Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

If you read "the AZ vaccine is safe" as a fact not opinion, you need to double check what "opinion" means.

Stating an opinion like fact doesn't make it fact.

Who is controlling, really? Who are "they"?

Laws are made by lawmakers who is voted by people.

Judges are the one who made the decision on whether someone break the law or not. And they are not part of politics(or government, for that matter)

Unless political factions somehow infiltrated any of the above process it's perfectly democratic in the whole process.

How can any evil entity "control" people in a system like this? I just don't see it.

Funny how you people have such a low confidence on democracy lol.

Easy guys.

Going 2 vs 1 against Afania isnt fair or nice.

Lemme join you so we can 3 vs 1 Afania.

People facing consequences for shitposting on the internet about politics don't get any sympathy for me. So much of the contention we're seeing across the world politically is fueled by these chronically online armchair political experts farming engagement and clout online, that are the first to be up in arms when they face any consequences for their actions. What benefit does anyone, the posters included, gain from spewing political BS on social media.

Protests have always had the potential to pop off into something worse. You're weighing the risk vs reward regardless of any these laws by participating, now there's an added layer on the risk end. So stay inside and/or try to make change through other channels if that's your thing.

What did everyone expect to happen

In the USA too many lawmakers get to chose the voters they want. The voters do not elect them, they have no say in the mater. Search gerrymandering.

In the USA juries make the decision on guilt or innocence, judges are usually part of the political process, often elected and too often have party labels attached.

Good morning you who fight for the freedom of speech. Good morning you who fight for the restriction of speech. And good morning you who just want to censor everything you dont like to hear.

Like Lagunas description, his pen hurts is more dangerous than his machine guns.

Words can hurt more than punches.

Welp I hope the judges are at least smart enough to be able to tell the difference between "AZ vaccine is safe/unsafe" (opinion) and "AZ vaccine has 56% death rate" (verifiable misinformation).

If not then I lost hope in humanity lol.

Edit: I think propaganda (biased opinions that use facts to sell an idea) is within freedom of speech and perfectly fine. As long as real information is available, we can form our own opinions from real information and ignore propaganda.

Misinformation is worse than biased opinions, if internet is full of incorrect information, it becomes impossible to form a fair opinion. Terrible.

One could make the argument that we'd still have segregation if the civil rights era had that outlook toward protesting. Protests are a necessary part of change, and article 33 of the geneva convention clearly states:


If 'being present at a riot' is made into a crime, then I suppose it's within those boundaries, but it's cutting it awfully close.
I think a lot of people only look at these issues from the perspective of a left winger who is currently seeing viewpoints they disagree with silenced. Policies like this aren't going to disappear if your side suddenly loses power.

This sort of thing allows paid antagonizers, such as the ones Israel utilizes at pro-gaza protests, to effectively silence any protest by stirring up violence then ducking out. Since they've made being present a crime for anyone there, it de-facto ends the protest either by driving the participants to fear for their own legality or directly getting them arrested.

Again, not the judge, the jury.

And which country is that?

Well then maybe that's because silent majority of people are not radicals. Politicians knows this so then pander to the majority in the middle.

They are more and more alike because middle is where the majority of the votes are.


Or maybe the "important people's" opinion are silent majority.



That's certainly not what I've seen.

Like, crazy amount of gen Z supporting Kalama Harris on TikTok are all upper class? Stop labeling people with a different opinion "left" only because you don't like their opinions lol.

Let's have some faith on people's ability to tell the difference between opinions and misinformation then.

You shouldn't even have faith that they can *** read, let alone exhibit independent thought.

I don't have that. The average US citizen is a complete moron. Our justice system amounts to a popularity contest, where the person with the more likable lawyers or more positive media coverage can get a favorable outcome despite all facts to the contrary. A couple of high profile examples of this would be OJ Simpson walking and Derek Chauvin going to prison.

The ability for a single person to prevent a conviction in a jury of 12 also leaves it ripe for jury tampering and threats.

Isn't false information being illegal in the US as well?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/35



If such law has existed and functioned fine in the past, then maybe average people also have np telling the difference between freedom of speech and harmful disinformation?

I mean, you said you really liked a character introduced in HW that becomes a Scion :O and that's just Krile.

(I'm pretty sure you meant Estinien, but he was introduced in ARR)

I'm pretty sure English isn't your first language and your grasp of it is quite good for that, but the article you cited requires that the false information passed has to be concerning an illegal act[an actual instance of an act or planned act, not a concept]. So, this is an accessory charge that would typically be added on when someone provided knowingly false information while committing a greater offense. It is likely this has never been prosecuted as it's own offense, but if it has, it would still require the information to be concerning an illegal activity.

