Hello everyone,

Following the recent discussions on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !lemmyworld@lemmy.world , it seems that people realize that Lemmy.world is subject to European laws, and not the US ones.

This is another event where US citizens seem to be looking for an instance that would adhere to their “legal culture”, the previous one being the US elections, where the topic was discussed everywhere, before getting channeled into !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

I don’t know anything about Dutch or Finnish laws, but I’ve seen many recent articles about people arrested in Germany for their social media posts that were considered hateful or violent (which is frankly a culture shock to me as an American), so I can see why some of the posts on Lemmy in the past week would be concerning.

https://lemmy.world/comment/13870047

So, the question is: could Discuss.online become that instance? And host US-focused communities like “AskUSA”, “USPolitics”, “USFinance”, this kind of things?

I am mostly asking because there’s no secret that the DO admins aren’t the biggest Lemmy fans, so would you guys be okay if your instance would get promoted, potentially causing an influx of users and communities, some requiring moderation?

  • lazyguru@discuss.online
    shield
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Rather than reply in the deeply nested thread we are in, I’m going to make this a new comment.

    I’m also going to say this again as a preface: I am not a lawyer. None of this should be considered legal advice. Seek your own legal counsel.

    I think you might be misunderstanding what “free speech” means in the US. The First Amendment protects us from the government making laws restricting what we can and cannot say. For example, I can say “the President is a moron” and face no criminal consequences for doing so.

    However, that freedom is not a blanket immunity—it does not protect us from the consequences of our words. Context is everything.

    For instance, while no government agency can make a law preventing you from yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, if you do so and someone gets injured or killed in the resulting panic, there will likely be legal consequences. You wouldn’t be charged with saying “fire” itself, but rather with knowingly causing a panic that any reasonable person would expect to lead to injuries. Victims or their families could also sue you in civil court.

    The First Amendment doesn’t protect anyone not physically located inside the borders of the US or a US-controlled territory. For example, a US citizen vacationing in China wouldn’t be protected for speaking out against the Chinese government.

    For those outside the US, it’s also important to note that hosting an instance in the US doesn’t shield you from your own country’s laws, which might differ significantly.

    Interestingly, you might find that an instance in another country, such as Germany, would provide stronger data privacy protections. Given how little many US citizens seem to value privacy—continuing to allow our federal government to pass laws enabling warrantless surveillance—other countries may have an edge. (No, I’m not a tinfoil hat wearer. Besides, everyone knows tinfoil is reflective and would just make it easier for them to spot you from satellites.)

    That’s my long-winded, sometimes whimsical but mostly serious way of saying: Please stop looking for the line that isn’t okay to cross. This instance exists to foster welcoming, friendly conversations. If you make an honest mistake, you’ll get a warning so you know where the line is.

    If you want an instance where you can say whatever you want without any moderation, this isn’t the place.

    With that, I’m going to lock this post from further replies because I don’t see how the conversation can continue constructively. If you believe the thread should be reopened, feel free to DM me, and I’ll consider it. Please note that this is for discussing whether to reopen the thread, not for continuing the debate in private.

  • jgrim@discuss.online
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’ve been sick with the stomach flu for several days and haven’t had a chance to catch up.

    I’m not against being a home for any community that follows our rules. I don’t feel a need to be officially considered the instance of the USA. All are welcome.

    Edit: I should add that other languages make it difficult for me to moderate. I’m not against foreign languages on Discuss.Online; however, I do have concerns for moderation. I speak English and know some conversational French. My wife is fluent in French. That’s just a little fyi.

    • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hello,

      Hope you are now feeling better!

      Thank you for your comment. As I pointed out in another comment DO’s current only rules are the Lemmy Code of Conduct, which has been written by the Lemmy devs, and as you may know, Lemmy.ml isn’t really hate speech free.

      As you are very well aware, the legal side of DO is limited to https://discuss.online/legal

      discuss.online is operated by Jason Grim, LLC., and is hosted on servers operated in United States of America. All content on this server is expected to be legal in all of these jurisdictions

      As we know, the legal framework of the USA allows free speech.

      If we compare with lemmy.zip, for instance (https://legal.lemmy.zip/docs/terms_of_service/#our-governing-laws)

      7.0: The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom and the European Union.

      European laws are much stronger regarding hate speech, as several people have commented on the LW announce.

      I am not advocating for DO to become a free speech instance.

      I am suggesting to add rules, be it at the community or instance level, to prevent comments like the one I gave

      So if people say “CEOs of private healthcare companies who cause the deaths of thousands of citizens for profit should face the same fate as the United Healthcare CEO”, is it acceptable or no? Real question, I don’t think it’s that clear from the rules.

      I guess that does not solve the question of people wanting a place where they can talk about jury nullification of future crimes, but that’s something they can solve on their own.

      • jgrim@discuss.onlineM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The rules of DO are:

        1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
        2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
        3. No porn
        4. No Ads / Spamming.
        5. Follow the Lemmy Code of Conduct

        They’re a bit more than you said. Be respectful could mean a lot to different people. So things are just more case by case.

        • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thank you for your reply! As it’s a case by case approach, what would be your opinion on something like

          “CEOs of private healthcare companies who cause the deaths of thousands of citizens for profit should face the same fate as the United Healthcare CEO”

          Would that be allowed, or would it be removed? No strong opinion on my side, just trying to clarify things.

          • jgrim@discuss.onlineM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s just like someones opinion I suppose. I’d react to reports and leave it otherwise.

            If they listed people or made it seem like a planned thing I’d remove it. But general disgust for the rich is understanding and worth a discussion.

            Just hate speech echo chamber stuff isn’t a conversation. Its a mob. So I might stop stuff like that.