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 →
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.
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.
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".
fujin ago
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:
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.