Important Clarification on the Rules

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
This is intended to clarify what we mean by several sections of the TOS and rules.

The bans on 'illegal content' in the TOS are specifically referring to content that in and of itself is illegal and opens the site to legal liability. This is interpreted very strictly, as in general speech in and of itself is not illegal in the United States. Likewise, the bans on incitement to violence is limited to 'true threats', as defined by the courts.

As an example. A post that reads "Hey, tomorrow X is going to be speaking at Y, let's go and beat X up because Z, A, B, and C' would be an incitement to violence. 'Hey, X is a total jerkwad and somebody should beat him up' is not a true threat, and thus would not count as incitement to violence.

'We should go hunt down Politician X and <insert ultra-violence here>' *may* be a threat, and in general will be treated as a civility violation. 'Politicians who support X should be shot' is *not* legally a threat, and in general will be treated as spicy language that should be responded to with reasonable debate.

In the US for something to be considered, legally, a true threat it has to be A) Specific, B) Timely, and C) a reasonable person should view it as being possible to carry out. Simply saying 'I'm gonna kill you' is not a true threat, saying 'I'm gonna kill you' while posting the recipients current location and posting an image of you with a gun *is* a true threat.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
This is a great clarification given I was hit with an illegal content infraction and perm banned when I broke no laws at all and am still banned from participating in certain threads on the basis of said policy.

And its nice to have clarification because Zoe and Co seemed to just smugly call anyone they didn't like a criminal, perm them then dare them to do something while acting like sociopathic cunts about it.

The policy was dishonestly and maliciously implemented and considering the implied threat of contacting law enforcement and swatting that could result from it? I've always found that deeply irrational and troubling.

Presumably this means you intend to enforce this policy in good faith and not as a pretext to heap calumnies at people you don't like and that's cool!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top