There has been an increasing number of content that is bordering or crossing the lines concerning making "threats." So much so that we have been formally contacted regarding some content. We are better than this.
I'm not a lawyer, and you're not a lawyer, and it isn't Voat's place to defend illegal content. We don't have a staff to review content and don't have a team of lawyers dedicated to deciding what is and isn't lawful. I'm not also into endlessly debating what is and isn't legal as subjects like this often devolve into when everyone at the party is an "internet expert."
We have to deal with this issue and if content is in the grey area, we are going to remove it upon request. We also have to cooperate with law enforcement, I hope everyone fully understands that we are not attempting to operate outside of the law. Voat's purpose is to provide a collusion and censorship free place for discussion, not taking on a government.
It's easy to avoid this entire area: Word content maturely, avoid implicit and explicit language concerning the involvement of violence and the content won't be in question. Simple, so very simple.
After this post there will most likely be "users" testing this line and hoping we remove their content in order to claim censorship on Voat. This is just how things like this work. Don't fall for this Voat. It would be simply incredible if we just worked together on this instead of the typical shit storm posts like this usually generate.
As a reminder: Voat is for your personal, lawful use. See it here: https://voat.co/help/useragreement
That's all. Thanks for reading. Carry on.
Edit:
ProTip: I decided to post this before anything legal would prevent me from doing so. I have a feeling I know where this is going to lead.
I've also updated the canary to reflect this as well (this may be the last time that little guy gets an update, we will just have to wait and see).
view the rest of the comments →
Asashio ago
What's the line? What were people saying that's too far?
We not allowed to say traitors should hang, or is it more about or is it more about specific threats against specific people?
uvulectomy ago
I would think "traitors should hang" is a statement of opinion, and wouldn't run afoul of the incitement test (which calls for the action advocated to be both lawless and imminent, and the statement designed to produce such an action). So while IANAL, "traitors should hang" and "pedo filth deserves a bullet" would likely be fine because it's nonspecific and therefore not a threat.
HOWEVER. Specific statements against specific people sometimes come very close to the line. For example, we have one particular fed-poster who loves to say shit like "Whoever is in charge of Twitter needs to be doxxed, found and murdered."
That's probably the kind of thing that has the humorless suits breathing down @PuttItOut's neck.
Zoldam ago
Meanwhile retards and reddit can call for the doxxing and murder of people and the site doesn't care, so long as it's the "bad" people.
Palindromedan ago
If I understand correctly, there is a difference between hypotheticals like “traitors should hang” and “We’re going to hang the traitors”. The first states an opinion with a bent towards violent action - with a non specific perpetrator. The second clearly states a perpetrator (the group discussing) and the intent.
watts2db ago
I had this same question myself to be fair. Is stating what should happen in a perfect world considered an insightment to violence?
Hell facebook and twitter allow actual livestream of perpetrators of violence with zero consequences
that being said out of respect to @puttitout and for the preservation of VOAT I will error on the side of an abundance of caution going forwat
philmchawk ago
From my understanding of hate speech saying "traitors should be hung" is 100% fine, saying "go kill traitor X" isn't. Basically just use a little tact.
Sheetz ago
No hate speech