Exactly. Take into account nude beaches and nudist colonies. Families go there together and family photos are taken. There are sometimes naked children in the photos just like everyone else in the photo is naked. This is not pornography because the focus of the photo is not explicitly on the private areas of the child. This is also why nudist colonies go to great lengths to know who tries to become a member before being allowed inside. If photos at a nudist colony were cp they wouldn't be listed on search engines.
moral authoritarianism is more degenerate than virtually every activity. it is desperately clinging to regression and belief structures that were outdated over a thousand years ago.
Nude images of minors is not porn or illegal. Nude images of minors engaged in a sexually explicit situation IS illegal. A pic of your nudist family at a nudist beach is not porn. A pic of... I'm not going there. You get the idea.
I personally do not condone of either. Just pointing out the law.
Well, should we tailor to all countries? Some countries, photos of women who don't wear burkas are considered pornography, and punishable by law.
Should we ban all subverses which host images which could be illegal in any country? What about images against Kim Jung Un -- those are illegal in North Korea. What about cartoons of Muhammad -- those are illegal in many middle-eastern states.
If we start banning things because you aren't responsible enough to block the content yourself, we will end up banning everything.
I do have all NSFW subverses blocked, so I have taken steps.
But surely we can all agree that pictures of naked kids is just wrong? Just like we all agree that rape and murder is wrong? Do we really not have a common base morality we can all agree on?
You can't be a little bit pedo, you know. It's binary.
Oh, I agree that the images are wrong. I don't like what these subverse contain, But I also recognize banning them, based on their fully-legal content, is just as wrong.
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you don't like their content, or what they stand for, or what they're about, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal.
And to even insinuate that it's a good idea to ban them because of those first three points, ignoring the fourth/last point, is not only scary dangerous... It's wrong.
You might not think it, but I'm pro free speech too.
I don't see how posting pictures of naked kids is a question of speech though. I think there is an order when it comes to morality - murder is worse than shoplifting for example. Framed in this way, I think that pedos posting pictures of kids is worse than stopping them.
Nude images of minors are a "gray area" in parts of Europe, until Sharia fully takes over, but nude pictures of minors in the United States are illegal.
Great point. Unless you want to spin off different versions of Voat for different countries, Voat has to adhere to the strictest standard or risk being banned.
Actaully that's the oposite of a good idea. I guess we should comply with NK, China, Australia, UK, and India that have porn bans or something just short of it. We should also censor everything to comply with Japan.
The beauty of the internet is you comply with one areas rules and tell everyone else to suck it. To do otherwise would be madness. It's not how the internet works. Single country compliance is how the internet works so why would Voat of all places censor more than what the rest of the internet does? That would be antithetical to what voat is. Apply the minimum of the law or anything else you are complicit with censorship.
Find a locality where Voat exists and follow only those rules. International compliance is bullshit.
By the way /v/niggers wouldn't be internationally compliant.
nobody gives a shit about you whitey fags, keep your nigger shit out of here. nobody gives a shit about you fatophobes, keep your hate out of here. nobody cares about you antisemites, keep your racism out of here!
if nobody cares or gives a shit, than everything should be allowed so long as it is legal. don't like some sub? there is a block button for a reason.
Found the eurofag pedo. That's what the rules are giving you. A situation where nobody gives a shit, except where it's illegal. Guess what? Civilised countries don't want you fucking pedos.
lies, pretty baby the movie is quite legal in the US. nudity is legal, nudity in lascivious poses or that is centered on the genitals is illegal in the US. lascivious poses are illegal regardless of clothing, and images centered on the genitals when the clothing is sheer is also illegal.
that is beside the point. legal pictures should be allowed. i am fine with no nudity, but even facebook allowed the napalm girl in vietnam to be posted after the public backlash, even when she is clearly nude.
And 'such pics' are illegal. Just because they exist does not make them legal. Is it legal to live nude in a nudist colony? Sure. Is it legal to post photos of nude minors anywhere? No. No it is not.
No they're not illegal. Family photos at a nudist colony where children are present are not illegal. As long as the focus of the photo is clearly NOT on the private areas of a child it's OK. I think all of the major search engines would be removing their nudist colony links if it were illegal don't you?
