Laila Mickelwait of exodus cry was caught sharing child porn.
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Which it does, promoting violence is not a legal definition of violent advocation. Once again imminence and production are required for it to be considered advocacy. Glorification and promotion are objectively far different than advocacy.
Advocacy and glorification are not part of any laws on violence in the US that I'm aware of, particularly in the way you are using it. Imminence is irrelevant because it is not possible for imminent threats to occur online as far as I'm aware.
You are making a bad-faith interpretation of the rules, and then trying to re-define words to suit your argument by trying to inject legalese when it suits you.
You're not making an honest argument.
I already posted what constitutes advocating violence and what criteria is must meet. Your rules are far more obtuse than that. Imminence has been used for online threats, but like I said, production is also required.
No, you haven't. You posted the concept of imminence, and declared that to be the standard for which all violent speech must meet, which isn't possible online. You are asking me to change Rule 2 such that it would allow you to directly threaten to kill users because it's not imminent.
Furthermore, you are not the arbiter of these words. You assertion is what you want it to meet, not what any of the words actually mean. You are acting solely in bad faith.
Imminence and production are the two standards required by law to be considered violent speech. You are complaining because actually following these standards would not allow you to act as you see fit. Saying that someone should kill someone and dox them does fall under this criteria. Saying someone should die does not. Again rule 2 falls under rule 1 if it was applied to the standard of law.