It'll get tossed unless there was a specific credible threat, which it doesn't appear to be. This is the system being weaponized against normal people.
You do know that the government can easily track down who you are, right? Even if you are using 7 proxies.
They'll just ask 4chan or Win or whoever for your IP, and then ask the ISP (or VPN) who that is.
I'm rather skeptical of the VPNs that claim they don't even log anything. It'd be great (and horrifying, because there's some bad stuff as well), but it's not happening.
I'm rather skeptical of the VPNs that claim they don't even log anything
Gotta do your research about where they operate out of and the laws about legal mandates forcing businesses to log their customers. Remember, companies generally don't want to do more work unless it will make them money or they absolutely have to.
That said, if you want to be as private as possible for a VPN, look into Mullvad. They accept plenty of options for payment, each with their benefits and drawbacks and don't require any information from you besides that. They can only really track you if they know who you actually are. not being able to connect the history to the person is a decent step in stopping that.
And besides, even if it is ultimately not worth it, I'd still do it just to make the job of the officers just a little bit harder. Fuck em, if you're trying to put me in jail for speech I'm more than happy to be petty as fuck over it.
Remember, companies generally don't want to do more work unless it will make them money or they absolutely have to.
They could log to sell it, which is what many ads I've seen claim American ISPs do.
That said, if you want to be as private as possible for a VPN, look into Mullvad. They accept plenty of options for payment, each with their benefits and drawbacks and don't require any information from you besides that. They can only really track you if they know who you actually are. not being able to connect the history to the person is a decent step in stopping that.
This certainly beats the alternative, but they do know your IP. So while they may not know who you are, anyone trying to go after you for Wrongthink will.
And besides, even if it is ultimately not worth it, I'd still do it just to make the job of the officers just a little bit harder. Fuck em, if you're trying to put me in jail for speech I'm more than happy to be petty as fuck over it.
That's not even petty, it's good strategy. The way to discourage this sort of thing is to make it as hard as possible. Some say they go after 'hate speech' because they are easy prosecutions.,
To be fair to imp, knowing how cucked the UK is, that probably would happen lmao. Didnt the uk try or actually make "online misogyny" punishable by the law? Btw where does he live now (not tryna doxx him or anything lol) because he said
They're looking to make 'misogyny' in the UK a crime and Scotland is already pushing it to become law, the threat is very real. Pretty soon it won't be just people being arrested for daring to criticise trans activists simply making western women look bad by posting up their crazy behaviour much like LibsOfTikTok is going to get you on a list and will probably result in a visit from the police.
People try to laugh it off and dismiss it but they have no fucking idea how bad things are going to get. People like LordLavaLamp are going to be first on the chopping block as well because they probably think like most clueless people "Hurr no one's interested in my cat videos".
Also worth noting there was an American that got hassled by feds at their work places for posting anti-lockdown rhetoric on social media. Assuming they're watching is always a safe bet because even if they aren't they've got bots looking for keywords and images that will flag your accounts.
Didnt the uk try or actually make "online misogyny" punishable by the law?
They tried, but failed. The whole Everard hoax was meant to line it all up but nobody sided with the protestors and women massively overstepped the boundary by demanding male curfews.
So the new plan is to bring it under Ofcom and issue fines and jail sentences to CEOs of companies that allow "misogyny" under a different rule that allows the PM to pass it unilaterally.
Then they added "incel terrorism" to the credible threats list and poured millions into propaganda for it on state media. The former head of counter-terrorism said this pivot is a waste of resources that could result in ISIS members getting away.
There's so many ways authorities can cross-reference, trace, and track down the source. Especially if a person's not using VPN's at all times, disabling most java scripts and cookies, and seriously compartmentalizing what devices they use on what networks.
I'm pretty close to the point to where I give 0 fucks and am almost all for saying whatever the fuck I want, regardless of the possible consequences. Tired of playing these games where the rules are completely rigged to the point of futile stupidity.
It is more a joke than seething. You have treated me fine personally. I don't think you are actually pleased by an environment of stress or paranoia or sabotaging people.
Idk if you remember our last convo but I was pressing you about the identity attacks rule and I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech. I will always hold that against you a bit, even though I understand that you are right about what would happen without the rule- I want that. And that would be a more stressful and paranoid environment for everyone to be in, so I shouldn't accuse you of enjoying that bc it is actually closer to something I want and something you 'd rather avoid.
I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech.
I think that's a good simplification.