Actually it is as long as it is not lewd or lascivious. There are mainstream movies that depict nude children. The original Superman comes to mind. There is a scene where the 3 year old boy comes out of the pod after it lands and he is totally nude, full frontal. It was show in theaters and on broadcast TV.
voat is loaded with the americunts that hate nudity just like they hate all sexuality. they preach not to watch porn, they consider it to be a "health hazard" now. they have a movement of abstaining from masturbation called "no fap". there are tons of people opposed to prostitution. the only way they could get more uptight about sex is if they were damned muslims. they are sexually repressed as hell, which is why the churches are filled with so many child molesters.
they be like, "don't post that pic it is immoral", meanwhile they are fucking their neighbor's kid.
That is something I never understood about American film/television. Nudity/sexuality is barely acceptable, but ultra violence is perfectly acceptable. What the fuck is up with that? You'd think it'd be the other way around, if anything.
Somewhere out there, there's a creep that is sexually attracted to virtually anything you can think of. It's someones fetish, no exceptions. No reason to ban everything, though. Or do you want to ban that pony show people where into a few years back, too? http://uploads.ungrounded.net/alternate/735000/735840_alternate_7832.720p.mp4 (NSFL)
Sexualizing sure, but posting a picture of my daughter in a Halloween outfit isn't. Seems unfair to ban posting pictures of kids entirely, but there's certainly something that needs defined there.
No nude minors. If you must take it one step farther then say no minors in underwear. However, sometimes underwear is hard to distinguish between a bikini.
Edit: Drawings of sexualized minors is legal in most of the US. Thus, it should be allowed on Voat.
ON DOXXES: ATKO HAS SAID THAT DOXING A USER BY PUTTINGTHE INFO ON VOAT IS DELETABLE AND BANNABLE, BUT HAS STATED THAT LINKING TO A DOX OFF OF VOAT (IE THE DOXXING INFO IS NOT ON VOAT SERVERS, JUST A LINK) THEN THAT'S OK.*** WHAT IS THE PROPOSED OFFICIAL RULE REGARDING THIS ATKO STATED DIFFERENCE
Who knows, but I don't think that's inherently pornographic, that's something kids do. I remember when I was in elementary school, there was this one girl who really tried to kiss me all the time because she liked me. I, of course, wanted no part of it, because I had shit to do, and pokemon to catch, but kids sometimes kiss kids. I wouldn't want to watch it, but let's not pretend kissing is always lewd or sexual in nature.
view the rest of the comments →
7584099? ago
Nude images of minors is a grey area, porn is illegal.
7588297? ago
Cartoon/CGI and fictional stories are fine.
7586665? ago
Exactly. Take into account nude beaches and nudist colonies. Families go there together and family photos are taken. There are sometimes naked children in the photos just like everyone else in the photo is naked. This is not pornography because the focus of the photo is not explicitly on the private areas of the child. This is also why nudist colonies go to great lengths to know who tries to become a member before being allowed inside. If photos at a nudist colony were cp they wouldn't be listed on search engines.
7602449? ago
And they're fucking degenerates too.
7619611? ago
moral authoritarianism is more degenerate than virtually every activity. it is desperately clinging to regression and belief structures that were outdated over a thousand years ago.
7607160? ago
You personally disagree so they all must be wrong right? Pitiful. What a simple little thing you are.
7608097? ago
And you can't win, so you resort to name calling.
I'll count that as 1 to me, pedos nil.
7616543? ago
Sorry snowflake the law is clear and you're wrong. Did you get your little feelings hurt? Do you need a safe space and a pacifier to suck on? Lol.
7585325? ago
Nude images of minors is not porn or illegal. Nude images of minors engaged in a sexually explicit situation IS illegal. A pic of your nudist family at a nudist beach is not porn. A pic of... I'm not going there. You get the idea.
I personally do not condone of either. Just pointing out the law.
7588827? ago
You're pointing out the law in your country. Mine is much more strict.
I don't wanna get v& just because your country's laws allow degeneracy.
7591066? ago
Women showing their faces in public is degeneracy to some. Your word has no standard and you should really pick a new one.
7593553? ago
H-hecho?
7589452? ago
Voat is a US company and goes by US law. If you want something else, make your own voat or buy this one.
7588886? ago
Well, should we tailor to all countries? Some countries, photos of women who don't wear burkas are considered pornography, and punishable by law.
Should we ban all subverses which host images which could be illegal in any country? What about images against Kim Jung Un -- those are illegal in North Korea. What about cartoons of Muhammad -- those are illegal in many middle-eastern states.
