mod
Removed Comment Did nothing wrong by sunzu2 reason: Rule against wrongful advocacy
mod
Banned sunzu2 from the community Ask Lemmy reason: Will not tolerate blind alignment with Luigi Mangione expires: in 3 days
Alright good folk, what’s your take here.
When a conflict is being resolved, the message, the intent, and the context are taken into consideration. So suppose you have someone “bait” and cause it to slowly escalate into something that breaks both TOS and several places’ laws/rules and you do something about it, only for the same exact “bait” to show up elsewhere verbatim, initially with good faith taken into consideration but then with the “baiter” revealing he fully intends the thing the people enforcing the rules fear in the first place (which, yes, if you look at what happened, entailed the violence you are denying), ruling out any hope for intent, all while everyone is piling up on a thread that has little to do with the topic they are being passionate about in the first place. What, then, do you expect would happen?
“Free speech” is seldom considered to encompass conspiracy or encouragement/incitement to engage in lawbreaking behavior, both of which are against said laws in even the most free places. At that point, someone might as well argue spying on people is free speech, based on the same “everything goes” mindset that goes into the topic, but then (emphasis on “then”) you run into the people who cite their freedoms while invalidating the law saying they have boundaries on what they consider to qualify.
What is the " law breaking" behaviour here again? Which law is broken?
Y’all need to get a lawyer because these appeals to authority while talking out of your is clowny.
It’s not “appeal to authority” when what I’m speaking from is the TOS (which, if you think is clowny, you can leave this domain right now). The TOS is made by those who are rightfully in charge, having formed (or inherited) the instance with their own two hands. Calling it “appeal to authority” is like calling it appeal to authority to say you own a bike and that you prefer it to not be stolen because you are its owner, even if the TOS happens to have the same things in mind as the law, whose own enforcers have the power, good or bad, to shut the domain down. Murdering people is what we would refer to here as lawbreaking behavior (which I am surprised I have to specify as it has been against the rules in every place that ever existed, except for, ironically, Germany under the Axis Powers, so take that as you will), and by extension this casts a shadow over anything that invokes/tempts it. It’s not rocket science.
You attempting to portray ocean’s comment as a crime, which it is not.
At best, it is ToS violation which is fine but clearly public is not pleased with this modding behaivor and hence why we are documenting the bias on this topic here.
You have the right to mod as you please and general public has the right to know the weak underpinnings you are relying on to censor public sentiment
Cheers;)
Wow, maybe, just maybe I’m not the one in the wrong here. Neither ethics or law care about public opinion, right and wrong are still right and wrong. Your underpinnings are freedom (without regard for the laws that go with freedoms, or the freedoms of Brian Thompson, which are wrongly called “murder”), populism, and inaccuracies about what went down that day… basically a recipe for “it’s acceptable because I want it to be”. If it was about “public sentiment”, there’s a lot more you wouldn’t see that you do, and there wouldn’t be harassment sprees in places like the DM’s to try to cope.
Showing your colors, mate, thank you.
Sensibility is not a color.