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.
People also seem to somehow believe that free speech in the US means that private instances can’t deplatform you for the things you say.
I have no idea why anyone thinks that extends to anyone besides the government censoring speech or why they think free speech means freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Many Americans have a weak grasp on even the most basic details of their constitution. During my stay there, I heard “free speech” improperly being used as a defense by people of many different backgrounds.
This drives me crazy. I’ve commented this before, but I’ll say it again:
People in the US love to cry first amendment (freedom of speech, etc) any time something they say has consequences.
Funny how the same people with wE tHe PeOpLe bumper stickers are the ones who haven’t actually bothered to read their own bill of rights. These people also seem to think that “free speech” (as they define it) should only apply to speech they agree with.
Those are the idiots, the real users of the first amendment are the assholes who allowed corporations to have free speech.
This is what led to to the Citizens United decision that has pumped billions into our election cycle (which now never ends). It has created a media that is dependent on those billions in ad revenue, YouTube included. And along with the Super PAC rules, allows unlimited bribing of our “elected” officials.
Exactly right.
Free speech means that the government can’t prosecute you for what you say (except in certain specific circumstances).
Free speech doesn’t mean that I can’t kick you out of my house for what you say.
What we need is a government-operated fediverse instance to serve as a public forum.
That sounds like something Bernie or AOC would advocate for. It would honestly be pretty lit for a bit, before being taken over by lobby industry bots.
A huge number of Americans are dumbfucks. I deal with that every day.
911 = life or limb emergency.
I can assure you that 98% of Americans can’t even grasp that simple concept.
But have you considered that my neighbors are being pretty loud, and I would really like some police to go knock on their door and tell them to be quiet?
Misinformation.
Many places here in the states don’t operate a separate, non-emergency line and calling 911 is appropriate even when it isn’t an emergency.
You should let them know that it’s an non-emergency upon calling.
It’s still unethical to bar speech that you don’t agree with on a public platform when that speech is realavent to the topic in the post/group unless that content is illegal or calling for violence, etc. I almost banned someone from my sub based on what they said in another and realized that it would be an abuse of power and that person was entitled to their opinion outside of the sub that I moderate.
While you and I may give a shit about ethics you can’t expect everyone to hold themselves to the same standards unless you want your heart broken every day for the rest of your life.
Sure, but not if that speech is incitement to violence. Then it’s a legal responsibility to shut it down.
No, there’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country, including the Netherlands. If there was, then speaking in support of capitalism would be illegal. If there’s a law on the books that says it prohibits violent speech, it’s not enforced consistently.
That’s not true at all
There will never be a country that prohibits violent speech because it’s impossible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
you said there’s no legal responsibility, when there absolutely is, even in the United States under fair harbor website rules.
It’s a lot more strict in Europe and other places.
That case ruling was concerned with “lawless” action, not violent action. It’s perfectly legal to advocate forms of violence that align with the law, such as imprisonment and capital punishment.
Sure Dragonfucker.
Netherlands Criminal Code
Thank you for your detailed legal analysis.
Please remove the personal attack. Thanks, MGMT.
It’s their handle.
They changed it to match.
Who changed what to match what?
Brian Thompson isn’t a Dutch authority, so it’s not illegal to incite violence against him, as per your quote.
Ouch
Try Germany:
§111 (1) StGB:
§130 StGB:
I’m fairly certain CEOs could fall under the “designated group” label but I’m not a lawyer. If that is the case, lemmy.world can be held accountable for the spread of content promoting their death.
CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group. And 111 only prohibits advocating unlawful violence. It’s perfectly legal in Germany to say that criminals should be locked up. Imprisonment is a violent act, and it’s completely legal to advocate it. And criminals, just like CEOs, are not a designated group.
Oh don’t pretend you know what you are talking about. The German text says “vorbezeichneten Gruppe”, for which an alternative translation is “aforementioned group”. So the designated groups are “national, racial, religious or ethnic group[s]”. So yeah, CEOs aren’t a designated group, but not for the reason you pulled out of your ass.
Does that also mean it’s legal to advocate violent acts against criminals, such as imprisonment?
What the fuck does that have to do with CEOs being a designated group or not?
But to answer your question, it depends. Specifically if you advocate for “arbitrary measures” against criminals and do it “in a manner likely to disturb the public peace” then it would be illegal under §130 StGB. Barring this caveat though it would be legal.
According to the 2nd highest court in Germany that can only be overruled by the constitutional court:
BGH 3 StR 602/14, decision from 2015-04-14
As a layman, CEOs seem to fit that definition due to their economic and professional characteristic.
This Wikipedia article has an extensive number of court cases and resulting applocations and limitations listed, in case you’re interested in learning more. The English version is far less detailed, so try translating the whole site, i.e. through Firefox Translate:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
If criminals are a designated group, and advocating violence against designated groups is illegal in Germany, does that mean it’s illegal for Germans to say criminals should be locked up?
Cowabunga!
No, because by definition criminals have already done an act such that their imprisonment is legal, if done by the state.
Imprisonment is a legal act of violence if and only if someone has committed a crime. CEOs, while immoral, do not necessarily break laws.
And yes, calling for a group of people to be imprisoned can fall under §130. Again, I am not a lawyer but there have been court decisions about this.
Finally, the fact that lemmy.world distributes content advocating for the killing of CEOs could likely fall under this paragraph because the death sentence itself violates human dignity already.
Usually bc they are trying to see if they can get away with that argument. And sometimes it works so they continue to try.
Legally you’re right. But I think it sort of ignores the spirit of what that free speech should be and the reality it actually exists in. There are corporations that have reached a level of size and power comparable to governments. Plus the government in general is an arm of the capitalist class it represents. Most of the speech that happens today is on these privately owned services. To allow those large corporations to act as censors, it makes the protections on speech from government interference largely moot. Generalizing more, the way I put it is in America, you have freedom… if you can afford it. Sure, nobody is able to stop you from saying what you want to say. But you get to say it to a handful of people you know while a rich person gets to say it to millions of people through media channels and advertising. Sure everyone gets one vote, but if you’re rich you can influence a lot more than one vote (and you can probably buy more than one vote of influence with whoever wins.) You may have the right to an abortion, but if you’re poor you might not have the means to actually do it. People have the legal right to due process, but despite that, tons of cases end in plea deals or settlements because people don’t have the means to be adequately represented in a legal case. When the US legally abolished (most) slavery, many of the freed slaves ended up as share croppers, not much better off or free than they were before because they didn’t have the material means to exercise that freedom. Later, the US passed anti-discrimination laws. No more barring black people from living in some towns/neighborhoods. But despite that, the area I grew up in was still heavily segregated. Legal freedoms don’t mean much if you don’t have the economic freedom to exercise them.
Now, there’s clearly a line. It seems obvious that say, if you had some private chat room it would be fine to kick people out of it for whatever reason. And at the extreme end we have these massive platforms acting which perform the role of a public service but in the hands of private interests. There I think there should be limits on what censorship they should be able to do. So where do you make the cutoff along that spectrum? Idk. I feel like a Lemmy instance is probably closer to a private chatroom than a social media corporation. They’re small, they’re not run for profit, and they’re not engaged in any anti-competitive behavior. There’s not that much stopping someone from moving to another instance or even making their own.
Free speech is a principle (like free trade) in addition to a fundamental right enumerated in the 1A enforceable against the government. People are making policy arguments when they discuss it in the context of private entities deplatforming advocating for private implementation of the principle into business practices.