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 →
Armpit_and_Ass ago
This leads to a number of sticky and important questions regarding where this line gets drawn.
If I, for example, say something along the lines of:
That is clearly a threat of violence. Specific acts are listed, with a specific target(s), along with a time and date. That's pretty clear cut.
But what about:
Violence is being called for, in the form of the industrialized extermination of the merchant class, along with a call for fisticuffs with those who do not fall within the author's demographic. Since no specifics are listed, I can only assume that this is just poor (even if catchy) sloganeering.
But then if I say:
Well, I've listed a specific act. I've even given a generalized target. Even without a date and a time, would this considered a threat? I know what a merchant would say, but I'm curious to know what you think.
But if that isn't, then would this:
...cross a line yet? If not, why not? Is it just hyperbole, because I said all kikes? Is it because I lack the wherewithal to gas all kikes? How does anyone know? Maybe I'm a billionaire with my own private mercenary army and I totally could. But how can that be known unless and until the gassing started?
What if I just said:
That's not really a specific threat. But I know for a fact that Twitter, to use one example, considers this:
...to be a specific enough threat to lock an account.
So how does any of this fucking work?
yellowthread ago
It doesn't operate on logic. The government is a nun with a ruler.