Edit: Pulled up some cases, it seems this is typically used in reference to events such as bomb threats where the false information conveyed creates direct consequences. The cited chapters covering additional acts outline crimes on mass transit, terrorist attacks, and impeding law enforcement officials. So, the crime the false information is referencing must fall into those outlined chapters for the conveyance of false information to be chargable.

Theres a key point there, I made sure to bold it so it stands out.



I'm still waiting to see what socialist shithole Afania hails from.

Oh, you are right.
Funny how I remember Kururu from ARR (despite her never appearing on-screen according to the wiki, even though I have a seemingly distinct (yet apparently false) memory of meeting her.

Dawntrail spoilers:
As for Estinien (who the wiki says was present in 1.0, but I never played that).. I think the reason I thought he was first introduced in HW was because I left the game after beating ARR and before his eventual appearence in the post ARR story. So, the first time I saw him was basically in the HW trailer.

Now, if I go on Twi.. I mean X (formerly known as Twitter) and twee.. I mean post: "Estinien was introduced in HW", would that be minsinformation? and would that be actionable in the FFXIV courts?

Wait what???????

Loooooooool.

Do people really like to randomly throw out the term "socialist" at people that they don't like on internet? Because calling me a "socialist" is literally the funniest thing ever.

I mean, just FIVE pages ago I had a debate with Eiryl about UBI issue. Anyone with an eye can see that my stance is far from "socialist".

It's honestly kinda funny.....

He's one of people that can't read, so, you can't expect him to know what words mean

40 year old toddler than only knows memes and buzzwords like a parakeet

Ahem.

/taps the "Getting confrontational and political in RT will get you a topicban" sign

That's not always the case, at least that's my understanding. I do not believe (I could be mistaken) the constitutional right to a trial by jury is applied to the states, so you don't necessarily have a trial by jury unless it's in federal court or a matter of federal law, unless the state guarantees it. I don't know the nuances of this, but not all trials are trial by jury.

If you've ever sat on jury duty, you'll also realize that a "jury of your peers" is total hogwash and the vast majority of people on the jury are complete and total morons. The people who are more capable are usually washed out by the fact they have lives that prevent them from being able to sit on a jury for weeks on end, so you are left with people that are so incapable of intelligent thought it's a wonder they could make it to the courtroom. The Jury Duty tv show, which is hilarious, is actually a somewhat accurate representation of every jury I sat on

The judges also have a massive amount of authority when it comes to what type of data is presented to the jury and sway over how the jury deliberates. They'll lay out exactly how they should decide and by what standard. The rest is left up to the jury but these things along with evidence allowed by the judge can sway things one way or another, some judges absolutely bring biases in on these subjects and there isn't much you can do about it.

I'd also add that in most cases where a case is thrown out or ruled an unexpected way by the jury, it's almost always the media portraying the facts of the case in a very biased, jaded way that creates outrage. When you watch a lot of the high profile, controversial cases and actually watch what's going on in the courtroom, almost every one of them makes sense why the jury or judge ruled that way and you'll find details in the case that are flatly left out of news coverage.

47 out of 50 states also provide the right to a trial by jury in their state constitutions. The remaining 3 have the right provided in statutes/rules, so they still have it. If you are being charged criminally, and you request a jury correctly, you will get a jury. If you neglect your paperwork for too long, depending on jurisdiction, you may end up with a bench trial. If you consent to a bench trial, you're likely to have one.

This is not even remotely true in either of the cases I cited. OJ went free because his lawyers managed to confuse the jury with the glove example and coined a great line around it. Chauvin was found guilty because the media portrayed him as guilty around the clock for weeks leading up and throughout the trial and anyone who stood on principle would've had to risk their information being leaked and life ruined. The facts of both cases were contrary to the rulings.

I believe "social homogeneity" is probably the more correct term here, not "socialist".

Socialist is an economic system for equal wealth distribution. social homogeneity is like people in the same society has similar opinion on an issue, hence voted for the same policy with certain outcome.

Socialist, Authoritarianism and social homogeneity are very different concepts.

I hope this isn't too political as I am only explaining the meaning of terms.

Theres no point trying to explain, they only know mimicry.

"Socialist" is the new "gay" or "the r word"

They just blurt it out as a retort to anything they feel inferior to or by. It has no meaning, only mimicry.