🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@cjd

I found quite the opposite expiernce. I had switched to duck duck go for a few weeks... constantly wouldnt get good hits. Had to switch back to google a few days ago.

@deavmi @jeff @FourOh-LLC @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@FourOh-LLC

> Leaving Islam is a death sentence.
> Hating on Islam is a death sentence.
> Insulting Mohamed is a death sentence.

Not because of the religion, because of tyrannical people who use the religion.

There are tones of examples of Tyranny, and its always caused by people... north korea is a fine example if you want one.

@deavmi @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@georgetakei

An influencer named Chris? :)

@mur2501 Oh nice, did you submit a push for that as well, ill review shortly.

@FourOh-LLC

Islam is not tyrannical.. however tyrannical people have often co-opted religion for their end.

@deavmi @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@FourOh-LLC

> This is Free Speech not inciting violence, if you are ready to read passed the first two sentences.

By the USA legal definition this would probably never be seen as inciting violence.

1) You are not advocating violent imminetntly so doesnt meet this criteria.

2) No reasonable person would expect this phrase to cause those listening to imminently rise up in violence.

@deavmi @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@realcaseyrollins hahaha, #facts

@cjd

Even then the speech itself is not illegal, it is the action, or potential actions is illegal.

This is clear because if you say "Everyone should rise up and kill Bob"... that is **only** illegal if it is likely to produce the action of people **immenetely** rising up and killing bill. In other words, a reasonable person must expect that such speech will have a particular illegal outcome.

If, for example, that exact same phrase were uttered to a group where a reasonable person would expect the group would not actually follow the instructions, then there are no legal consequences.

In other words the speech is always legal, it is the consequences, or the **intent** that makes it illegal, not the words themselves.

@deavmi @jeff @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

"There was a moment today I was worried we might actually survive" -- Worf in Picard

#StarTrek #Picard #Quote #Quotes

@FourOh-LLC

Well your going beyond legal now, and that is ok... Your arguing we need forums where speech wont be censored... On that I mostly agree. But it doesnt mean people need to be willing to listen to you... so you can always start your own website but I am under no obligation to let you post on mine.

@deavmi @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@FourOh-LLC

My guess would be if some entity denied a post to be made, and then edited that post and made it for them, and they either didnt let the person have the control to take it down, or the post was modified in a way that the modification is directly responsible for some illegal consequences... then I'd expect the person editing and posting the post on the main users behalf wold be guilty.

However if the person still controls taking down their post, or the parts edited cant be seen as significant to effecting the outcome, then I'd expect the original person to be the one found guilty.

That said, I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion, not advice.

@deavmi @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@bonifartius Depends on what part your on... I think that is somewhat unique to QOTO and a few good servers.. but it isnt representative of the whole.

@Trilobyter Ahh thanks. Looks lovely then fromt he artistic side!

@cjd

> In that case the speech not the crime at all, but is part of the act of committing a crime. The classical example of this is fraud.

Which is exactly what I just argued... freedom of speech is always allowed, its just sometimes the **Consequences** of that speech is illegal.

As I already stated as an example libel/slander makes the consequences of free speech illegal, the speech itself is legal (as in if someone uttered the same speech in a different context it very well may be legal even if it is still a lie about someone, because the actual result of the actions are what matter).

@deavmi @jeff @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@jeff

We dont have free trade based on either of our choices of definition.. we generally have trade that is overregulated in most cases, and in a few isolated cases may be underregulated as well... but either case what we have now does not resemble free trade.

@deavmi @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@trinsec ugh... yea...

@waltercool

::Starts undressing::

Did it work? It worked right?