I think this is some tactic from the left, but we have had a big increase in comments promoting violence. Even a couple of posts. The reason the left would use this is simple. Soros funds these groups.
There could be a false flag, where someone could go shoot a bunch of people. Then the media will start saying that this was some conspiracy theorist Q follower that posted on a hate speech forum. They would say something like the person was angry because we’re being taught all these lies from Qanon. Then they will try to have Voat taken down. They want to come after all of us.
So please guys, ping us mods when you see things like that so we can remove them. Posts AND comments calling for violence. But, not if someone is just being retarded and says they would like to kick someone’s ass. I’m talking about bringing up weapons and encouraging people to act. Some of you have really been helpful bringing things to our attention and we appreciate it.
If you are uncomfortable pinging, you can send us a message or send me a private one. We won’t share who gave us the information. We all have to protect Voat, so we can protect our right to have a Q community. Depending on the situation, if someone posts promoting violence, they could be banned.
Thank you guys! 🇺🇸
NOTE: Many people think this is the real reason Gab got shut down for like a week. They want a way to shut down the rest of us. Voat and eventually 8chan. It’s the perfect example.
view the rest of the comments →
ChiComs ago
BULLSHIT!
YOU DO NOT KNOW FEDERAL statutes regarding inciting violence in a public forum!
It is FREE SPEECH on voat and under USA law to type violent wishes so long as the target is in-determinant, or the time period is undefined for the action.
Famous SCOTUS Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Then refined and protected FURTHER by SCOTUS in the 1970s!
SCOTUS Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana
I will not type an example of a real crime here that cannot be typed in public forums with more than two total parties listening, but they would resemble :
We should shoot "<INSERT SINGLE PERSON NAME HERE>" before "<INSERT A DATE IN THE YEAR OR LESS>"
Legal 100% protected by SCOTUS speech :
Lets shove all the kikes into jew ovens!
I hope every libtard in the USA gets ass-cancer and if not THEY ALL NEED TO BE KILLED anyway!
I think people that don't know US federal laws should be burned alive
ALL of the above is 100% fully protected free speech , the only type of speech there is in the USA. Free Speech. Committing a CRIME, and getting charged or citation for the crime, while uttering "hateful words" can evoke the anti-white-male state statute "hate speech law" sentence enhancers, but there has to be a root crime at the same exact time.
And if only two parties, not 3+, such as a private phone call or conversation, you can even then legally say ANYTHING you want under US federal law and SCOTUS protection, including a specific target and specific date of imminent violence.
If you start censoring on voat , voat will defend itself long term by having to act against your reddit-ification of voats LONG STANDING FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE to allow all USA protected speech on voat.
Do I understand that FBI agents try to entice here and honeypot? Yes. They want to "perp walk" a white terrorist in front of news cameras occasionally.
So I understand that the 13 billion Soros gave LESS than 12 years ago is used by Share Blue shills on voat to type reprehensible things easily searcheable on google.com using "site:voat.co"
such as this url that uses google to search all of voat.co from 4 hours ago backward in time :
http://www.google.com/search?q=honeypot+site%3Avoat.co
Now I typed things SIMILAR to your words before but telling people you will start censoring like a fascist and DELETING free speech is beyond all acceptance on a free speech web site.
In fact this is the only PROVEN 100% legal USA Free Speech site on earth.
And you want to turn it into some dystopian 1984 walled-garden suitable for Apple sponsorship?
For SHAME!
grace8 ago
Yeah and you see how that has played out on Reddit, Gab, Facebook and Twitter. Was our free speech protected there. What social media site was it who lost their host and could not find a host last year because they had been slandered as violent. Wake up! We are not in Kansas anymore.
Do not flip out on mods unless you are willing to take their place!
ChiComs ago
voat.co is the only actual 100% free legal USA speech site on the internet. Even Gab deletes a lot of legal speech.
voat.co is not reddit , gab, or facebook !!!
grace8 ago
Yes, That's why I am trying to remember what media site was kicked off their host and unable to find a new host last year. Its the ppl voat in a sense leases internet space from IF, I understand how it works right. Basically there are ppl who can deny an internet platform to even use the internet. Then there is the way Voat has treated QRV. I basically cant figure out how to access it. So don't tell me Voat is immune. 8chan was saying today that QResearch is basically on life support and about to die. I assume they mean QRV but since I have never managed to get to the sub I have no idea.
ChiComs ago
You enable NSFW in your settings WHEN LOGGED IN, and if NSFW checkbox set the correct way then you can access :
https://voat.co/v/QRV/
It is NSFW so that google bot cant scan it and store it.
Also if you still get a cryptic error you might be admin banned.
MuckeyDuck ago
I don't feel like make a long winded comment but there is a huge gap between what the law says, and what the government can arrest you for, and effectively ruin you life and you know that.
The letter of the law may be applied at some point, but you know very well that the law is frequently, mostly, usually perverted to mean what the judge want it to mean, and what covers the courts butt.
If you tell another individual over the phone, in person to person conversation that you are going to come over and kill them, you will most likely get arrested whether it's legal by the letter of the law, or not. Rule is "The first person to the courthouse wins"
If someone come into you business, you get into a dispute with them, and they see a gun hanging on a hook on your wall, they can walk out side, call the police and claim that you pulled that gun on them, and there is a good chance you will go to jail. I know a case where this almost actually happened. The only reason it did not was because the person accused got someone nearby to lie and say he saw the whole dispute and no gun was involved.
When it comes to the law, ain't nuthin understood - Dragline Coolhand Luke
ChiComs ago
Amusing.
I should have been more mathematically and legally complete in my statements, you misread the intent. If two parties are on a phone, or in private conversation, the threat of imminent violence needs to be a target OTHER than either party in the conversation to be 100% fully protected vs SCOTUS free speech. Otherwise there are many laws regarding DIRECT "CRIMINAL THREATS", which make your scenario correct.
A Criminal threat is where the criminal is willfully communicating a threat to another person that would result in great bodily injury or death..... not talking about the concept with his a different person on the phone. Across state lines the federal US statute for long distance direct phone call threat is : U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 41 › § 875 (c)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875
But SCOTUS already outlined that the aggrieved party needs to be in that phone call.
MuckeyDuck ago
Sorry, it's late. Thanks for clarifying.