Chill on the "threats" Voat (Voat)

submitted ago by PuttItOut

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).

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Marou ago

Gas the kikes Race War Now is not an illegal threat. The supreme court has ruled that an actionable threat needs a place and a time. example: We're gassing kikes at the White Castle on 5th avenue on Tuesday.

Can you share specific posts you've received complains on? Hosting providers and others tend to have a definition of "threats" that doesn't jive with the legal definition.

markrod420 ago

I was actually going to ask for some examples as well.

CameraCode0 ago

Yeah I hope putt provides us with specific examples.

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.

is very broad and can be interpreted in lots of ways. Some people are going to be afraid to post unless this is specified. Can you at least give us some examples of posts or comments you have been contacted about? And what does "cooperating with law enforcement" mean? Just removing the post, or providing info about the poster?

enormousatom ago

That's how the law is written. Broad and vague.

uvulectomy ago

Just have a look at some of the stuff @AllLibsAreEvilDemons posts. Straight-up glownigger, that one, and they've been here less than six months.

Example and picture (yes, that's an actual quote from them).

Motherfucker is a prime example of the kinda shit being talked about. He's either retarded, or a fed trying to get the whole place shut down.

Hand_of_Node ago

But that quote is true. "Jack" and his fellow conspirators do need to be killed. And they're a tiny fraction of the full list.

markrod420 ago

Okay well thats pretty bad lol.

refugee610 ago

Probably not a fed, just a SJW.

Gorillion ago

This.

Putt should just reply to any agencies that contact him "If you find it so troubling, maybe stop your people posting that shit here."

That or go raid the nearest SJW Tranny Discord, though another agency may get upset that someone is spooking their MK Ultra pets.

uvulectomy ago

SJW Tranny Discord? I feel like that would somehow make it possible to get AIDS via the internet...

Ocelot ago

He's probably just full of rage, as many of us are.

andrew_jackson ago

Thanks. I banned him, because I enjoy banning.

The_Ghost ago

That’s still not an imminent threat. If I were to say that we should hang Barack Obama, that is still not an illegal threat. As someone higher in this comment chain said, there must be actual intent to do something.

AllLibsAreEvilDemons ago

Glad to see that my exercising of my right to free speech hasn't gone unnoticed.

But it's not my goal to get this place shut down, or in trouble with law enforcement in any way.

I've never made specific threats, nor have I ever incited direct or imminent violence.

I'm merely saying the shit that everyone is thinking, but too afraid to say. This thread is a shining example of that.

However, like I said, it's not my intention to cause any harm to Voat, and as such, like I said to another poster on here less than a week ago, I'll dial it back a notch.

A notch. You nigger faggot.

cthulian_axioms ago

Go fuck yourself, Fedcoat.

Hand_of_Node ago

While you're correct in your assessment of needed actions, I generally try to avoid saying they should be "murdered". It should be legal to kill these subversives and enemies among us.

AllLibsAreEvilDemons ago

Simply saying, "It's my opinion that I think 'X' should be 'Y' because of 'Z'" is not a threat, it's expression of an opinion.

Saying, "Someone please do 'Y' to 'X' because of 'Z'" is illegal, because it's a direct call to violence.

Saying, "I hope someone one day does 'Y' to 'X' because of 'Z'" is legal.

Semantics, sure, but important to distinguish in the eyes of the courts.

AmaleksHairyAss ago

Thanks brah.

t. evil demon

Marou ago

I agree that nigger probably glows in the dark, but nothing you linked meet the place or time definition that strips first amendment protections from speech. "I hope people I don't like die" and "Someone should kill X" are not statements that run afoul of the law.

Definitely run afoul of most hosting providers - but they'll move that goalpost until mild criticism or any recommended problem remediation is considered a "threat".

captainstrange ago

but nothing you linked meet the place and time specificity that strip first amendment protections from speech

They'll ignore that part while they use the threat of force to push a law unequally.

