In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The Bradenburg “test” is still the principle used today to legally judge advocacy of violence. Imminent and produce being the key words here.
Per the rules which have been horrendously written. Rule 2: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
As there is no context provided for what constitutes “violence” I’m going to start reporting every comment since words can fall under violence. As people here regularly play games, any mention of any game that contains violence, real or imaginary, must be removed as the display of violence is promoting of it. Any media that has glorified or promoted violence will also not be permitted as to reference to them would also promote violence.
I would highly encourage DoM or AoV to rewrite rule 2 and 16. As it would only take a few people tired of the subjective subjugation to start spamming reports.
Saying that a book says something is different from saying you agree with it or that you condone it irl.
We can say that SJWs are mentally deranged, because SJWs don't count as an "identity group" as that term seems to be defined under Rule 16. However, as I said above, I actually agree with you about 16 and I think it should be tweaked a bit.
My major concern is that any substantial overhaul would lead to the level of discussion in the community being degraded and retarded by feds and teenaged edgelords begging for attention.
Which is not in the rules, violence is not defined so all types apply
The difference between discussing violence in media and inciting or condoning violence has also been established in legal precedents, and it's not being applied here in any way that is novel or unprecedented. There is a difference between subjectivity and common sense.
The legal precedent is what I posted. You must be able to prove imminence and production of violence. None of this is in any part of rule 2, which is applied exclusively subjectively as there is no definition of what violence means per kia2’s usage.
Once again, these laws are applied with a distinction in mind between discussing violence that occurs in media and in actively promoting violence in the real world. The way the rule is applied here is no different.