I mean, is “Deny, Defend, Depose” equivalent of “Let’s kill [Person]”?

To me it seems more of a “It’d be a shame if [Person] died” and not a direct threat. So do y’all personally think its considered a direct threat? And how would a court of law (in the US) see the phrase “Deny, Defend, Depose”?

I’m asking because I’ve seen a number of comments removed for that phrase, including one of mine.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    20 days ago

    It is legal to say, in plain English, “I hope that fucker dies.” Hope is not an actionable threat.

    Internet forums need to chill the fuck out about users being angry at bastards in power. Have you looked outside lately? A sigh of relief is completely reasonable, when they are no longer a problem. I didn’t do it. You didn’t do it. We’re both free to be glad it happened. However it happened. Not much seems to be stopping these bastards - and their gleeful abuse is already life-and-death for people who can only cling to hope.

    You can still forbid rando-on-rando vitriol. You can still boot Nazis demanding violence toward innocent strangers. There’s no hypocrisy in having a moral opinion. Certainly not when it amounts to ‘bigotry is bad, actually’ or ‘DickButkis123 can only harm you emotionally.’ It is simply not the same situation as being the face of watching your wife die slowly from lack of paperwork.

    Hypocrisy is when you tolerate grand defenses of Israel, when they kill thousands indiscriminately (or very discriminately), but censor mere apathy over one guy.

    • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Totally agree with this. I haven’t seen a single post about this topic that needed removing imo, let alone banning people for it. Let ordinary folks enjoy the death of some rich bastard (who totally deserved it) in peace.