them go even if they did it” Zero critical thinking, they needed to be told.
This shit is exhausting and incoherent to read. Also, jury nullification is in no way, shape or form ‘advocating for violence’.
Not with a lack of context but, if you read it all, in combination with discussing a crime that has not yet happened, by definition in this situation and context.
Couldn’t have expressed it any clearer!
ikr?!
I can understand (though not agree) with banning clear advocation for violence of CEOs, but the “I haven’t had a reason to smile this much in a while” message that got the user banned was too far.
We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence
I see jury nullification as similar to self defense, just at a larger scale. I take this message as “You’re not allowed to talk about defending yourself for future occasions, only ones that have already happened.”
I guess talking about owning a gun for self defense can be seen as “advocating for violence” but that’s a narrow minded view, where nullification is only used when the ethics are on the greater good, like thousands of deaths vs the one.I can understand (though not agree) with banning clear advocation for violence of CEOs, but the “I haven’t had a reason to smile this much in a while” message that got the user banned was too far.
Was that from a mod or an admin? From what I understood, the ToS explained here would allow a comment like that, but mods could still decide to remove it according to community rules.
-
If Jury Nullification is legal and allowed, then frankly covering that exact thing up is an abomination and y’all should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. Since when is Lemmy in the habit of backing an establishment while not allowing people involved to know the full picture? Genuinely shameful and disgusting behavior.
-
Yeah, I’m not going to ever remove anything from my communities relating to that or to the violence against the CEO. There is no difference between Brian Thompson and any other mass murderer on the planet. Are you asking me to protect Hitler or Pol Pot as well from criticisim and glee over their death? No? Then I am sure as fuck not going to do it for this guy.
Jury nullification is a real thing, but it is often misunderstood … mostly because right-wing libertarians and sovereign-citizen kooks have spent decades pushing conspiracy theory about it.
It isn’t an affirmative right of individual citizens to get onto juries and individually block the enforcement of the law. An individual juror cannot nullify. Rather, jury nullification is a logical consequence of two important rules in our legal system:
- Double jeopardy: if a defendant gets a “not-guilty” verdict from a jury, that defendant cannot be retried for that same crime.
- Juror independence: the judge cannot order the jury to return a particular verdict, nor punish them for the verdict they return.
Double jeopardy is in the US Constitution. Juror independence is inherited from English common law, where it was established in 1670 in an infamous case where a judge imprisoned and tortured jurors for not returning the verdict the judge wanted.
Because of these two principles, if a jury returns a “not-guilty” verdict, the defendant goes free; even if the verdict seems blatantly contrary to the facts and the law. Even if the jury is blatantly wrong, nobody in the system has any authority to do anything about it — not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the cops.
If you are summoned to be on a jury and you make it clear that you do not intend to judge the case on the facts and the law, you will be dismissed from the jury in voir dire. If you preach nullification to your fellow jurors, you might cause a mistrial: the defendant will not be freed; the court will just get a new jury, and the defendant will go back to jail in the meantime.
A mistrial does not free the defendant. A hung jury (refusing to come to a consensus) does not free the defendant. Only a not-guilty verdict frees the defendant.
I didn’t realize these clarifications - thanks for writing up this info!
Cool.
In what capacity does that apply to my protesting Lemmy.world’s frankly idiotic stance of blocking discussion of jury nullification?
Because what they seem to want to prevent is the active advocation or plan to nullify a jury for someone who plans to commit a crime. The problem is the way they worded it. They don’t want you or anyone to plan a violent crime together with likely jurors with the intent of getting the jury nullified on purpose so they can get away with it. But that means you can’t talk about what things might potentially be reason for jury nullification and I don’t think that’s the intent of the laws in their region or fair to users.
Either way, having the information in the above comment is important context for why someone might want to plan a crime and a jury nullification at the same time.
Gul Dukat did nothing wrong!
