azuth

Your parents made you watch a film because they were concerned you could not distinguish reality from fiction?

You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.

No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.

Calling that murky is missing the point.

Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).

We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right

We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.

‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.

It’s your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it’s not an article on the exact topic.

More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don’t mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.

Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.

But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?

Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts ‘celebrating’ violence. It’s their right to do so but so is mine and other’s to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.

You are not answering the question.

You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.

Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?

That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.

I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone’s opinion.

I did not exclude future crimes from my question.

Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?