If we start banning things because you aren't responsible enough to block the content yourself, we will end up banning everything.
7593570? ago
I do have all NSFW subverses blocked, so I have taken steps.
But surely we can all agree that pictures of naked kids is just wrong? Just like we all agree that rape and murder is wrong? Do we really not have a common base morality we can all agree on?
You can't be a little bit pedo, you know. It's binary.
7595222? ago
Oh, I agree that the images are wrong. I don't like what these subverse contain, But I also recognize banning them, based on their fully-legal content, is just as wrong.
7602397? ago
“Right and Wrong is a very different standard from Legal and Illegal”
-- Ed Snowden
7603111? ago
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you don't like their content, or what they stand for, or what they're about, doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal.
And to even insinuate that it's a good idea to ban them because of those first three points, ignoring the fourth/last point, is not only scary dangerous... It's wrong.
7603165? ago
You might not think it, but I'm pro free speech too.
I don't see how posting pictures of naked kids is a question of speech though. I think there is an order when it comes to morality - murder is worse than shoplifting for example. Framed in this way, I think that pedos posting pictures of kids is worse than stopping them.
7619584? ago
supporting policing of thought crime is actually worse than murder. now consider what you are doing.
7605690? ago
The problem is that there are no kids in this topic of discussion... Only drawings.
Is a drawing of a murder worse than actual shoplifting?
7585211? ago
And from the sunshine cometh a GreyCloud
7584705? ago
Nude images of minors are a "gray area" in parts of Europe, until Sharia fully takes over, but nude pictures of minors in the United States are illegal.
7586745? ago
Great point. Unless you want to spin off different versions of Voat for different countries, Voat has to adhere to the strictest standard or risk being banned.
7587181? ago
Actaully that's the oposite of a good idea. I guess we should comply with NK, China, Australia, UK, and India that have porn bans or something just short of it. We should also censor everything to comply with Japan.
The beauty of the internet is you comply with one areas rules and tell everyone else to suck it. To do otherwise would be madness. It's not how the internet works. Single country compliance is how the internet works so why would Voat of all places censor more than what the rest of the internet does? That would be antithetical to what voat is. Apply the minimum of the law or anything else you are complicit with censorship.
Find a locality where Voat exists and follow only those rules. International compliance is bullshit.
By the way /v/niggers wouldn't be internationally compliant.
7586051? ago
Nobody gives a shit about you fucking eurofags. keep your pedo shit out of here.
7586602? ago
nobody gives a shit about you whitey fags, keep your nigger shit out of here. nobody gives a shit about you fatophobes, keep your hate out of here. nobody cares about you antisemites, keep your racism out of here!
if nobody cares or gives a shit, than everything should be allowed so long as it is legal. don't like some sub? there is a block button for a reason.
7587152? ago
Found the eurofag pedo. That's what the rules are giving you. A situation where nobody gives a shit, except where it's illegal. Guess what? Civilised countries don't want you fucking pedos.
7587543? ago
just cus your fattass is the size of a small country doesn't mean you actually represent countries.
7585405? ago
lies, pretty baby the movie is quite legal in the US. nudity is legal, nudity in lascivious poses or that is centered on the genitals is illegal in the US. lascivious poses are illegal regardless of clothing, and images centered on the genitals when the clothing is sheer is also illegal.
that is beside the point. legal pictures should be allowed. i am fine with no nudity, but even facebook allowed the napalm girl in vietnam to be posted after the public backlash, even when she is clearly nude.
7586485? ago
Yeah, pretty sure admins aren't talking about your typical nudes. Napalm girl is a good example.
7602467? ago
Napalm girl is so naked they stripped her skin off, too.
7586790? ago
It must simultaneously suck, and be awesome to be known as "Napalm Girl".
7584785? ago
No they are not. There are many nudist website with such pics.
7585441? ago
And 'such pics' are illegal.Just because they exist does not make them legal. Is it legal to live nude in a nudist colony? Sure.Is it legal to post photos of nude minors anywhere? No. No it is not.7586871? ago
No they're not illegal. Family photos at a nudist colony where children are present are not illegal. As long as the focus of the photo is clearly NOT on the private areas of a child it's OK. I think all of the major search engines would be removing their nudist colony links if it were illegal don't you?
