RE: Censoring Steem Sites - Does It 'Protect' Victims, Enable Abusers, Both or Neither? We Need To Be Clear on This For Steem's Sake.
My untrained understanding is that 'laws' can be 'legally' broken if by doing so another more serious crime is prevented.
This is not the case.
Take for instance defending yourself from someone who broke into your house. Attacking them is breaking the law, and you are very likely to go to jail/ be sued for that.
There are many instances where you can commit a crime just by keeping yourself alive. And, although it was a choice of life and death, you may still be punished for the crime.
Saving someone's life is a very good example.
You pull someone out of a burning car, that later explodes.
But, now that person is paralyzed because there neck was broken and moving them severed some control nerves.
You have committed a felony, and may find yourself in court.
Of course, there are some places where if you don't help, your are committing a crime too.
it is not wrong to go counter to the pressure from governmental voices
But it is illegal. Just ask Snowden or Assange.
Now, steemit has been censoring stuff for a long time.
They remove images from their server if someone copyright claims against them.
The problem comes about with... the internet has to be censor-proof. Meaning, child-pr0n will exist on the internet. But, how far up the chain of applications does censor-proof need to go? This is a very deep question.
"Telling the truth will become a criminal act"
Perhaps the American jurisdiction is different to the British one, but I thought that everyone in both regions had the right to defend themselves in their own homes. I can think of several cases in Britain where people have killed intruders in their home and they were not prosecuted. I figured that the huge amount of guns available in the USA would mean that there was no problem with using them for self defense, what's the point in having them if you can't use them in that context?
You are "supposed to" be able to defend yourself.
But, lets say, in Kalifornia, if you shot a man crawling into your window, and he fell outside, than you just shot a person "outside of your house", meaning you committed assault, and attempted murder/murder.
And yes, people have gone to jail for defending themselves.
In even worse example is female/male laws.
In that same state of Kalifornia, if a woman is hitting you, you should be able to defend yourself, however, if you touch her, you have committed sexual abuse. And, when the cops are called, they will come to the house and arrest you, leaving her there. Even if it is your house.
Yes, there are cases where they will arrest the woman too, but they will always arrest the man.
So, figured out a way to defend yourself without touching her?
I can't speak for the laws in any particular state, but it is usually the case that such stupidity can be addressed carefully in reference to constitutional documents or human rights. Whether or not any particular 'court' or other part of the process honours real logic or not is another matter.
Although I do not advocate for such imbalanced, artificial hierarchies as we see with courts and nations, it is also true that in the example given of someone being shot and falling out of the house: I would be quite malicious for a court to bring a charge of murder and so it would require an absence of heart/courage/integrity on the part of the legal system operators for that to occur. I agree that it is extremely likely that such heartlessness will indeed be found there.
These were examples based on true stories. So, although i left out lots of details, and its a retelling thrice removed, it happened.