Yesterday I made the following post...

ATTENTION - No more posts or comments promoting Violence

We are changing the rule back to where comments and posts promoting violence being removed, applies to submission posts only.

Apparently, us mods should have no right to delete comments that are not ad spam and do not violate US law. (But, since we are not an adult subverse, we have the right to remove pornographic images posted in comments).

I am sorry if I caused confusion, or am letting you guys down. A lot of you have wanted this and agree with it. Before you go telling me off, I want to let you know that I am completely against promoting violence. I think promoting violence makes the Q community look bad, which is supposed to be about unity and not division (although some subs seem to ignore that part of Q’s message).

Promoting violence goes against everything Q stands for. That’s the shit the Dems are pulling and getting away with. I think promoting violence makes Trump look bad because the left wants to make Trump and Trump supporters out to be terrible people. I think the mainstream media loves reading and using those posts so that Q followers are not only made out to be conspiracy theorists, but violent hate groups. . All the more reason to want to shut down free speech sites and make people not want to follow Q or support Trump. But, the following is what I think would be the perfect scenario for these sick fucks to use. They used it on Gab recently...

How Conspiracy Theories Can Kill
Archive

As much as I am against changing the rule back, I’m going to do it because I respect Voats culture. Q used to reference posts from Reddit. They got shut down. Their free speech was taken away. When all the Reddit Refugees showed up, we welcomed them. If it were not for this place, we would have nothing. When r/GreatAwakening got banned, eventually Q fully endorsed QRV as the Reddit Replacement Sub. Obviously that means Q approved of Voat. We should respect it. Free speech has its pros and cons. But at least we don’t have to worry about being banned. Not unless the deep state comes after us for retards posting about violence.

Having said that, I found this article that helps describe what is legal and what is not. Comments that are not illegal are allowed. If it’s a submission, it is not allowed. So, please only ping us for those. There’s nothing we can do about the comments unless it’s a very direct threat. Those are great ones to downvote.

Supreme Court: Online Threats Aren't a Crime Unless You Really Meant It

@Shizy @MolochHunter @Think- @Crensch @Kevdude

62 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

ChiComs 6.1 years ago

In general, its a VOAT-wide issue and policy, but there are legal frameworks. Illegal speech (in USA) is not allowed on voat, such a kiddie porn or close to it, coordinating overt criminal acts, etc.

There’s nothing we can do about the comments unless it’s a very direct threat

Its not just how direct a threat is, it has to have all three of these according the the US Supreme Court :

1 > viable to achieve. (not a convoluted means) 2 > specific target of the "great bodily harm or death". (not a large diverse class of targets) 3 > a specific time frame of the proposed event, not unspecified or open ended.

Those utterances are in fact, in public, among more than 2 people, legally prosecutable by some US states, but all those elements need to be present.

It is true that the FBI and other LEA treats vote as a honeypot and "incites violence" here to ensnare people they can "perp walk" and the use long curated accounts.

It is rare if ever that I saw a post with all three elements in years on voat.

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.

One important distinction, going out of the way to ensure the target of your rage is reading your threats, and is a direct end recipient through your actions : calling them, telling them to their face, writing them, etc.... is not protected by supreme court and is considered DIRECT "CRIMINAL THREATS" 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. Same with online forums; the writer can state he had no proof the target was definitely participating.

I wrote more here : https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2855659/15060671