top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 1 year ago

Oh hey look at that, the thing that I was just this week saying would happen in america on a post about a Chinese erotica artist being arrested, is happening already. Im sure the idiot and/or fbi agent arguing with me about it being uniquely heinous Chinese authoritarianism will never see this. Congrats everyone, I gave it ten years it didnt even take 10 days. This is an occupation.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So can I sue websites that contain sexually explicit passages from the bible?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I saw this coming down Broadway. I pulled my writings weeks ago.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Ah, the Unbridled States of Assholes.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And of course lemmy's only response to this unprecedented judicial overreach is to fucking meme...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What exactly are you expecting the average lemming (probably non-American) to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Share parallels and resistance stories, tips on screwing with their own systems, mutual encouragement in the face of adversity, suggestions on how to keep your data secure and out of sight, legal tips about hosting in other countries for bloggers that don't feel like being sued

    there is SO much more than just 'hur hur supreme court, you mean superlame court hur hur"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I think what's really needed is more development in the anonymous web. Unfortunately hosting a blog exclusively on Tor or I2P isn't a very accessible option at the moment. Probably fair to expect that the need for this will become more broadly relevant going forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • 8 comments in c/legalnews@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    While I sympathize with the author, he can rest assured (sort of) that nobody's going to come after him or his "dinky little free WordPress site."

    The goal is far more sinister than that. The actual point is simply to establish a precedent that people can be prosecuted for online content that is not in and of itself illegal. Sexual content was just a way to get the religious chucklefucks on board, and to hide a dangerous precedent behind a merely controversial mask.

    The ultimate goal is simply to establish the precedent that a government can criminalize the dissemination online of content that's entirely legal in and of itself. Using this ruling as a precedent, governments can and will criminalize whatever content they want, and it should go without saying that the content they're going to most certainly criminalize is any and all content critical of themselves.

    So the author can likely relax. There will undoubtedly be a few test cases so that they can get appealed up to a court that's corrupt enough to uphold the government's position and further cement and/or expand the precedent, but that'll be it, because then they'll turn their attention to the far more important (to them) task of silencing political opposition.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Talks of free speech coming from a Substack account is laughable. “Free to spread Nazi propaganda” is what they mean.

    Substack actively helps platform and monetize Nazi content. They enable Nazi rhetoric to spread and to earn money off their racism.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wait Sunstack is a Nazi platform?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Said the person calling for a group of people to get killed SMH

    That’s what Nazis do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Absolutely not! Free speech is:

    protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

    It does not mean you get to be a platform of hate mongers and a haven for Nazis.

    if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Yes and here is the Canadian:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada

    “reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society" Hate speech (which refers to the advocacy and incitement of genocide or violence against a particular defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group)

    Nazis are not protected under this one either. See paradox of tolerance.

    “Freedom of speech” covers government censorship of criticism about itself. Nothing more.

    Freedom of speech does not mean you get to platform Nazis without being called a POS and eventually ending up in the Hague.

    Edit: just saw your post about wishing death to all British politicians… yeah they are filth but cut it out with the calls for killing an entire group of people… That’s what Nazis do ffs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    6 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    I love how the Constitution means nothing at this point, and how Conservatives have completely abandoned any pretext of following it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    So we write a JS library that you can pull in with your favorite client-side JS package manager that pretends to do ID and face scanning, but just green-lights everything. It tells the user "ok, look at your screen and 3... 2... 1... ok, we got your face scan now hold your ID up to the screen and 3... 2... 1... yup, you're 100% over 18 all right, yessirree." And we only admit it's not actually doing shit in the fine fine print. And anyone can lock their content behind that and if the state of Mississippi or whoever comes after the website admin, the website has plausible deniability. "It's whaaaaaat? I was scammed? Really? It doesn't actually verify? Oh, well, I'm so very sorry Mr. state prosecutor sir, I never realized. I'll get that fixed right up. Wouldn't want innocent seventeen-and-a-half-year-olds exposed to any mention of... whispers: nudity."

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Well that's really fucking bad. Zero reason to not use a VPN now, unless you like not having a usable internet.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are wp plugins to ban ip addresses from states that seem harmful

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment