this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
29 points (93.9% liked)

Legal News

546 readers
126 users here now

International and local legal news.


Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

While I sympathize with the author, he can rest assured (sort of) that nobody's going to come after him or his "dinky little free WordPress site."

The goal is far more sinister than that. The actual point is simply to establish a precedent that people can be prosecuted for online content that is not in and of itself illegal. Sexual content was just a way to get the religious chucklefucks on board, and to hide a dangerous precedent behind a merely controversial mask.

The ultimate goal is simply to establish the precedent that a government can criminalize the dissemination online of content that's entirely legal in and of itself. Using this ruling as a precedent, governments can and will criminalize whatever content they want, and it should go without saying that the content they're going to most certainly criminalize is any and all content critical of themselves.

So the author can likely relax. There will undoubtedly be a few test cases so that they can get appealed up to a court that's corrupt enough to uphold the government's position and further cement and/or expand the precedent, but that'll be it, because then they'll turn their attention to the far more important (to them) task of silencing political opposition.