World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I did read it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
I don't have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it's exactly what I said here. I don't see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn't on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as "civil disobedience" rather than "direct action", which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
Ok, I read it and
Yes, it's a bad argument but it's bad from historical point of view, not legal one. I don't find misrepresenting Suffragettes invalidates the proscription.
That being said, obviously the government and courts are more eager to proscribe a leftist, anti-Israel organization than they would be a right wing one. I'm not claiming Palestine Action is wrong and the proscription is 100% justified. I'm just putting things into perspective. This is not illegal action by the government - this is supported by the courts and done according to the laws. The courts are not making things up and ignoring the fundamental principles of the legal process - they are applying the rules as defined by the government. And I'm not saying it makes this ok. I'm just clarifying the misinformation people are spreading here (like that they are sentenced for terrorism without the knowledge of the jury).