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.
It’s free speech. There’s no target. It’s not like we’re saying “deny defend despose [person]”.
And to turn the table, actually denying and delaying (supposedly another word on the bullets) healthcare kills people, but it’s ok when the rich kill the poor. Two justice systems, one for them and one for us.
Fuck the elites.
About that… um… I kinda made a comment “Deny, Defend, Depose” followed by “Desantis”
(Exact comment in modlogs)
But it’s a nursery rhyme!
(I saw your prior comment and yeah, that could be perceived as a threat and would probably violate TOS)
(Also I wholeheartedly agree)
Not that I care but it could be mistook for threatening a us politician is just asking for unnecessary attention from the jan6 organizers…
We don’t need anymore heat here.
With that being said ceos should feel like there is target on their back, maybe they can better decisions 🐸
“Depose” just means to remove from power. While it is implied that it is done in a forceful manner, it doesn’t necessarily imply violence or murder.
Spotted along the interstate in the Florida capital today
Lmao that was also another of my removed comment.
4 "D"s of Florida
Deny Defend Depose Desantis
I know, that’s why I shared it with you lol
Yeah, that’s going to fit under the instance rule, even though it is a damn good idea.
Looking at the modlog since mods are shown in federated modlogs the person who did it is not an admin. Just your average shitty powermod knowing that his name will still be mostly hidden from other people, that they can make it seem like t was admin sanctioned.
So in that case I’m willing to say PTB
Corporations sentencing the poor to death in a regular and normalized fashion advocates violence. It’s a pretty wild standard.
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.
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.
Yes, in the same way saying you wish someone had to get healthcare in America is, or saying you hope justice exists is.
The problem you’re having is the instance you’re posting on that is removing your comments thinks all violence done by poor people is bad, so it’s against their tos. They have no problem with violence done by the rich, that’s not against their tos.
Regime whores got exposed again…
Is “Delay, Deny, Defend”?
It’s a call to cause mass death for those who rely on health insurance to survive.
It’s a rallying cry.
A slogan.
Nothing more.
People are free to extrapolate from it what they wish.
Nobody got mad about advocating violence when the entire US was demanding war after 9/11.
Well the regime was stocking the war so obviously…
Here the regime doesn’t like us gloating over one off their officers being destroyed by a folk hero.
Watts v. United States suggests no.
People are saying it’s related to a book by a similar or same title (depending on the reporting of the 3rd word). The book is about health care being a scam, so seems to be a rallying cry to read the book and unseat traditional “health care” in America.
Parasite class should be never allowed to fele comfortable.
Let them go to their bunker in new Zealand
The word depose, in and of itself, simply means to remove from power, dethrone, or acquire information (such as a witness is deposed).
It does not inherently contain within its meaning an act of violence.
The word is completely neutral and cannot be assumed to be a call for violence.
To depose a witness does not mean to violently force them to provide information.
To depose a CEO is done frequently by the boards they head.
Though, like many things, the methodology of action cannot be assumed by the word alone.
Depose in this context means putting someone in front of a lawyer and grilling them in preparation for a lawsuit.
In the current context? Yeah, it kind of does mean that.
I’m not sure what a judge or jury would infer from that in the US, as it could be fucking anything. Probably has a lot to do with why you’re in court and what, exactly, it is you did that landed you in front of a judge but I wouldn’t really expect you’d be arrested or whatever for JUST saying that.
It’s the playbook that health insurance companies use to save money. How is that advocating violence?
Deny the claim.
Defend the decision.
…and technically I think the third one should be Delay. As in delay for as long as possible.
It’s not a direct threat, but it is definitely advocating violence in the same way that “wouldn’t it be a shame if” does.
It’s not a direct call to action, but you’re definitely saying it should happen.
