TIL ectoplasm in the ghost sense (as opposed to cellular) is a concept that existed before Ghostbusters. I thought they just took the cell biology term to sound sciency.

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 204d (2 replies)

Dan akroyd is a real believer, he ghost hunts as a hobby and the original draft of Ghostbusters was grounded in "reality" until Harold Ramis reeled him in.

davidgro@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d (1 reply)

Just looked it up, and yeah, you're underselling it. I had no idea

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 204d

He's so into it he'd probably say that acting is the hobby and ghost hunting is his real job

PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d

Okay but regurgitating cheesecloth on demand is a pretty wild party trick either way.

NachBarcelona@piefed.social · 22 pts · 205d (12 replies)

Weirdly misleading title. She must've known, and from leaks she definitely did know.

ramble81@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 205d (8 replies)

So instead of charging her for espionage or something they instead charge her for…. Witchcraft?!

BoycottTwitter@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 204d

Wikipedia says:

The Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5) was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain in 1735 which made it a crime for a person to claim that any human being had magical powers or was guilty of practising witchcraft. With this, the law abolished the hunting and executions of witches in Great Britain. The maximum penalty set out by the act was a year's imprisonment.

It thus marks the end point of the witch trials in the Early Modern period for Great Britain and the beginning of the "modern legal history of witchcraft", repealing the earlier Witchcraft Acts which were originally based in an intolerance toward practitioners of magic but became mired in contested Christian doctrine and superstitious witch-phobia.

So likely actually she got charged for claiming she has magical powers since the law says that it's a crime for a person (which I assuming includes yourself) to claim that someone has magical powers.

Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · -18 pts · 205d (6 replies)

Like you can get charged for "hate" in today's social media

mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 205d

I mean... hate is something that exists.

ramble81@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 205d

Hate crimes are very real. Or am I misinterpreting your comment.

mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 205d (1 reply)

I mean, hate crimes are very real. But you don’t typically get charged just for hate; the “hate crime” charge is a modifier to an existing crime. For instance, if you attack someone, it’s assault (or battery, depending on where you live). But if you have a history of posting about hating black people, you attacked a black person, and witnesses heard you drop the N-word while you were attacking them? Now it’s a hate crime, which is an upgraded form of the same assault charge, with steeper penalties if you’re found guilty.

Let’s say you’re in America, posting on Facebook about how much you hate black people. You wouldn’t have been charged with hate just for posting about hating black people, because that would violate your first amendment right to free speech. Maybe you’d be banned from the site, (if the company refuses to platform you and your speech), but that’s not protected by the first amendment; private companies aren’t required to give you a platform. The government isn’t censoring you in that scenario, so it’s not a violation of your first amendment right to free speech.

The “crime” part of the “hate crime” is the key factor. You wouldn’t be charged with a crime until you actually committed a crime, and hateful speech by itself (as long as it isn’t inciting others to violence), isn’t criminal. The “inciting violence” part is the difference between “I wish the POTUS would die” and “you should kill the POTUS”. The former is legal, while the latter is not. So posts about hating black people would be legal, but posts calling for attacking black people would be inciting violence.

And if you attack a black person, then that criminal charge could be upgraded to a hate crime charge, if the prosecutor believes they can prove that you committed the crime out of hate. And they can 100% use your previous “I hate all black people and wish they would die” Facebook posts against you, to build a case that you targeted the victim out of hate.

Phew, I’m sure the automod is going to have a field day with this comment…

TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id · 2 pts · 204d

In the US I think you just get hired by ICE?

Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 204d (1 reply)

You don't get "charged" for hate on Social Media.

Are you talking about them someone famous says something bigoted and that gets shared around?

Or are you talking about when someone commits a crime in their legal system and that crime is motivated by bigotry?

ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 203d

They may be trying to shoehorn in the Malicious Communications Act

Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 10 pts · 205d (2 replies)

She must've known

Well, that was easily deducible from the title (or why wasn't it to you?)

NachBarcelona@piefed.social · -16 pts · 205d (1 reply)

[ removed ]

Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 205d

Of course it is? Then how was it misleading?

corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 205d (1 reply)

who's sinking

Who's asking?

RobotToaster@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 205d

Oops, fixed.

nothingcorporate@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 205d (1 reply)

In 1944, Duncan was one of the last people convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5), which made falsely claiming to procure spirits a crime.

Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 203d

But if they couldn't have known the ship sank, was it really a false claim? What if they arrested the only real spirit medium? 🤷‍♂️

brambc@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 205d

I guess the incorrect spelling is to bait interaction?

wp, OP, wp