Basically the title. I use MullVad, and recently discovered that Lemmy.world is not allowing me to submit new posts or commenting on others’ posts if I have my VPN on.
For now I have excluded my Lemmy client of choice (Voyager) from my VPN, so things are back to normal.
As a reason behind this, I read elsewhere that this blocking of VPN is intentional as certain people posted CSAM while behind VPN. This is pretty despicable, so I totally support shutting those people out.
However, on that same note, I think it is fair to assume that every post and comment on Lemmy is stored along with the IP address of the User. Is that right?
Edit : Some readers are confirming that they can write posts and comments in Lemmy.world while on a VPN - and I wholeheartedly thank them. I only posted what I personally (and some other lemmings as well) experienced. I still do not know if this is a widespread problem or only happening to a few.
Define “free speech”:
Mass-shooters exercise mass-murder as their free speech, even though that style of free speech is illegal.
The denser the population, the more each expression deforms other’s lives.
Tribal villages can just move elsewhere, to create space, but NYC can’t.
Mass murder isn’t free speech, because it directly infringes on the rights of other people. To wit, your freedom to swing your fists around in the air ends at my face. Expressions that do not cause direct harm, by their nature, are generally covered under 1A. Calls to commit genocide that don’t rise to the level of incitement, for instance, are covered by free speech protections (e.g., nazis marching in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL). Outright lies and yes, defamatory comments, are covered by 1A protections. (In the case of defamatory speech, the government has no course of action; Trump lost a suit brought by E. Gene Carrol for defamation, not a criminal prosecution by the gov’t.) Child pornography is not covered by 1A protections, because child pornography can’t be created without committing acts that are otherwise illegal. Generally speaking, when the gov’t has a legitimate interest in controlling certain forms of speech that are likely to cause harm–such as incitement–principles of strict scrutiny apply; the laws restricting 1A rights are supposed to be as narrow as possible to achieve the stated goals. Prior restraint is also usually not a thing without being very, very narrowly crafted.
Generally, it’s authoritarians and reactionaries that want to intentionally blur the lines between speech and actions.