291–300 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares? Well the grand parent post references Europe, it is presumably a response to that.
"most European legal systems" implies more than one system, they're most likely referring to the "European Union" and not the geographical continent of Europe, which the UK is not a part of anymore
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK 30 people are arrested a day for social media posts online. Only about 10 percent resulting in convictions. Police don't face criminal charges for this. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
Those 30 aren’t arrested for just for writing “social media posts” but for possibly “harmful communication including incitement to terrorism and violence, online threats and abuse, and unwanted communication via email and other means” Of the 90% many will accept their fault and receive a caution or warning Edit: and none of those cases would involve pretrial remand/jail
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/03/met-police-c...
The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority. That he doesn't reflects a structural weakness in US law. In most European legal systems a law enforcement officer overstepping his legal authority would face criminal charges for it.
Today, the parties announced in a joint statement that Larry will receive $835,000 in exchange for dismissing his complaint.
“I am pleased my First Amendment rights have been vindicated,” said Larry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental…
See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The death penalty should be reserved for people who violate a position of public trust and authority.
Because it is irreversible, the death penalty should be reserved for cases in which there is no possibility of mistake. Which, given the fallibility of humans, is never.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In one case, the meme was accurate - the photo, the quote, and its attribution were all accurate, and the cops knew that. It never made it to trial, for obvious reasons. In the other, it was false information, a grand jury indicted, and a jury convicted. The appeal rested on the government struggling to demonstrate a) anyone actively fell for the information and b) the conspiracy element. ( https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.g…
In both cases the reason someone was persecuted was they offended someone in power. And the system eventually ruled in their favor. That is the similarity. If you view one of those cases as a bad result, then chances are you are biased. That said, if you downvote because you have looked into the cases enough to think that that similarity is not valid, and then you can articulate it (like the person I'm replying too d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "did this act constitute a crime, and if so, what is the punishment?" I guess that last part is the perspective I'd change, for a more compassionate world. I'd much rather ask "did this act constitute a crime, and if so, what made the person commit that crime, and how can we help them not do that in the future again?".
For the kinds of "public and infamous" crimes I'm talking about, the answer is almost always greed, either for fortune, power, or fame. There's no need to ask "Why did Nestle decide to kill a bunch of African children by giving away just enough formula stop mothers from being able to breastfeed?" or "Why did tobacco companies stand in front of congress and lie through their teeth about how non-addictive nicotine is?"…
Yes, which is why we need to help these people. They clearly lost all their humanity and compassion, at one point we should care about the betterment of humanity as a whole, and put a limit to how these sort of people can act and do, the current situation is not tenable, and they should be classified as the sick people they are, rather than idolized.
The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority. That he doesn't reflects a structural weakness in US law. In most European legal systems a law enforcement officer overstepping his legal authority would face criminal charges for it.
In the UK 30 people are arrested a day for social media posts online. Only about 10 percent resulting in convictions. Police don't face criminal charges for this. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field.
You may want to explain a bit better, as stated it sounds like you’d prefer he’d still be in jail: “ See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second one was for specifically racist messages - i.e. breaching hate speech laws - not just being mean. I am opposed to criminalising hate speech, BUT I think its important to be clear its not just "saying mean things".
> The second one was for specifically racist messages - i.e. breaching hate speech laws - not just being mean. Can you provide a definition of "hate speech" which doesn't also apply to "mean words"? Are you suggesting racist words are a special category of mean words or something? If so why?