"We disagree with your interpretation. You're not a lawyer, how would you know."

Just like someone whos not a chef knows nothing of cooking.

And someone whos not an engineer knows nothing of fixing a truck.

And someone whos not a soldier, knows nothing of weapon safety.

It's all a bunch of bullshit from suited apes, and costumed clowns, with credentials that mean nothing, backed by the willingness to physically harm any of us if we dare to disobey at all.

Fuck them and their pretense of a government.

SexMachine ago

The threat has to be a direct person or direct time, I think.

"At noon on Wednesday, I should shoot every nigger in sight" - not a direct threat against an individual, but gives a time, an imminent threat.

"someone should find that nigger, Martin Luther King Jr, and pour bleach down his asshole" - is a direct threat against an individual. I used a fictional character in this case because Dr Martin Luther King Jr is completely made up. The person pretending to be a doctor was actually named Michael King Jr, and he plagiarized his thesis and should've never received his PhD. Also he choked out whores.... well, that one is kind of good, teaching those degenerates a lesson.

MrDarkWater ago

that's the point, the glow niggers go just to the edge.

CameraCode0 ago

Most of us agree with what he says, as shown by all the upvoats. A lot of those comments could have come from any one of us. The glownigger thing is the frequency of the violent comments. As Marou pointed out, none of them are direct threats of violence that would not be included under the 1st ammendment. I'm pretty sure most of us would still agree with him even if he wasn't "generating consensus".

AmaleksHairyAss ago

My upvotes never signal agreement. Yours shouldn't either.

TheWorstImaginable ago

I was going to say this. Where is he wrong? Do people actually disagree, or are they just hemming and hawing now that there was supposedly complaints and voat is at risk?

MrDarkWater ago

"agreeing" and "typing it out on the internet" are different things.

we all know the score.

fujin ago

but nothing you linked meet the place and time specificity that strip first amendment protections from speech. "I hope people I don't like die" and "Someone should kill X" are not statements that run afoul of the law.

That comment in particular is not in violation, I made a comment on here in regards to this but here are the two points that would land us in deep shit:

  1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
  2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

As long as these two points aren't crossed things are fine.

Gringojones ago

Is it a solid 'and' or is is it a 'and/or'?

fujin ago

Both have to be accounted for so solid AND.

Gringojones ago

Thanks. I like to know where the line is.

Heer_me_roar ago

That looks like something from a lefty sub on Reddit lol

Mesencephalon ago

I figured it was glowniggers, I have seen a rise in fedposting lately.

cursedcrusader ago

I had never heard the term glownigger so thank you for that my good niggerfaggot.

Goys-R-Us ago

Origin of the phrase :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FSax_VvGvY

AmaleksHairyAss ago

Don't jump to conclusions. Free speech has a lot of opponents who don't work for the government. Reddit or any of the media conglomerates would hire people to make posts like that just for shits and giggles. So would SRS trolls. I'm surprised there aren't even more accounts like that.

MrDarkWater ago

(((they))) want their war real soon and they need widespread "far-right" violence to frame it to the rest of the world as "21st century Nazis". Evil doesn't want to destroy America if they can't look like the good guys.

Look at this new "summit.news" and tell me that ain't jews trying to demoralize us and ignite us. guess ((who))) isn't criticized on that site.

captainstrange ago

They'll use the pretense of the law to manufacture the excuse that we need to be "regulated" (violated by the state).

I stopped caring about the news and what the state thinks they have a "lawful moral right or reason" to do.

They fucking don't. And you shouldn't care what they think they're allowed to get away with either.

They're fucking not.

Tallest_Skil ago

(((they))) want their war

They have literally never us to go to war.

MrDarkWater ago

huh?

Tallest_Skil ago

Jews don’t want war. Why the fuck would they want war. The last time whites woke up to them, it took literally every single other nation on the face of the Earth to stop a single nation’s worth of whites from winning the war. Jews know their only threat is whites. They have tried desperately for SEVENTY FUCKING YEARS to keep a race war from happening.

