char.social ● 10 online ○ 62 lurking

⌂ #

← context

mothgoth 🌟 2026-05-29 18:40 🇳🇱

This argument fails when you consider "knowledge of a crime" may be unconfirmed or doubtful. It would be a crime not to publish evidence against authority, yet is would be a crime to accuse authority.

Every authority should have a burden of proof and rigorous policies on transparency. Yet they don't.

⤷ 2

reply to this post

replies (2)

liked new old

|\\\\ ////| 
| \\\V/// | 
|  |~~~|  | 
|  |===|  | 
|  |l  |  | 
|  | o |  | 
 \ |  c| /  
  \|===|/

dawood 🌟 2026-05-29 19:57 🇳🇱

The point is, accusing authorities of crimes is not a thing that should be taken lightly.

If you have proof that you personally think is very strong, you should risk the harm of presenting it. If you have proof that you personally think is bad, don’t.

⤷ 1

mothgoth 🌟 2026-05-29 20:29 🇳🇱

Where's the line? Is public speculation of crime illegal? Is private speculation of crime illegal? Would it be illegal to research potential crime? Does freedom of speech still stand intact?

What if you have unfalsifiable proof, but a court denies it? What fucked then? Do you get thrown in jail regardless, on basis of "crimes against authorities"?

Authoritarian bootlicker mentality this shit. This is what abrahamic religions do to you.

⤷ 0

reply to this post

replies (2)

welcome to char.social