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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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
Notice how it says "having sex with" instead of "raping" because she is a woman.
Yeah as fucked up as it is men cannot be raped by women according to the definition under UK law. That's what I read anyway someone please correct me though because I would love to be wrong here.
It's not the best source obviously, but according to Wikipedia this is incorrect, women can be charged with rape (if I've read this correctly):
The last time I pasted a Wikipedia link on a world news community I was banned, so mods please just delete this comment if I've done something wrong. [Edit] note it was a different world news community, I'm just trying to be extra careful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law
I honestly think that’s more about ensuring that they can charge trans women with rape (which they obviously should, when relevant). It seems like the thing they’re commenting on is the pronoun, not the noun.
Where I am, penetrating someone with an object counts and they phrase it very differently
It does specify being the penatrator in a different section, I'm no lawmaker though so I'm not sure how the two statements converge.
You might be right about the trans argument.
.ml? The mods there are really ban-happy, especially if you say something counter to tankie orthodoxy and back it up with unassailable logic and/or data lol
Yeah that's the one. I hadn't noticed they were so ban-happy and I did enjoy getting some, definitely not all of them, different takes on world events.
What I really don't like is over policing though as it means you can unintentionally be stuck in a bubble.
Maybe there are stats on the number of bans a community has. That'd be interesting to have an idea of how much a community is policing.
It'd be up near the top for sure! Of the four times total I've been banned on Lemmy,
I cannot officially speak on behalf of any other mods, but I can't imagine any of us deleting a Wikipedia link. Really, any mainstream source is acceptable. If you posted a link to something like womencantrapemen.co.uk, that might be a different issue.
Thanks. yes this was a different world news community. I wasn't saying it was this one that banned me, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I was just adding the disclaimer because I didn't want to get banned from this one too.
I've edited my original comment to try and make it more clear that I'm not referring to this community.
IDK why people hate on Wikipedia links so much. Most wiki pages provide sources at the bottom of the page and are annotated, the [12] at the end.
This was the other world news community which is much more eastern based. I was questioning what somebody had said about a certain subject. Not saying they were wrong. Just asking if everything on the Wikipedia page was nonsense (I used stronger language which I won't make the same mistake of doing here).
For some reason this was justification for a ban. I guess I don't want to be part of a community which is policing itself so much as this will obviously lead to a scewed comment section.
Because a lot of Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, sure some are annotated at the end but lots are not as well. Therefore the trust of Wikipedia is in question.
EDIT: you can downvoted all you want but even Wikipedia itself says that everyone can edit the page.
I think Wikipedia is a fine source for general information. It's when you want specifics that you move on. The sources list at the bottom is usually helpful for that.
I disagree, it’s a starting point but it is not trustable source at all. We differ in opinions and that’s alright.
German law is curious (and well-written) in that regard. "rape" is something an offence may be called but it's not a category of offence in itself. There's one single section covering sexual assault in various aggravation stages:
StGB, Section 177:
Note the "at least two years" doesn't inherit the "up to five years" of the previous section and there's even higher minimums for carrying weapons, risk of damage to health, etc.
Only acts involving penetration are considered rape but it doesn't say by who or what, and even if the e.g. forced face-sitting didn't involve penetration it's still going to be on the same aggravation level.
OTOH under German law what she did probably doesn't even begin to be rape it's sexual abuse of persons in one's charge.
Can confirm. It's the same in my British former colony.
Statutory rape does not exist as an offence in English law. The offence is sexual contact with a minor.
The age of consent is 16 but 18 if the older party is in a position of responsibility (like a teacher). So whether or not she had unlawful sexual contact with the second boy would depend on how that law was interpreted, as well as when the first contact took place.
Oh no men are calling out sexism, how terrible
Notice how it says it was consensual and they were at the age of consent?
The defendant, pleading innocence, said that. The case is about sexual activity with children.
Hitman denies being hitman and you believe him, that's your angle? I know you're being intentionally obtuse, but it's clear I was talking about the teenagers, not the woman trying not to be arrested.
She is an authority to them, they are obviously not adults, she invited them to her home, and there is little doubt she had sex with both because one evidently came at least on her bed and the other inside her.
This is sexual abuse. If the sexes were reversed the guy would be scheduled for a life sentence with high probablility of getting shanked every time he encounters another prisoner.
Ohh! It’s just your reading comprehension, not that you’re really suggesting that it’s cool for a teacher to fuck their fifteen year old students and former students. If you care about what the children said, there’s this from the older one:
Age of consent is 18 in the United Kingdom, when the older individual has a duty of care for the younger.