I was the one that submitted the ban, after a number of reports. On the face of it (I am at work, so don't always have time to deep dive), The reports did seem to align with trolling.
I had/have no idea what's going on withe the Jordan Lund thing.
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.
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".
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.
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.
"I never consent to searches"
"I don't answer questions. Am I detained, or am I free to leave?"