Docus

because lithium voltage is lower than a primary (alkaline, etc)

Other way round. But your point is still valid

I think at this point, EU troops need to be trained by Ukraine.

Probably a better home for it.

Swap dr who and red eye. I’d add Shetland.

BBC changed the article. Yesterday there was the ‘not real food’ one, later followed by Starmer’s defence of the sandwich. The ‘not real food’ quote is still in the spectator article linked in the BBC one. So OP, you are not the insane one here

Because they say so. Who is going to stop them?

For me, it’s neither strength nor weakness. I’m a boring old fart, I’m not here for politics.

I’m not a moderator. If I was, I would delete any posts with hate speech or inciting violence if they are against the law in the jurisdiction of this instance. Doesn’t matter what US law allows people to say. Doesn’t matter what I personally think of this specific case (US healthcare is a disgrace to put it mildly, I’m disappointed the guy got caught, and a few other thoughts that you may agree with, but could get me a criminal conviction if I post them, and could get the site owners in trouble for allowing the post - and some posters here don’t seem to get that) I’m done with this post now.

You make some valid points. My take is that it is up to the users to comply with their local laws (EU citizens have been convicted in court for social media posts that broke local laws but not necessarily the site rules), and the TOS are not there to address that. It’s up to the instance owners to comply with the laws applicable to them, and for that they need to guide and educate the moderators, not the users (some of whom are going to ignore the rules anyway). So perhaps mods need detailed rules on what is and is not allowed on the site, but sharing that level of detail with the users is just sparking pointless discussions.

The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.

Yes, which means that the site owners have to deal with the laws of their locality, and may be held accountable under their laws for allowing the content on their instance.

Maybe unlikely to happen, but given the potential consequences, I can’t blame a small group of volunteers not wanting to take the risk.

More importantly: nobody has a right to assume LW is a democracy. Their instance, their rules.

You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognise the concept of a jury. Calling that murky is missing the point. We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right

As stated in my reply, I am not a legal expert, and certainly not familiar with the concept of jury nullification. But in the civil law system used in the Netherlands, what is and is not a crime, along with sentencing guidelines, is codified in written law. Case law or jury opinions are not part of the system. Saying person x should be shot, no jury would convict you is not ok. The first half of the sentence constitutes an offence, the second half is meaningless under Dutch law. Advocating for changes to the law or sentencing rules is generally ok, but saying ‘it should be legal to shoot people like x ‘ may still get you into trouble - that is one for the lawyers.