Explain to me why I’m supposed to believe that they want the very thing that will cause their global genocide for all eternity.

zyklon_b ago

RAHOWA

TradMan ago

Explain to me why you undermine unification on this site.

Tallest_Skil ago

Explain to me why you think your absolute fucking bullshit strawmen are going to be entertained. Get an argument and then try again.

MrDarkWater ago

actually, holy shit: after all this time ... you don't know anything.

Tallest_Skil ago

Great argument. Too bad reality proves you wrong, though, huh?

MrDarkWater ago

reality is proving me right: i've given you too much credit in the past.

Tallest_Skil ago

Prove your claim or don’t make it.

MrDarkWater ago

I am with argument that you fail at making regarding ((their))) plans.

Tallest_Skil ago

Don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Jews don’t want race war. You’ve yet to present an argument.

MrDarkWater ago

I never posited that. I specifically referred to the planned ww3 between the West and Islam.

Tallest_Skil ago

There is no such war planned. Your propaganda was purposeful well poisoning. Stop pretending that it’s real.

MrDarkWater ago

They want it only if it's aimed at muslims, which i believe they are trying to instigate per Pike's plans.

I don't think they know that this will be the last time. plus, the REAL players generally avoid the "awakenings". we'll see

Tallest_Skil ago

aimed at muslims

Oh, sure, but that’s not a race war. Not only because Islam is not a race (yes, I’m well aware that the vast majority of them are ethnically Arab), but because a race war implies purposeful genocide of the race in question, whereas none of the wars for the Oded Yinon Plan have been carried out for the purpose of the extermination of Muslims at all. Rather they’re purposely kept alive–women, children, AND men–so that they can be imported to white nations to exterminate whites.

Pike

You mean the obviously false quotation used to poison the well?

MrDarkWater ago

you said race war. not me.

Tallest_Skil ago

The entire discussion is about race war. Read before replying.

MrDarkWater ago

no, it was not.

Tallest_Skil ago

Great argument, dumbass. Read the original post.

VoatIsNowDead ago

Do 5 shots of whiskey and read it again. It might make sense then.

MrDarkWater ago

well ok, but only because I started vacation 2 hours ago.

AmaleksHairyAss ago

they need widespread "far-right" violence

so they're asking Voat to cool it with the radicalism? It doesn't follow.

MrDarkWater ago

I was saying "they" meaning the glowniggers.

the agency who contacted putt: I'm 50/50 on right now.

AmaleksHairyAss ago

I know. And I'm saying it doesn't follow. They wouldn't "ask" put to knock the violent speech down a notch because they want more violence.

fujin ago

Well government agencies are divided at the moment so there are some good guys mixed in with the shit but I'm sure it's more likely groups like Shareblue and the like that are shitposting for violence and sending tips off to the feds.

Qanonplus1 ago

BINGO

MrDarkWater ago

I'm not saying they are, but I'm using the pronoun "they" to describe somebody other than those contacting putt. understand?

AmaleksHairyAss ago

o ok

think- ago

Look at this new "summit.news"

I wondered about this site as well.

LifeWillChange ago

I've only ever seen articles by Paul Joseph Watson on there. I just assumed it was his website.

TopTierCIAShill ago

like the Ben Garrison meme

MrDarkWater ago

I don't trust it yet: doesn't smell right.

9000timesempty ago

Our speech hurt their fee fees. The degenerate scum that they are.

MrDarkWater ago

that too.

uvulectomy ago

But...but it says NEWS right there in the title....and it's even a .news domain! How is that not trustworthy, fellow goyim?

MrDarkWater ago

(((they))) are some tricky-tricksters, aren't they?

heygeorge ago

summit.news, no surprise, is a PJW/Infowars production. @uvulectomy