Reports were made, but you realize no action gets taken till much later. Funny thing, there is a more immediately available authority that has received the reports. Even though the reports line up with the system guidelines this particular authority claims zero capability to resolve the issue, yet there is at least one example of corrective action that has been taken before.
On the other hand, if the authorities have already investigated and discover that no crime has been committed, then they will also take no action. You might not like what was said, I don't like what was said, but you haven't shown yet that what was said constituted a crime. Perhaps LE came to the same conclusion.
Freedom of speech for you, but not for those you disagree with. OK, I'll draft something to cover it.
Howabout: "Despite the US First Amendment granting every US citizen a right to express themselves, Runaway1956 is not permitted to state his views. However ACs can dictate what others are permitted to say without any legal justification to support their decision". Yep, I thing that covers it.
I always thought SN should enforce some minimum level of decency as per the site rules. Banning aristarchus, with the excuse of legal liability which is simply not true in the US, shows everyone your true colors. Your standards are messed up and no amount of pearl clasping is going to change that. All while providing no evidence, but claiming the evidence is still in the database.
This situation is like all the moderation adjustments staff does, yet when people complain about shitposting you then say it is up to the community. Convenient stack of excuses you rotate through, each instance seeming plausible until you stack them up; then the lies become apparent. Stop protecting terrorists and hold the site to some standards of decency. Until then we shall keep calling you a knob headed goober brain, hypicritical sycophant, and subversive alt-wrong terrorist trying to push fascism under a guise of innocence. Seems a bit of a far stretch, but then that is the point of such propaganda tactics.
If your position is that US law is messed up, I might be inclined to agree. However, janrinok's assessment of US law is correct. Runaway's reprehensible comment about "50 million dead progressives" was a hypothetical future scenario. In the US, violent threats are illegal, but they must be specific to violate the law. Runaway's comment was awful, but it wasn't specific. I don't necessarily agree with how the law is interpreted, but that's far beyond the scope of this site.
On the other hand, aristarchus' actions were specific, targeted at an individual. Runaway lives in Little River County, Arkansas. He has voluntarily shared this information on this site [soylentnews.org], so I am comfortable with repeating it. This has been repeated and implied many times by an AC who is almost certainly aristarchus. Also, in at least one instance, the aristarchus replied to Runaway with what he claims is Runaway's first and last name. This was posted by the aristarchus account in 2021, so this is not a case of mistakenly identifying an AC. It was aristarchus. I will not link to the comment because I do not believe Runaway consented to having his name posted. When you search for that name in Little River County, AR property records, it uniquely identifies an individual. I cannot confirm that the individual who was identified actually is Runaway, nor is it relevant. The fact is, aristarchus has targeted an individual for harassment. If this individual isn't actually Runaway, then aristarchus has potentially subjected an innocent bystander to harassment. Unlike Runaway's comments, aristarchus specifically targeted someone, which is why it is different.
After aristarchus was temporarily banned, he continued to harass Runaway, including posting what he claims is Runaway's real name at least three additional times. This occurred once during aristarchus' temporary ban. It occurred most recently within the past month. A sock puppet account was also created using the name that aristarchus purports to be Runaway's real name. With this name and Runaway's county of residence, this uniquely identifies an individual. Once again, I am not linking to this content because Runaway did not voluntarily share his name. When aristarchus was temporarily banned, he was given the opportunity to reform his behavior and was strongly encouraged to do so. Instead, he escalated his harassment. He violated the conditions of his temporary ban, which were publicly disclosed.
Let's move on to your standard of decency. Your style of posting strongly suggests that you are Azuma Hazuki 2.0. You claim that you took over a sock puppet account and increased its karma so you could moderate offensive posts. This is a flimsy justification, particularly because the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account had awful karma because of spamming. It would have been simpler to create a new account with a different username. Azuma Hazuki said multiple times that she disapproved of anyone using the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account. Despite this, you continued to use an account that was created for the purpose of harassing Azuma Hazuki. That most certainly does not constitute decent behavior. I am not inherently opposed to enforcing a standard of decency for all users. However, if that is the case, you should lead by example. That means you should admit your wrongdoing, then voluntarily leave the site. After all, you want to enforce decency on this site. By your own standard, you should also get banned. If this is really what you want, then you should leave.
Are you going to leave? Or are you a hypocrite? What shall it be, Azuma Hazuki 2.0?
I recall Runaway harrassing lots of people and making comments about not caring if someone knows his real location, and while I disagree with doxxing you have not demonstrated illegal actions, and you falsely accuse me of sock puppeting to harrass someone. Belueve whatever lies you'd like, on this site I have only been honest, and I'll agree that my posts are not the height of decency. However, if you dislike my commentary so much I would expect you to be demanding a ban for Runaway and other racist fucks promoting violence. So, maybe you're just an ass, maybe you're the one that created the harrassing accounts and you're just spreading more lies to sway users that SN is not biased and its the uppitty libs ruining everything. Free speech warriors, what pathetic snowflakes you've always been.
You've just made my point. You want Runaway banned for his lack of decency, but you don't want to be accountable for your own lack of decency. Simone Biles would surely be in awe if she witnessed your display of mental gymnastics to try to avoid addressing your hypocrisy on the issue.
I did not say that you should be banned. I said that if you're serious about enforcing decency, you should demonstrate it by owning up to your actions and leaving. After all, if you want people banned for a lack of decency, that would mean both you and Runaway should be banned. As I expected, you dodged the question.
I don't believe for a moment that you and aristarchus are sincere about wanting decency or to clean up the bad posting on this site. You're using that as an excuse to troll, just like Slashdot trolls did 20 years ago. You've even reused their terminology, referring to your trolling as a "Jihad" just like they did 20 years ago. What's next? Are you going to register anti-soylent.org so you can post a manifesto for your "Sacred Jihad" against this site?
Oh, by the way, unlike you, I have taken real action to have Runaway held accountable. For example, when Runaway used ethnic slurs in the title of one of his journals, I emailed the admins about it. Sure enough, the title of the journal got changed. Unlike you, I actually wanted real action to be taken instead of looking for excuses to shitpost. I have also emailed janrinok many times to express my concerns about the site. Again, my goal was to get real change enacted, whereas you are just looking for attention and an excuse to troll.
Yes, you can call me all those childish names because your right to do so is enshrined in law.
However, you seem to think that banning somebody who has has the same rights as you is perfectly acceptable because well, just because.... If you don't like somebody's journals and comments, just stop reading them.