Going from a Schmittian Frend-Enemy Distinction, enemy action is fundamentally never to be tolerated, when it WOULD be tolerated if done by a friend. Explicitly because it's enemy action. Liberalism assumes universality among all men, but Leftism is explicitly illiberal, and uses that universalism as it's primary weapon. Liberalism assumes that a Friend-Enemy Distinction is never necessary, and so is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy by people who are explicit enemies of Liberalism, who seek to destroy it, and are operating by a Friend-Enemy Distinction.
The Communist never accepts an accusation of hypocrisy for shooting the child of a Liberal in the head. He sees it as a moral imperative against an enemy, someone outside and antithetical to the Communist's moral universe; and such barbarism is an absolute moral good; a categorical imperative. The Liberal would never shoot the child of a Communist in the head because the child and the Communist are both considered 'friends', and members of a moral universe. This is why the Liberal's children die, and there is no rebuttal. This, to the Communist, is considered a sign of the enemy's weakness, and an invitation for further attack.
And while I can understand the value of a kind of no-holds-barred arena of discussion, I think that there are so many subversives and agitators seeking to act in bad faith to destroy both the arena and those participants, that it must be considered enemy action, and it requires a defensive response.
But yeah, I think you get my point anyway, so I'm just being verbose.
Considering how far and wide I've seen this random nothingburger arrest be posted, with a lot of conveniently documented photos of it even in the guy's house, this is almost certainly a scare tactic.
He is irrelevant and will probably get off, but now a lot of people are going to think twice about posting certain things.
It seems that disclosing publically available information is only against the law if you are on the other side of the narrative. Only then can you call death and harassment upon people with impunity.
Also, ffs, how do you go this long not knowing 4chan is a glowie shithole?
This shit is amazingly illegal. If that idiot isn't out of jail within a day, then there's more to the story. Like "he was making actual actionable plans" more.
Because, despite what the troon worshippers and faggot lovers in government say, the constitution still prohibits the government from arresting, detaining, or censoring you for spicy memes. Even on the internet. Even not in roblox.
If only there are civil liberties organizations, American if you will, that bands together, kind of like an union, I know far fetched, that work to fight against these kind of infringement and government overreach instead of collaborating with them.
Funny thing is, even a call for a specific person to be killed in a specific way, even by a specific person or group, is still entirely within the bounds of the law, as long as it remains unlikely to happen. "In Minecraft" is to avoid TOS violations.
Well, there's a technicality there: It is entirely within the bounds of the law, but if it happens anyways, you could be found guilty of collaboration or incitement after the fact, and definitely could be investigated (and the process IS the punishment in those cases).
For example, if I called out for a public figure to be drowned in a bowl of spaghetti-os by someone wearing a hamburglar outfit, no liability. But if they then WERE drowned by someone in a hamburglar outfit using spaghetti-os, I could be liable.
In a sane would, this would not apply to things like praying a meteoroid impacts them from space, but this isn't Sane World, so I wouldn't trust it. Just don't glowpost. Not worth it.
Legally, "in minecraft" should provide complete legal protection, because it literally says "I do not intend to do this irl", and laws against threats have very strict requirements because of free speech rights.
In the case of Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969),[59] the United States Supreme Court ruled that mere political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats.
"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."
According to court testimony, the defendant in speaking made a gesture of sighting down the barrel of a rifle.
the Supreme Court reversed, stating, "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise."
Now let's apply this to the present case:
This guy called for “just shoot Chitwood in the head and he stops being a problem ... in minecraft” in the context of political opposition.
Unlike in Watts, where being drafted was the contingency (which was already certain), the "in minecraft" explicitly stated that this wasn't meant for IRL.
So the prosecutor would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that saying "in minecraft" was something that everyone reading the comment would interpret as "but not really" as it literally states, but instead as "I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Could the jury nullify because "oh a sweaty 4channer, we have been told by the media they are evil! burn the witch!" WHY YES, and that might actually happen here.
But he should fight it. If he is a pussy and he pleads guilty and thereby sets a precedent that these kinds of arrests will work? Fuck him.
I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard
Why is it not? I mean it’s quite obvious why “in Minecraft” is said, but why is it not provable beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because you don't know what the fuck was going on in his head. How could you have NO REASONABLE DOUBT and be SO CERTAIN as to what he meant when he wrote "in minecraft"? You're not in his head. You can't just project your own opinion into his head.
Thankfully only 1 juror needs to correctly apply the reasonable doubt standard, as you so aptly just demonstrated that some jurors like you would not.
Meanwhile leftists call for murders every day and they never get arrested unless they actually try to pull it off.
Tap the sign
It'll get tossed unless there was a specific credible threat, which it doesn't appear to be. This is the system being weaponized against normal people.
Wake me up when the right finds their collective balls to do something about it.
