this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
721 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

60055 readers
2914 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Careful, in case you haven't heard, discussing jury nullification is apparently against the rules of lemmy.world. SMH (at lemmy.world admins).

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The pinned post on lemmy.world right now clarifies that discussing jury nullification for crimes that have already happened, such as this, is perfectly acceptable. It's only discussing it with respect to crimes which have not yet been committed which is against the TOS.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait, we got a Future Crimes Division? I didn't know .world was run by a bunch of milky precogs...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you plan some violence and include jury nullification as some viable part of the plan, and publish that shit online, not only is it kind of useless and lousy opsec, but it will attract heat that is unwanted and unnecessary. It's literally a conspiracy to undermine nullification at that point, like a false flag. So no, don't do that, and I back the mods on this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you trust them after having enforced an unwritten policy and still not allowing discussion of something that's perfectly legal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I do. They're cool.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

What the Multivac?!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that's true. I've had plenty of comments stay up. My guess is either the mod team got their shit together or those comments were deleted for other reasons.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

It seems that it was never written in their terms before and had been inconsistently applied, but just in case you hadn't seen these:

https://lemm.ee/post/49117816

https://lemm.ee/post/49305452

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

They are certainly empowered to do that, just as I am empowered to block any instance I don't want to participate in. If they are not tolerant and respectful of my beliefs (even if they don't share them) then I don't want to contribute to their community either.

Layperson juries are a fundamental component of criminal justice. The law exists to serve the people, not the lawyers, not the government. Rejecting jurors for understanding the purpose of having a layperson jury fundamentally violates the rights of the accused in particular, and society in general.