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.
Mittermeyer ago
Actually yeah I think I remember something of the sort. It was a case involving the KKK where the supreme court ruled that generals such as "hang blacks" or "hang all blacks" was legal. However if there was one black guy nearby and they yelled "hang that black guy" that is when it would become an illegal threat.
fujin ago
Here's my buried comment that covers the Brandenburg vs. Ohio case that you're referring to but in a nutshell:
There's a clear difference between freedom of speech which includes saying things like "gas the kikes", "killer niggers", etc and inflammatory speech like inciting imminent violence, call to arms, etc which is NOT protected under the US First Amendment.
As per Brandenburg vs. Ohio, here's what crosses the line with inflammatory speech and what will trigger the government to get involved (e.g. force the admins to clean shit up or shut down the site):
The Brandenburg test is currently the unbeaten precedent upheld by the courts for speech that could be seen as instigating violence.
I can almost guarantee that there are teams (government and non-government) dedicated to watch and observe what we post on this site, waiting for comments that they can use to mount a case against Voat and eventually get this site shut down like they've already done to some others. And I'm sure there are active users on here from said groups that are giving us rope to hang ourselves.
heygeorge ago
fujin, you are awesome. This is a succinct way of describing the situation without resorting to armchair attorneying.
This is further nuance to keep in mind, such as intent.
For example:
The same (or nearly same) comment from @zyklon_b or @expertshitposter [posters generally of humorous intent; zyklon’s profile even explains his comments are to be taken as satirical art] vs a comment from, let’s say, @texasvet [a poster who generally intends his voice to be taken seriously and literally].
There is some notable precedent about how establishment of voice is taken into account when determining whether the speech meets the criteria of both directing lawlessness and likely producing this outcome.
@PuttItOut: IANAL
KVD ago
Wow, you can actually talk like a normal person.
Malayar ago
people tend to drop the bullshit in threads like this.
KVD ago
Is that a threat?
Malayar ago
no?