I believe this might be the first documented case of anyone calling /pol/ posters "normal people".
How the fuck did he dox himself?
You do know that the government can easily track down who you are, right? Even if you are using 7 proxies.
They'll just ask 4chan or Win or whoever for your IP, and then ask the ISP (or VPN) who that is.
I'm rather skeptical of the VPNs that claim they don't even log anything. It'd be great (and horrifying, because there's some bad stuff as well), but it's not happening.
Gotta do your research about where they operate out of and the laws about legal mandates forcing businesses to log their customers. Remember, companies generally don't want to do more work unless it will make them money or they absolutely have to.
That said, if you want to be as private as possible for a VPN, look into Mullvad. They accept plenty of options for payment, each with their benefits and drawbacks and don't require any information from you besides that. They can only really track you if they know who you actually are. not being able to connect the history to the person is a decent step in stopping that.
And besides, even if it is ultimately not worth it, I'd still do it just to make the job of the officers just a little bit harder. Fuck em, if you're trying to put me in jail for speech I'm more than happy to be petty as fuck over it.
They could log to sell it, which is what many ads I've seen claim American ISPs do.
This certainly beats the alternative, but they do know your IP. So while they may not know who you are, anyone trying to go after you for Wrongthink will.
That's not even petty, it's good strategy. The way to discourage this sort of thing is to make it as hard as possible. Some say they go after 'hate speech' because they are easy prosecutions.,
Only Tor is probably safe - and only assuming the government doesn’t want to burn through zero days to catch you.
Noted.
If I stop posting, it's because I've been extradited back to the UK for thoughtcrimes against women.
Your victim complex never ceases to amaze.
To be fair to imp, knowing how cucked the UK is, that probably would happen lmao. Didnt the uk try or actually make "online misogyny" punishable by the law? Btw where does he live now (not tryna doxx him or anything lol) because he said
Sorry im not exactly caught up with the Imp lore.
Scotland and/or the UK.
They're looking to make 'misogyny' in the UK a crime and Scotland is already pushing it to become law, the threat is very real. Pretty soon it won't be just people being arrested for daring to criticise trans activists simply making western women look bad by posting up their crazy behaviour much like LibsOfTikTok is going to get you on a list and will probably result in a visit from the police.
People try to laugh it off and dismiss it but they have no fucking idea how bad things are going to get. People like LordLavaLamp are going to be first on the chopping block as well because they probably think like most clueless people "Hurr no one's interested in my cat videos".
Also worth noting there was an American that got hassled by feds at their work places for posting anti-lockdown rhetoric on social media. Assuming they're watching is always a safe bet because even if they aren't they've got bots looking for keywords and images that will flag your accounts.
They tried, but failed. The whole Everard hoax was meant to line it all up but nobody sided with the protestors and women massively overstepped the boundary by demanding male curfews.
So the new plan is to bring it under Ofcom and issue fines and jail sentences to CEOs of companies that allow "misogyny" under a different rule that allows the PM to pass it unilaterally.
Then they added "incel terrorism" to the credible threats list and poured millions into propaganda for it on state media. The former head of counter-terrorism said this pivot is a waste of resources that could result in ISIS members getting away.
Well at least I know why you are so angry all the time.
Might be my perception but uk and aus have some of the trashiest, most entitled and gross slooty sloots in the world. Just absolutely trash humanity.
We can only hope so
There's so many ways authorities can cross-reference, trace, and track down the source. Especially if a person's not using VPN's at all times, disabling most java scripts and cookies, and seriously compartmentalizing what devices they use on what networks.
I'm pretty close to the point to where I give 0 fucks and am almost all for saying whatever the fuck I want, regardless of the possible consequences. Tired of playing these games where the rules are completely rigged to the point of futile stupidity.
almost all VPNs are owned by Israeli companies, they have my implicit trust
dom and antonio salivating
Actually, this is one of the primary reasons I tell people not to post glowie shit.
The reason they didn't get arrested for saying crazy shit is because they are glowies; everybody else gets hunted, and the platforms targeted.
It is more a joke than seething. You have treated me fine personally. I don't think you are actually pleased by an environment of stress or paranoia or sabotaging people.
Idk if you remember our last convo but I was pressing you about the identity attacks rule and I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech. I will always hold that against you a bit, even though I understand that you are right about what would happen without the rule- I want that. And that would be a more stressful and paranoid environment for everyone to be in, so I shouldn't accuse you of enjoying that bc it is actually closer to something I want and something you 'd rather avoid.
I think that's a good simplification.
