The only good reason is to limit liability if someone breaks the law with their speech.
And it only breaks the law when that speech is undeniably organizing people to break the law. Simply wishing harm upon someone isn’t a credible threat, and does not break the law.
I wish these pricks would jump off a cliff
Not illegal.
Hey, join me this Thursday to push rich people off the cliff located at the following GPS coords…
If i moderated a forum or ran a coffee shop where The New York Commune was organized, I’d be proud as fuck. There’s no way youd get me to shut up about thatuntil you cut out my tounge and had me eaten alive or pulled apart by horses or something. So like a couple months maybe.
But, you know, if you just want to keep from doing anything bad you can do that, and if you want to stay just that side of the law, you can do that. You can clarify that. You can even clarify how far on that side of the law, like ‘i never want the police to have an excuse to bug me about this shit. I do not have a self deleting setup, logs are publ8c, and im too lazy/don’t like you people enough for that’.
But these ‘no violence’ rules, which, again, were not the stated reasoning for this removal, never seem to be about that. They seem to be about support for (extremely violent) authority, without ever saying that, and each has its own contours.
My point was that American-style rehtoric about “commitment to free speech” is clearly suspect and is more of a theatrical activity, a social signalling method, than a meaningful political argument.
american freezepeach cuisine turns to ashes in your mouth if you try to actually eat it.
Oh. Absolutely, but it means rules about what you can’t say are always broader than they seem, because nobody’s willing to say explicotly what it is thats not allowed
Not exactly whats at issue here though.
Also mightve replied to wrong comment. Unclear, many drugs.
There are good reasons why this kind of language is restricted (even if I happen to believe we need real incentives for oligarchs).
The only good reason is to limit liability if someone breaks the law with their speech.
And it only breaks the law when that speech is undeniably organizing people to break the law. Simply wishing harm upon someone isn’t a credible threat, and does not break the law.
Not illegal.
Illegal.
I would argue that’s a pretty provincial attititude; one that clearly doesn’t work if you think about it beyond theatrical polemical statements.
It may sound noble and well thought out on a superficial level though.
If i moderated a forum or ran a coffee shop where The New York Commune was organized, I’d be proud as fuck. There’s no way youd get me to shut up about thatuntil you cut out my tounge and had me eaten alive or pulled apart by horses or something. So like a couple months maybe.
But, you know, if you just want to keep from doing anything bad you can do that, and if you want to stay just that side of the law, you can do that. You can clarify that. You can even clarify how far on that side of the law, like ‘i never want the police to have an excuse to bug me about this shit. I do not have a self deleting setup, logs are publ8c, and im too lazy/don’t like you people enough for that’.
But these ‘no violence’ rules, which, again, were not the stated reasoning for this removal, never seem to be about that. They seem to be about support for (extremely violent) authority, without ever saying that, and each has its own contours.
I honestly have no clue what you are on about.
My point was that American-style rehtoric about “commitment to free speech” is clearly suspect and is more of a theatrical activity, a social signalling method, than a meaningful political argument.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh. Absolutely, but it means rules about what you can’t say are always broader than they seem, because nobody’s willing to say explicotly what it is thats not allowed
Not exactly whats at issue here though.
Also mightve replied to wrong comment. Unclear, many drugs.
I don’t see how this is an issue. Day to day to we don’t act as if we are in a judicial institution.
When you’re exercising authority over others and citing rules to do it, you have some of the same responsibilities.
Those do not include roleplay as a judicial institution.
But the rule cited isn’t about that. It’s about fellow users.