7585742? ago
Actually it is as long as it is not lewd or lascivious. There are mainstream movies that depict nude children. The original Superman comes to mind. There is a scene where the 3 year old boy comes out of the pod after it lands and he is totally nude, full frontal. It was show in theaters and on broadcast TV.
7586024? ago
Hmm... well maybe I just wish it weren't legal, but I guess the Nirvana album cover proves it is...
7586303? ago
Why do you want this to be illegal, what's your problem with nudity? I never understood why americunts hate nudity, either.
7587000? ago
voat is loaded with the americunts that hate nudity just like they hate all sexuality. they preach not to watch porn, they consider it to be a "health hazard" now. they have a movement of abstaining from masturbation called "no fap". there are tons of people opposed to prostitution. the only way they could get more uptight about sex is if they were damned muslims. they are sexually repressed as hell, which is why the churches are filled with so many child molesters.
they be like, "don't post that pic it is immoral", meanwhile they are fucking their neighbor's kid.
7586766? ago
The morals in the US are fucked up. Nudity is bad but violence is perfectly fine.
7586894? ago
That is something I never understood about American film/television. Nudity/sexuality is barely acceptable, but ultra violence is perfectly acceptable. What the fuck is up with that? You'd think it'd be the other way around, if anything.
7586674? ago
Good question. I don't know. I guess because I know, somewhere out there, there's a creep who's into that
7587144? ago
Somewhere out there, there's a creep that is sexually attracted to virtually anything you can think of. It's someones fetish, no exceptions. No reason to ban everything, though. Or do you want to ban that pony show people where into a few years back, too? http://uploads.ungrounded.net/alternate/735000/735840_alternate_7832.720p.mp4 (NSFL)
7585437? ago
7584561? ago
It is still sexualizing children which should not be aloud in any shape or form. If any general area of the genitals are shown it should be banned.
7587987? ago
Uhhh... sexualization is done in the mind. If you feel it should be banned because it's sexual... then I have news for you.
7586702? ago
Photos at a nude beach or nudist colony is not sexualizing children. Families take family photos there all the time.
7585986? ago
Sexualizing sure, but posting a picture of my daughter in a Halloween outfit isn't. Seems unfair to ban posting pictures of kids entirely, but there's certainly something that needs defined there.
7591043? ago
No nude minors. If you must take it one step farther then say no minors in underwear. However, sometimes underwear is hard to distinguish between a bikini.
Edit: Drawings of sexualized minors is legal in most of the US. Thus, it should be allowed on Voat.
7584623? ago
Yes, I would agree, at least as far as VOAT is concerned.
7584482? ago
@PUTTITOUT AND @ATKO
ON DOXXES: ATKO HAS SAID THAT DOXING A USER BY PUTTINGTHE INFO ON VOAT IS DELETABLE AND BANNABLE, BUT HAS STATED THAT LINKING TO A DOX OFF OF VOAT (IE THE DOXXING INFO IS NOT ON VOAT SERVERS, JUST A LINK) THEN THAT'S OK.*** WHAT IS THE PROPOSED OFFICIAL RULE REGARDING THIS ATKO STATED DIFFERENCE
ATKO QUOTE SOURCE...
-SANEGOAT (people's feedback clearly states they want more cowbell.. i mean, capslocks)
7585110? ago
No doxxing of voat usernames on or off site?
7584839? ago
Good point, Sane. This adds complexity to the issue and should be clearly defined.
-heygeorge
7584633? ago
What's your point?
7584312? ago
Why would any1 want to watch kids kissing kids ?
v/kidskissingkids
7586495? ago
Link is staying blue.
7584569? ago
aaaaaaakward. A) why is it there B) how did you know it was there
7585104? ago
It's weird as fuck, and absolutely creepy, but if you consistently browse /all/new you're going to see Hecho-tier shit eventually.
7584967? ago
People keep bringing it up in comments. I'm amazed you have not seen it.
7584630? ago
v/kkk
first and only comment
7584516? ago
Who knows, but I don't think that's inherently pornographic, that's something kids do. I remember when I was in elementary school, there was this one girl who really tried to kiss me all the time because she liked me. I, of course, wanted no part of it, because I had shit to do, and pokemon to catch, but kids sometimes kiss kids. I wouldn't want to watch it, but let's not pretend kissing is always lewd or sexual in nature.
7587214? ago
We need more reasonable people, like this guy.
7584738? ago
people are strange indeed
7584432? ago
I have no idea.
7584442? ago
found it in v/kkk