legality of this site

[lorentz5]

So, this site has made a good effort writing disclaimers claiming not be encouraging illegal activity.

What I find very funny is the use of SWIM/SWIY/etc (I'm guilty myself) in order to supposedly not incriminate oneself as well as signatures saying something like "[x] is not responsible for all posts made by [x]" ... "[x] is a fictional character who only comes here to play" ... "[x] is a bot who randomly posts" etc.

Do you people really believe that this one sentence will protect you from legal consequences? Is this kind of illusionary precaution really necessary? Why do people still use it?

 

[soulfood]

We've had this topic many a time

 

[lorentz5]

We've had this topic many a time

Sorry, I couldn't find it with the search engine (tons of results for SWIM). Do you have the link?

 

[expanding]

Its a matter of preference, you dont have to say these things, but if it makes you feel more comfortable or if you are infact writing on behalf of someone anonymous, then do it.

 

[Infundibulum]

So, this site has made a good effort writing disclaimers claiming not be encouraging illegal activity.

What I find very funny is the use of SWIM/SWIY/etc (I'm guilty myself) in order to supposedly not incriminate oneself as well as signatures saying something like "[x] is not responsible for all posts made by [x]" ... "[x] is a fictional character who only comes here to play" ... "[x] is a bot who randomly posts" etc.

We indeed had this topic many times and every time all these topics were inconclusive at the best or becoming very hostile with harsh arguments at the worst.

Do you people really believe that this one sentence will protect you from legal consequences? Is this kind of illusionary precaution really necessary? Why do people still use it?

This is exactly what kind of things I do not want to see here; think about this sentence again, please. The general tone of this sentence and the term "illusionary precaution" are hostile and prejudiced to say the least. This is a horrible provocative sentence and will likely spark fights.

If you want to do things right and start a topic in this sensitive topic do it with some basic sensitivity and logic. For instance ask:

""to what extent the use of term SWIM provides legal protection? to what extent it can protect in general a member? please discuss using arguments. If you're happen to be a lawyer or very familiar with legislation and practise of the law is established your input is invaluable""

However, it became apparent from the previous similar threads that nobody appeared with legislational knowledge to give arguments re the legal implications and the fine details of the SWIM term and signatures. For this reason, the nexus adopted a passive approach to the subject. It goes like this:

"It doesn't hurt to use and if people for whatever reason feel more comfortable using the term, then let them use it." As simple as that.

 

[lorentz5]

Thank you Infundibulum. You're right about the provocative nature of my question. The conclusion makes sense.

 

[elphologist1]

There have been / are plenty of "drug sites" online that discuss things authorities would likely be far more interested in (like manufacture of meth and MDMA for example). To the best of my knowledge (feel free to correct me if anyone has an example where this is not true), no one has ever had their public posts on any board used against them legally. This is not to say that people who post never get in trouble - they do - but the way they are "caught" and the evidence against them has nothing to do with their posting habits.

elphologist

 

[ismokecrystals]

There have been / are plenty of "drug sites" online that discuss things authorities would likely be far more interested in (like manufacture of meth and MDMA for example). To the best of my knowledge (feel free to correct me if anyone has an example where this is not true), no one has ever had their public posts on any board used against them legally. This is not to say that people who post never get in trouble - they do - but the way they are "caught" and the evidence against them has nothing to do with their posting habits.

elphologist

Strike (creator of the Hive) had his used against him but he was already fucked anyway. It would basically be used to undermine your moral character.

 

[ms_manic_minxx]

ismokecrystals, do you mean that using "SWIM" etc. could be used to undermine one's character? or the opposite? Thanks.

 

[ismokecrystals]

The content of your posts would be used to determine whether or not you are of moral character.

IE. if all you talk about on these boards is how you are going to manufacture and distribute large amounts of drugs then you obviously cant say in court it was for personal use.

 

[burnt]

You can say whatever you want on the internet. As long as you are not actually doing anything illegal that you are caught with there is nothing wrong with talking about smoking anything.

 

[Genozid]

Judge - It says here that you have posted several times looking for help in regards to synthesizing a schedule I narcotic with the intent of supplying others.
You - Oh no, I said that on the internet, I was just kidding.
Judge - Oh well then in that case you are free to go, hats off!

Ahh if only.

 

[Touche Guevara]

Judge - It says here that you have posted several times looking for help in regards to synthesizing a schedule I narcotic with the intent of supplying others.
You - Oh no, I said that on the internet, I was just kidding.
Judge - Oh well then in that case you are free to go, hats off!

Ahh if only.

