Funny

6596 readers

849 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

733

Ticket closed: resolved (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jettrscga@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I would say most of those examples don't advocate violence. Don't get me wrong, they're controversial, but they aren't immediately calling for violence.

Roger Stone posting a picture of a judge with crosshairs next to her head - that was directly advocating violence.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

We aren't discussing meeting the legal definition of advocating violence, we are talking about what someone considers advocating violence. Where the line is drawn between free speech and violence is subjective based on the ideology of the individual.

It is more likely the OP example is using the subjective definition than the legal definition because they are complaining to Amazon and posted it online.