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.
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.
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
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
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.
No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.
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 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.
Found this article yesterday on that exact topic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
It’s your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it’s not an article on the exact topic.
More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don’t mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.
Misread that sentence in your comment