If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?

Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.

It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:

• Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
• A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make

If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.

This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.

Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.

Pastime*

All you rich people who think you can break any law you want, let this be a warning roadmap

No. As outlined in this document:

The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed per the laws of the following countries and/or states:

• The Netherlands
• Republic of Finland
• Federal Republic of Germany

This comment was reported.

I get the anger, and there’s no direct threat of violence, so I’m leaving it up.

Sadly, moderation is done by humans, and each person has their own way of moderating. This is why I generally don’t interact in communities I moderate - helps me distance myself from the content I get reports for. I try to look at the rules, and treat them as a “living document” - one that lists the guidelines, but with the understanding it’s the spirit, not the letter that matters at times.

I’ve been moderating this community for a year, and I’ll admit - it’s hard. Moderate too much, and I’m a tyrant. Moderate too little, and “you let every Nazi say what they want here”.

I’m still working on a balance that works best.

is there a point to this?

My original comment was that we have to moderate to keep the site from being taken down. All these arguments change nothing.

It feels like an attack, but I’ll leave that to others to decide.

Nope. I remove comments that say “this guy needs the Luigi treatment” or things to that effect.

The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Using his name as a drop in for “kill someone” is advocating violence/murder.

pre-trial imprisonment is a legal process, as is imprisonment post conviction (if that is the case), therefore people opinioning that someone should face consequences for a crime they committed (again, if that is the case) breaks no rules.

Also, people opinioning if a person is innocent or guilty is not against any rules. It’s not misinformation, as it’s an opinion.

Furthermore, your very flimsy argument that “it’s a violent act” carries no weight. While you are correct that the U.S. correctional institution needs…correction, if you don’t have a valid alternative that can be implemented now, you’re just pissing in the wind.

After reviewing the actual legal filing, you’re correct. I somehow missed that.

All persons (corporate or individual) in the United States who participated in an Affiliate Program with a United States online merchant and had affiliate attribution redirected to Paypal as a result of the Honey browser extension.

Thanks for the clarification.

Because this instance (and all other instances) physically reside in countries with content laws. If we don’t follow those laws, we can be shut down, and the admin/owners that reside in those countries could face legal consequences.

The YouTubers can only sue for actual damages THEY realized.

As the class is for content creators that partnered with Honey, it can only be for the affiliate links.

Users will need to sue separately, either individually or as a different class. My money is on them having a forced arbitration clause, so direct lawsuit will most likely be out of the question.

It’s a neat idea, but why not ncdu?

This post has been reported for violating rule 4:

Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

The article has changed the title since this post was submitted.

He was most definitely a terrorist. Who said he wasn’t?

I wasn’t arguing against that. I was giving missing context

He’s dead, after a shootout with the cops

After ramming the crowd, the killer got out and opened fire.

This was an intentional attack.