618
submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 252 points 2 months ago
[-] Voyajer@lemmy.world 121 points 2 months ago

Careful, .world admins don't like people mentioning jury nullification

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 159 points 2 months ago

You mean that very legal and factually-suppprted facet of the American justice system that every juror should be informed about before making a decision in court?

[-] plz1@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago

They revised mod policy to only hand out bans/deletions if jury nullification was referenced as a cause to vilence, not a reaction o past events. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago

Yeah, basically

"Go do [Violence] and we'll do jury nullification afterwards" is bad, bur

"[Violence happened], but it was justified in the eyes of the majority of people so jury Nullification should happen"

Is OK

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 months ago

We should all completely cease talking about it. It, of course being jury nullification.

[-] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 5 points 2 months ago

Why? Seems like something people should know about.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 20 points 2 months ago

I think that message was a sort of sarcastic way of getting around a "dont talk about jury nullification" rule, in that saying "we cant talk about x", while making it very clear what x is, prompts people unfamiliar with x to go look it up

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

Ding ding ding. Ding, of course being jury nullification

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 5 points 2 months ago

Because the refusal to convict someone based on laws and circumstances you feel are unjust is wrong and goes against everything the ruling class have fought for.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

But if also a cornerstone. (For better and worse--it got and still gets used to excuse people who commit hate crimes, for example.)

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

The "good ol' boy" excuse.

  • "He's got a promising life ahead of him!"

  • "It's just how things are done, that ain't his fault!"

  • "He just didn't know any better!"

  • "We've all done stupid things before, who are we to judge?"

  • "He's a pillar of the community, think of all the good he's done!"

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 months ago

Good time to switch away from .world

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The policy was cleared up, basically EU/Dutch/Finnish law doesn't like Jury Nullification in regards to future crimes/calls to violence. But in regards to crimes already committed it's fine. And being as that's where .world is hosted, that's the law they go by.

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don’t care, already left

Bunch of bootlickers

.world admins are weird

Time for some #Anarchism at lemmy.dbzer0.com

[-] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

Switched to dbzer0 straight after seeing a mod try and justify the censorship of this topic by saying something along the lines of "only God can judge."

Now I get to enjoy aaaall the content world has defederated from.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

To clarify, the admins have updated their views in reaction to this week and user feedback:

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.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

They specifically said it's okay in reference to crimes already committed.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

What is the reasoning? Is there any?

[-] timestatic@feddit.org 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You really think every person in real life goes ahead with supporting this murder just because you heard enough people online repeating this in this echo chamber?

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 months ago

No. Everybody knows that some people stand up for mass murderers, so long as they do it by enough proxy layers.

Plenty of people betray society for want of looking down on others

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

It goes well beyond any one echo chamber, I still have Xitter and peruse TikTok from time to time. It was/is everywhere across the political spectrum

[-] DogWater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Bro there are Ben Shapiro watchers mad at him for shilling for big corporate interests in the reporting over this story. They agree with the killer too lol

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I've definitely heard both sides of the argument from people who are in no way rich. This is an echo chamber on anti-wealth issues. What people agree on is getting rid of health insurance.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
618 points (100.0% liked)

News

24599 readers
3520 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS