News
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.
view the rest of the comments
You aren't over reacting. It's a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals. The guy that got murdered isn't Israel. He's a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel. He's not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong, and there's no place in America for ideological murders. In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can't allow people to be murdered for their views. There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.
People aren't trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.
I mean he's a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.
Explanations aren't justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn't mean the agree with how he acted upon them.
I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.
This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.
Another person misunderstanding the Constitution.....Free speech doesn't protect you from the public's reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.
This isn't an example of someone's free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.
Again, understanding a motive isn't justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you're just moralizing.
Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don't murder people you disagree with. Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government. But the government must also protect free speech, and that includes protecting people from others. There doesn't need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It's wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop. Otherwise you don't have a free country. You can't hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.
Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.
The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it's not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.
Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone's motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don't like it you can leave. Hypocrite.
Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don't like because of freedoms......You are a moron.
Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it. Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society. This is not complicated...
According to whom? You can't just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.
You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.
First of all....who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone's motive isn't the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?
Secondly, you don't get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.
Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated..... you are a moron.
I'm pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.
I'm addressing the victim blaming apologists in this thread. If that isn't you then carry on.
You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.
It sounded like maybe you were secretly happy about the murders, or sympathized a little bit. If not, that's my mistake and I apologize.
Thanks.