In 1944, Duncan was one of the last people convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5), which made falsely claiming to procure spirits a crime.
What in all that is holy is going on here. How did people think this was real
a literal phantom of a sunken naval vessel can appear and some people won’t believe.
Okay but regurgitating cheesecloth on demand is a pretty wild party trick either way.
According to that page, she was married for 11 more years after she died. That’s commitment.
Til death to us part doesn’t apply to witches and mediums.
I mean you’re not wrong, but I’m fairly sure it’s “until death do us part”.
Well I tried to write “til death do us part”
“do” became “to” as either a typo or autocorrect.
I usually hear it with “til” as on old time abbreviation for “until”
And often misspelled as the other word for a cash register drawer. 🥲
Heh, I guess that’s a risky abbreviation in a TIL thread.
Mama didn’t raise a quitter.
TIL ectoplasm in the ghost sense (as opposed to cellular) is a concept that existed before Ghostbusters. I thought they just took the cell biology term to sound sciency.
Dan akroyd is a real believer, he ghost hunts as a hobby and the original draft of Ghostbusters was grounded in “reality” until Harold Ramis reeled him in.
Just looked it up, and yeah, you’re underselling it. I had no idea
She doesn’t look like a medium. She’s at least a large.
The term refers to her preferred pace.
The salsa?
Medium salsa.
That was a wild ride. Thanks!
who’s sinking
Who’s asking?
Oops, fixed.
Weirdly misleading title. She must’ve known, and from leaks she definitely did know.
So instead of charging her for espionage or something they instead charge her for…. Witchcraft?!
Wikipedia says:
The Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5) was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain in 1735 which made it a crime for a person to claim that any human being had magical powers or was guilty of practising witchcraft. With this, the law abolished the hunting and executions of witches in Great Britain. The maximum penalty set out by the act was a year’s imprisonment.
It thus marks the end point of the witch trials in the Early Modern period for Great Britain and the beginning of the “modern legal history of witchcraft”, repealing the earlier Witchcraft Acts which were originally based in an intolerance toward practitioners of magic but became mired in contested Christian doctrine and superstitious witch-phobia.
So likely actually she got charged for claiming she has magical powers since the law says that it’s a crime for a person (which I assuming includes yourself) to claim that someone has magical powers.
Like you can get charged for “hate” in today’s social media
I mean, hate crimes are very real. But you don’t typically get charged just for hate; the “hate crime” charge is a modifier to an existing crime. For instance, if you attack someone, it’s assault (or battery, depending on where you live). But if you have a history of posting about hating black people, you attacked a black person, and witnesses heard you drop the N-word while you were attacking them? Now it’s a hate crime, which is an upgraded form of the same assault charge, with steeper penalties if you’re found guilty.
Let’s say you’re in America, posting on Facebook about how much you hate black people. You wouldn’t have been charged with hate just for posting about hating black people, because that would violate your first amendment right to free speech. Maybe you’d be banned from the site, (if the company refuses to platform you and your speech), but that’s not protected by the first amendment; private companies aren’t required to give you a platform. The government isn’t censoring you in that scenario, so it’s not a violation of your first amendment right to free speech.
The “crime” part of the “hate crime” is the key factor. You wouldn’t be charged with a crime until you actually committed a crime, and hateful speech by itself (as long as it isn’t inciting others to violence), isn’t criminal. The “inciting violence” part is the difference between “I wish the POTUS would die” and “you should kill the POTUS”. The former is legal, while the latter is not. So posts about hating black people would be legal, but posts calling for attacking black people would be inciting violence.
And if you attack a black person, then that criminal charge could be upgraded to a hate crime charge, if the prosecutor believes they can prove that you committed the crime out of hate. And they can 100% use your previous “I hate all black people and wish they would die” Facebook posts against you, to build a case that you targeted the victim out of hate.
Phew, I’m sure the automod is going to have a field day with this comment…
In the US I think you just get hired by ICE?
I mean… hate is something that exists.
Hate crimes are very real. Or am I misinterpreting your comment.
She must’ve known
Well, that was easily deducible from the title (or why wasn’t it to you?)
Removed by mod
Of course it is? Then how was it misleading?
I guess the incorrect spelling is to bait interaction?
wp, OP, wp