You can't be convicted of a drug charge based only on a forum post, unless that post contained evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you were committing a crime. So pictures of yourself or information that can be used to corroborate other evidence that the police already have.

 

[benzyme]

Strike (creator of the Hive) had his used against him but he was already fucked anyway.

carelessly ordering drums of precursors using legitimate info, it's no wonder.

 

[amor_fati]

What's going on here is voluntary surveillance, regardless of whether it holds up in court or not. Just realize that anyone engaging in the sort of things discussed here--or possibly even the discussion itself (however unlikely)--is playing a dangerous game. Some may approach it as a venue for civil disobedience, others as one for revolution, others as one for amusement or perhaps simply as one for intellectual pursuit. Whatever your purpose or level of involvement, you're engaging in one of the most heavily combated taboos in the world, so prepare for the worst and fight for the best.

 

[dankh]

Strike (creator of the Hive) had his used against him but he was already fucked anyway.

carelessly ordering drums of precursors using legitimate info, it's no wonder.

Willfully ignorant? I don't know the guy but that's pretty careless..

 

[Touche Guevara]

What's going on here is voluntary surveillance, regardless of whether it holds up in court or not. Just realize that anyone engaging in the sort of things discussed here--or possibly even the discussion itself (however unlikely)--is playing a dangerous game. Some may approach it as a venue for civil disobedience, others as one for revolution, others as one for amusement or perhaps simply as one for intellectual pursuit. Whatever your purpose or level of involvement, you're engaging in one of the most heavily combated taboos in the world, so prepare for the worst and fight for the best.

True, even DEA bulletins make reference to online forums when discussing popular combinations of drugs, methods of ingestion and production, etc.

 

[ms_manic_minxx]

I suppose an interesting question would be, how much do you really believe in what you are doing?

Ayahuasca, though the only "exception" to the ban on DMT, is making profound legal headway, proven sincerity of practice being a keystone in these events. There have been speculations in other places that, if one were ever to be questioned for personal use of Ayahuasca, any kind of documentation of intent and healing, including forum posting, could potentially be to one's benefit.

There are still many quantum leaps to be made in the hearts and minds of authority figures...

But, once you know it, the divine is the divine is the divine~ The Onion had a great satire about a man who got into a car accident on the way to a pet store and had a near death experience. In the satire, the police charged him for manufacturing DMT (endogenously).

Did you casually take something, get into a car and accidentally kill someone? Or did you intentionally take something, have an epiphany and reintegrate yourself more functionally into society and life? Are you willing to go to that space? Scheduling needs to be rescheduled.

So much to think about, when posting. Language can be the sharpest weapon, or the best defense. Either way, I wouldn't be careless. As much as I am a fan, there are still leaps and bounds to be made in the courtroom cognitive liberty battles (sigh).

It is interesting. I didn't originally realize there was no rule here for "I" vs. "SWIM."

 

[elphologist1]

Judge - It says here that you have posted several times looking for help in regards to synthesizing a schedule I narcotic with the intent of supplying others.
You - Oh no, I said that on the internet, I was just kidding.
Judge - Oh well then in that case you are free to go, hats off!

Ahh if only.

Would the above be any different depending whether one used "I" or "SWIM"? Somehow I doubt it.

And honestly, I don't think law enforcement has the time to try to correlate posts and aliases with actual people. Maybe if someone is arrested for other reasons and their computer seized, police will then investigate further what forums the someone goes to and try to find other information that will assist them in gathering evidence. Maybe if someone appears to be a large supplier based on talking about it frequently on boards they will go to more trouble. It (at least in theory, maybe not so based on the "Patriot Act" ) is necessary to get a search warrant in order to get an ISP to divulge the identity of the person using a particular IP address at a particular time. I doubt a warrant could be obtained based just on someone saying they bought some hits of LSD or extracted some DMT. For one thing, what are the chances that such a warrant would actually find the desired evidence? Except in the case of a supplier, whose whole place is probably one big drug laboratory, probably too small to be worth the effort.

elphologist

 

[ohayoco]

SWIM means "someone who isn't me", so obviously anyone who writes that isn't talking about themselves. You will notice that I say "I" when I'm talking about myself, and I use terms like "SWIM" or "the dreamer" when I'm talking about someone else whose identity I don't have the right to disclose.

Whenever this topic gets started by someone saying something rude like "Do you people really believe that this one sentence will protect you from legal consequences? Is this kind of illusionary precaution really necessary? Why do people still use it?", I start wondering whether they are a deluded narc who is trying to get someone to spill the beans on this non-existent conspiracy, and then I get angry that my taxes are being wasted this way instead of catching rapists, ending genocide, feeding the world, and converting to a green economy. Grrr!