I mean, is “Deny, Defend, Depose” equivalent of “Let’s kill [Person]”?
To me it seems more of a “It’d be a shame if [Person] died” and not a direct threat. So do y’all personally think its considered a direct threat? And how would a court of law (in the US) see the phrase “Deny, Defend, Depose”?
I’m asking because I’ve seen a number of comments removed for that phrase, including one of mine.
It’s free speech. There’s no target. It’s not like we’re saying “deny defend despose [person]”.
And to turn the table, actually denying and delaying (supposedly another word on the bullets) healthcare kills people, but it’s ok when the rich kill the poor. Two justice systems, one for them and one for us.
Fuck the elites.
About that… um… I kinda made a comment “Deny, Defend, Depose” followed by “Desantis”
(Exact comment in modlogs)
Spotted along the interstate in the Florida capital today
Lmao that was also another of my removed comment.
4 "D"s of Florida
Deny Defend Depose Desantis
I know, that’s why I shared it with you lol
But it’s a nursery rhyme!
(I saw your prior comment and yeah, that could be perceived as a threat and would probably violate TOS)
(Also I wholeheartedly agree)
“Depose” just means to remove from power. While it is implied that it is done in a forceful manner, it doesn’t necessarily imply violence or murder.
Not that I care but it could be mistook for threatening a us politician is just asking for unnecessary attention from the jan6 organizers…
We don’t need anymore heat here.
With that being said ceos should feel like there is target on their back, maybe they can better decisions 🐸
Looking at the modlog since mods are shown in federated modlogs the person who did it is not an admin. Just your average shitty powermod knowing that his name will still be mostly hidden from other people, that they can make it seem like t was admin sanctioned.
So in that case I’m willing to say PTB
Yeah, that’s going to fit under the instance rule, even though it is a damn good idea.
Nobody got mad about advocating violence when the entire US was demanding war after 9/11.
Well the regime was stocking the war so obviously…
Here the regime doesn’t like us gloating over one off their officers being destroyed by a folk hero.
Corporations sentencing the poor to death in a regular and normalized fashion advocates violence. It’s a pretty wild standard.
Is “Delay, Deny, Defend”?
It’s a call to cause mass death for those who rely on health insurance to survive.
Yes, in the same way saying you wish someone had to get healthcare in America is, or saying you hope justice exists is.
The problem you’re having is the instance you’re posting on that is removing your comments thinks all violence done by poor people is bad, so it’s against their tos. They have no problem with violence done by the rich, that’s not against their tos.
Regime whores got exposed again…
It’s a rallying cry.
A slogan.
Nothing more.
People are free to extrapolate from it what they wish.
People are saying it’s related to a book by a similar or same title (depending on the reporting of the 3rd word). The book is about health care being a scam, so seems to be a rallying cry to read the book and unseat traditional “health care” in America.
Parasite class should be never allowed to fele comfortable.
Let them go to their bunker in new Zealand
The word depose, in and of itself, simply means to remove from power, dethrone, or acquire information (such as a witness is deposed).
It does not inherently contain within its meaning an act of violence.
The word is completely neutral and cannot be assumed to be a call for violence.
To depose a witness does not mean to violently force them to provide information.
To depose a CEO is done frequently by the boards they head.
Though, like many things, the methodology of action cannot be assumed by the word alone.
Depose in this context means putting someone in front of a lawyer and grilling them in preparation for a lawsuit.
Watts v. United States suggests no.
In the current context? Yeah, it kind of does mean that.
I’m not sure what a judge or jury would infer from that in the US, as it could be fucking anything. Probably has a lot to do with why you’re in court and what, exactly, it is you did that landed you in front of a judge but I wouldn’t really expect you’d be arrested or whatever for JUST saying that.
It’s the playbook that health insurance companies use to save money. How is that advocating violence?
Deny the claim.
Defend the decision.
…and technically I think the third one should be Delay. As in delay for as long as possible.
It’s not a direct threat, but it is definitely advocating violence in the same way that “wouldn’t it be a shame if” does.
It’s not a direct call to action, but you’re definitely saying it should happen.
