306
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
306 points (96.6% liked)
News
35821 readers
2290 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m not downplaying anything lmao. You’re reading so hard into my comments trying to find something that isn’t there.
I was questioning what people would be charged for, because the quotes in the article are not chargeable.
I’ll say it again because you clearly are having a tough time comprehending - if threats were made, those people should be charged with a crime.
So both. Got it.
They probably withheld the ACTUAL EVIDENCE because there probably is an ONGOING investigation.
Again, no evidence of any of that from the article. You keep injecting things without any evidence.
Carry on!
Do you have a better source? Or are you just pissing around because people are taking these people's word on it? Because again you really haven't shown why they shouldn't be believed
Who should be believed? What are you on about?
I’m not sure how to make this any more clear - the article does not provide anything about threats being made or an ongoing investigation.
So my original question was, based on the linked article, what would these dumb racist fucks be charged with?
Since you seem to admit the article does not provide evidence of threats of bodily injury or harm being made, and no ongoing investigation thereto, it seems only reasonable to conclude at this time based on the evidence in the article there is not a charge that can be made against these dumb pieces of shit.
That’s my only point. That’s it. Are we on the same page yet?
Pretty sure a DA can tell whether the contents of the email that we are not privy to qualify as harassment or threats. JFC what kind of stunned cunt are you?
Again, you’re injecting - she is never quoted as saying such in the fucking article you thick twat.
Your clearly don’t understand the point I am making here. It’s like I’m talking to a 4 year old.
Free speech is protected. Threats against someone are not. Given the article, on what basis would charges be made against one of the people sending these gross emails?
I’ll spell it out for you, again. NONE. The DA doesn’t say she received threats in the article. The article only quotes nasty emails, that are void of threats.