Comment on I propose a rule change
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years agoTerrorism is freedom fighting. The American Dept of Homeland Security is trying define things that the American state is guilty of as terrorism, if it deems them done by the public, in direct contraventionof the first amendment.
Child porn is a universal, but the afe of consent varies. In many countries 17, 16 or even 15, is the legal age of consent. We know that the universal is the obviously young, and prepubescent. I dislike the idea that in some jurisdictions very old men could have their way with 16-year-olds, i have a niece that age, its a yuck factor.
Copyright abuse is bit unimportant unless money is at stake, or reputation/credit.
Stalking is a bit subjective
"Actionable criminal threats" seems meaningless. I don't see why threats should be criminalised at all.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
You may be overthinking this, but I get your points.
One man's unlawful coup is another man's revolution. It is a failed rebellion if you lose and a revolution if you win. This is similar to arguments about suicide attempts being illegal, but not a successful suicide.
I agree that the age of consent is not universal. In one Mexican state, 10 was once the age of consent until fairly recently. I think they finally unified it and made it 16 for the whole country. In the US, it is either 17 or 18.
Age is a tricky thing. Like, take drinking age. I don't know how it is now in Europe, but many countries had no minimum drinking age for a long time. And even within the same country, the drinking age can vary, such as you have to be 21 to consume alcohol in the US, but if you serve in the military, you can get it at 17 so long as you get it from the PBX and consume it on the base. And I think there might be a college exemption too, or why would the local bars in my town have college nights?
Copyright abuse would be a problem for this site since the feds could shut us down.
On stalking, still, there are clear enough lines. Like a quote from a TV show. I know, obviously not a credible source, but ideas and principles remain. "Going through someone's garbage to get dirt on them is one thing, but throwing a dead cat through the window takes it to a whole other level."
I specified actionable threats. So if I say I have your home address and the means to get there, and I say I'm going to kill you with a firearm, and I actually have the firearm in question, as well as a motive, then I meet all 3 criteria for a threat (motive, means, and opportunity). The problem with threats is the offhanded chance they mean what they say. Serious crimes have been prevented this way. Like multiple accounts of parents "snooping" their kids' social media only to discover there was a mark on their head and saving their kids' lives by getting the authorities involved.
But yeah, some threats are just metaphors or rhetoric. An example would be the anti-war protester who said, "If I have to fight in Vietnam, I will kill Lyndon B. Johnson dead with my M16." Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled in his favor. He was using it in the context of a war demonstration and hadn't been drafted into the war yet, so he had no access to an M16. And even if he had been forced to serve, he wouldn't have been allowed to keep the M16 since that would be government property.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
In Europe you can drink alcohol with food at 12 in most countries You can buy cigarettes at 16, and alcohol at 18. In the UK, sex, martiage, military, cigs at 16 Alcohol, driving, credit cards at 18.
If the "feds" are a problem, host it elsewhere, like Icekand or Estonia. Nobody outside of north america gives a fuck about federal anything.
On your other points, i have no problems with quite a lot of "crimes". I don't exist in anything like the same environment you do.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
On copyright, even hosting elsewhere doesn't really help. For instance, I once subscribed to a site that was outside of our jurisdiction and without treaties, and our feds raided the owner there. So overreach is always a problem. Just because it is illegal for a government to do something, it doesn't mean they won't. All I can say is it was too bad the guy wasn't thoroughly armed. I mean, if our government has no authority where he was, then they were just trespassers, and maybe he could have defended himself.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Host it in Afghanistan, we all the Feds will run away.