That’s not really in agreement with your understanding of the encyclopedias either
It sure is, because my understanding is the dictionary definition. I don’t agree with the commenter you originally replied too either, but your reply, as I said, is not the gotcha you might think it was.
I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is. You posted the etymology which is the origin of the word but not the modern definition.
Def.: Encyclopedia -
Emphasis is mine.
Police don’t make that distinction unfortunately. The disorderly conduct statute looks pretty broad, its likely it’s used largely as a tool to force compliance.
I thought about setting up my own personal instance, but I didn’t want to have to deal moderate any CSAM.
After looking at the Philadelphia statute for disorderly conduct I’m assuming it’s based off this:
Obstructing a Highway or other Public Passage. No person shall, without legal privilege to do so, intentionally or recklessly obstruct a highway, sidewalk, or other public passage.
Perfect is the enemy of good (enough).
Because it’s the only one currently where the governing bodies are puppets of the Epstein class.
Believe me, I’m old enough to know that very well. I’m more flabbergasted that state lawmakers in Utah have the audacity to believe they can accomplish what a totalitarian state can’t.
As we’ve said time and time again: the internet will always route around censorship.
Of course it will. I don’t understand why Utah thinks they can censor content when countries like North Korea and China demonstrate that a circumvention is always found.
TP-Link has been alleged to have National Security concerns due to its ties to China.
You can read for yourself but when this was in the news ~1 year ago I looked into it. To me it seems like a combination of a smear campaign started by Netgear and bad actors from the Republican Party within the government.
Edit: This is a pretty good write up that explains it without straying too far into opinion.
Check out XTEink
Maybe this isn’t but that doesn’t mean Musk hasn’t committed, and shouldn’t be tried for, treason.