-
Broseph, I can’t have sympathy. The income inequality won’t let me. People aren’t cheering the unaliving necessarily, but the fact that one of these people actually answered for their crimes, in whatever form that took. Because courts weren’t gonna make him.
No no, I’m cheering the killing.
As somebody who has been browsing the news section at another major social media (you probably know which one), I can assure you they were celebrating what happened to that CEO. it is primarily the reason I just signed up here.
What happened to the CEO was wrong. Full stop.
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.
?? So, discussing jury nullification by itself, or suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation (i.e. someone should disturb the peace) but suggesting that “someone should disturb the peace and everyone on the jury, should they be prosecuted, should advocate for jury nullification” is a violation of the ToS?
I’m not understanding that part.
Specifically where it relates to violent crime.
Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:
“If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges.”
While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:
“The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope.”
The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.
As I understand it “All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is… like… super cool” would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.
Removed by mod
suggesting ‘crimes that have not yet happened’ - itself is not a violation
this was already covered. this is not a new change. if you write “someone should kill person XYZ” this is clearly a call for murder that we do not tolerate here. discussing jury nullification in the same context where murder or other violent crimes are suggested is what was clarified to be subject for moderator action.
It’s generally better to use generalized statements
Like “Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives”
That’s just a historical fact
Really? Jury nullification???
Glad I didn’t join your instance because that is fucking insane.
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?
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.
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’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.
Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?
Admins, please answer this.
In the United States, the right to trial by jury is absolute. Once of the consequences of that right is that juries can choose to follow the law, or not, a they see fit to ethically administer justice. “Should a jury nullify if…” regarding hypothetical future crimes is a completely legitimate topic of conversation, to explore the ethical issues of nullification.
No, they said jury nullification for future violent crimes, not violent crimes that have already happened.
i.e “Hey guys, do you think a jury would let me off for killing Scrooge McDuck?” or “I think juries should nullify if someone decides to drop a piano on Scrooge’s head” and such.
I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone’s opinion.
I did not exclude future crimes from my question.
Advocating to commit a crime probably is a violation of dutch law. Jury nullification does not exist. Edit: no expert, but the other jurisdictions linked to this instance probably similar.
You are not answering the question.
You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.
Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?
That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.
As stated in my reply, I am not a legal expert, and certainly not familiar with the concept of jury nullification. But in the civil law system used in the Netherlands, what is and is not a crime, along with sentencing guidelines, is codified in written law. Case law or jury opinions are not part of the system. Saying person x should be shot, no jury would convict you is not ok. The first half of the sentence constitutes an offence, the second half is meaningless under Dutch law. Advocating for changes to the law or sentencing rules is generally ok, but saying ‘it should be legal to shoot people like x ‘ may still get you into trouble - that is one for the lawyers.
Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.
But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?
Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts ‘celebrating’ violence. It’s their right to do so but so is mine and other’s to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.
You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognise the concept of a jury. Calling that murky is missing the point. We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right
You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.
No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.
Calling that murky is missing the point.
Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).
We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right
We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.
‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.
So you’re just not going to reply now?
Don’t be a moderator if you don’t want to take the job.I’m not a moderator. If I was, I would delete any posts with hate speech or inciting violence if they are against the law in the jurisdiction of this instance. Doesn’t matter what US law allows people to say. Doesn’t matter what I personally think of this specific case (US healthcare is a disgrace to put it mildly, I’m disappointed the guy got caught, and a few other thoughts that you may agree with, but could get me a criminal conviction if I post them, and could get the site owners in trouble for allowing the post - and some posters here don’t seem to get that) I’m done with this post now.
Saying person x should be shot, no jury would convict you is not ok.
Vladimir Putin should be shot, no jury will convict you.
Are you literally creating strawmen to argue against??
You are on the wrong side of history. It’s okay if you want to suck on the nuts of the corporate elite, but we are going to discuss what we need to. We are going to save our children and our grandchildren’s future. Denying claims for a treatable condition and letting someone die is violence in my eyes.
Have you not seen how they are magically approving claims now?? IT WORKED