Going from a Schmittian Frend-Enemy Distinction, enemy action is fundamentally never to be tolerated, when it WOULD be tolerated if done by a friend. Explicitly because it's enemy action. Liberalism assumes universality among all men, but Leftism is explicitly illiberal, and uses that universalism as it's primary weapon. Liberalism assumes that a Friend-Enemy Distinction is never necessary, and so is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy by people who are explicit enemies of Liberalism, who seek to destroy it, and are operating by a Friend-Enemy Distinction.
The Communist never accepts an accusation of hypocrisy for shooting the child of a Liberal in the head. He sees it as a moral imperative against an enemy, someone outside and antithetical to the Communist's moral universe; and such barbarism is an absolute moral good; a categorical imperative. The Liberal would never shoot the child of a Communist in the head because the child and the Communist are both considered 'friends', and members of a moral universe. This is why the Liberal's children die, and there is no rebuttal. This, to the Communist, is considered a sign of the enemy's weakness, and an invitation for further attack.
And while I can understand the value of a kind of no-holds-barred arena of discussion, I think that there are so many subversives and agitators seeking to act in bad faith to destroy both the arena and those participants, that it must be considered enemy action, and it requires a defensive response.
But yeah, I think you get my point anyway, so I'm just being verbose.
Considering how far and wide I've seen this random nothingburger arrest be posted, with a lot of conveniently documented photos of it even in the guy's house, this is almost certainly a scare tactic.
He is irrelevant and will probably get off, but now a lot of people are going to think twice about posting certain things.
That's exactly what it is.
It seems that disclosing publically available information is only against the law if you are on the other side of the narrative. Only then can you call death and harassment upon people with impunity.
Also, ffs, how do you go this long not knowing 4chan is a glowie shithole?
I was assured by people who wanted to make glowy statements that adding "in minecraft" to the statement meant they were perfectly a-OK.
This shit is amazingly illegal. If that idiot isn't out of jail within a day, then there's more to the story. Like "he was making actual actionable plans" more.
Because, despite what the troon worshippers and faggot lovers in government say, the constitution still prohibits the government from arresting, detaining, or censoring you for spicy memes. Even on the internet. Even not in roblox.
If only there are civil liberties organizations, American if you will, that bands together, kind of like an union, I know far fetched, that work to fight against these kind of infringement and government overreach instead of collaborating with them.
Impossible I know but wow would that be amazing.
Would help if said organization wasn't led by an open feminist.
Funny thing is, even a call for a specific person to be killed in a specific way, even by a specific person or group, is still entirely within the bounds of the law, as long as it remains unlikely to happen. "In Minecraft" is to avoid TOS violations.
Well, there's a technicality there: It is entirely within the bounds of the law, but if it happens anyways, you could be found guilty of collaboration or incitement after the fact, and definitely could be investigated (and the process IS the punishment in those cases).
For example, if I called out for a public figure to be drowned in a bowl of spaghetti-os by someone wearing a hamburglar outfit, no liability. But if they then WERE drowned by someone in a hamburglar outfit using spaghetti-os, I could be liable.
In a sane would, this would not apply to things like praying a meteoroid impacts them from space, but this isn't Sane World, so I wouldn't trust it. Just don't glowpost. Not worth it.
Shoot your local drug dealer stickers perfectly fine though.
The law in question is a clear first ammendment violation. It still does not keep the bastards from trying to ram it down our throats.
Legally, "in minecraft" should provide complete legal protection, because it literally says "I do not intend to do this irl", and laws against threats have very strict requirements because of free speech rights.
Now let's apply this to the present case:
This guy called for “just shoot Chitwood in the head and he stops being a problem ... in minecraft” in the context of political opposition.
Unlike in Watts, where being drafted was the contingency (which was already certain), the "in minecraft" explicitly stated that this wasn't meant for IRL.
So the prosecutor would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that saying "in minecraft" was something that everyone reading the comment would interpret as "but not really" as it literally states, but instead as "I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Could the jury nullify because "oh a sweaty 4channer, we have been told by the media they are evil! burn the witch!" WHY YES, and that might actually happen here.
But he should fight it. If he is a pussy and he pleads guilty and thereby sets a precedent that these kinds of arrests will work? Fuck him.
Why is it not? I mean it’s quite obvious why “in Minecraft” is said, but why is it not provable beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because you don't know what the fuck was going on in his head. How could you have NO REASONABLE DOUBT and be SO CERTAIN as to what he meant when he wrote "in minecraft"? You're not in his head. You can't just project your own opinion into his head.
Thankfully only 1 juror needs to correctly apply the reasonable doubt standard, as you so aptly just demonstrated that some jurors like you would not.
He clearly said in Minecraft!
Interacting with GDL is a crime apparently?