On the contrary, this can be viewed as saying something and isn't addictive or harmful to look at, like a cross or a hippy peace sign. Porn says nothing (well I guess it has subliminal stuff such as promoting cuckoldry) and is addictive and harmful to watch.
From an American standpoint pornography/obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment, what you brought up is.
It’s a kike caricature and has nothing to say in of itself, it’s a joke or an insult.
porn says nothing
It says nothing more than what you could find out of old airport novels.
it isn’t addictive or harmful to look at
Everything is addictive to some degree so that’s a half added excuse and if your only other reason is it’s “harmful” then any halfwit could justify any censorship on those grounds. I could say the happy merchant is harmful because it misrepresents our enemy. There is literally no difference the justification between banning “porn” and banning “hate” speech.
From an American standpoint pornography/obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment
Actually it is under freedom of expression, which was designed to close the loophole you’re currently exploiting.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but that the courts still need to determine whether material in question in each case is obscene. ..."
Whatever it wants to. What do you think constitutes "porn"? Take this statue for example. If a great deal of people were to fap to it, does that make it porn?
muh porn is a drug
As I said, anything can be addictive and harmful in high enough quantities. And again, I could easily use the argument that exposure to enough negative caricatures of a group could incite one to murder them. Whether or not any of it is justified is obviously a different matter, but the point still stands.
This isn't including most porn stars are rape victims or sex slaves.
Irrelevant, not all porn is film or involving actors. A good chunk of it is drawn or animated these days.
From your wiki source
The legal distinction between artistic nudity and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) deemed "protected forms of speech", versus "obscene acts", which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, is usually predicated on cultural factors. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subject to decisions within local US federal districts and contemporary moral standards.
Even back then, they had no objective distinction between the two. You can't argue that they banned all porn when it wasn't explicitly done. "Obscenity" is too obscure and relying on it is part of the reason Jews are such a protected class today.
None of this matters anyway, since you said "porn is not speech" and legally speaking in the US today it is.
It's very obvious what is and what isn't porn. As Justice Stewart said, I know it when I see it. Nudity can be artistic, zooming in on genitalia and filmed sex cannot be. Porn still doesn't say anything, it isn't speech.
No. As science has shown porn is addictive and harmful (as my source said). This is scientific fact. There is no scientific evidence for your example. It's not a two way argument, as you say, when only porn is proven to be harmful.
Not irrelevant, I can't fathom how you can say that fact is irrelevant so I don't know how to continue.
It still isn't protected by the first amendment, as I said. You're in favor of porn bruh, that unfortunately means you can't say you're remotely against Jews (the people who run the porn industry). I mean you could, but that would make you a hypocrite. "I'm against Jews! Except when they give me my fix."
It still isn't, from a legal standpoint (although it depends on wether or not the judges or lawyer types ruling on it are Jewish) or a common sense standpoint. It says nothing anymore than watching a man drinking beer does.
It's very obvious what is and what isn't porn. As Justice Stewart said, I know it when I see it.
This is a cop-out answer. You have no objective measure of what it is, partly because even what arouses men has some subjectivity to it. A magazine consisting of nothing but old erotic paintings is effectively no different than a Jap doujin in terms of arousal.
Not irrelevant, I can't fathom how you can say that fact is irrelevant so I don't know how to continue.
It's irrelevant to your claim that porn exploits women. Not all porn does this, so it is not an argument against it as a whole.
It still isn't protected by the first amendment, as I said.
Except it is, as evidenced by the fact that porn is not outlawed on the federal level.
You're in favor of porn bruh, that unfortunately means you can't say you're remotely against Jews (the people who run the porn industry).
If you think being pro-speech means being pro-porn you're completely missing the point. Just because I think it should be legal doesn't mean I think people should use it. Furthermore, as I said earlier porn isn't all film; a great deal of it is written and drawn.
I mean you could, but that would make you a hypocrite. "I'm against Jews! Except when they give me my fix."
Just like the hypocrisy of many on this site to say "I'm all for free speech!
It's very obvious what is and what isn't porn. You're probably the only person who feels arguing that it isn't super duper obvious is a reasonable argument.
Your source writer appears to be a Mexican, just an observation. How long did it take you to find that link from 2014 btw? I'm just going to guess that might be outdated. Plus he's only addressing relationship problems, not erectile dysfunction or it's addictive aspect.
Not all black people are violent, let's bring in more black people. "That's not what I said!" Yes but that's your line of thinking here. Instead of one bad apple to ruin the whole bunch, it's not all apples eh?
This part is going to drive me crazy, I've proven with a Supreme Court ruling it isn't protected, it being outlawed federally doesn't change the fact it isn't protected. Alcohol is not protected by any laws, but it's also not banned federally.
You're probably the only person who feels arguing that it isn't super duper obvious is a reasonable argument.
That's because I'm one of the few people who doesn't like ambiguously worded legislature coming back to bite me in the ass.
How long did it take you to find that link from 2014 btw?
Yeah I took the first article that wasn't complete garbage I could find, that was the point I was making. You didn't talk about the merits of your article and its sources or show any graphs or argue anything from it, you just shoved a link in my face and said "science man says so!"
Not all black people are violent, let's bring in more black people. "That's not what I said!" Yes but that's your line of thinking here.
That's stupid, you're comparing people and inanimate objects in a way that makes no sense. It amounts to arguing that fighting games are inherently terrible because most of them suck.
Furthermore, filmed porn and other porn aren't made the same. If filmed porn exploits women in pseudoslavery then it actively harms those people involved and is similar to CP, albeit not as bad. Drawn porn doesn't require anyone other than the person drawing it; the only people that could be harmed are the ones consuming it. At that point you're just restricting peoples' rights for what you think is their own good.
I've proven with a Supreme Court ruling it isn't protected, it being outlawed federally doesn't change the fact it isn't protected.
Yeah that's my fuck-up, sorry. I misremembered the wording of the 1st and the 10th and thought it was technically enshrined unless explicitly outlawed. I still don't believe it should be, though.
Mate. I'm tired of arguing. If I insulted you at any point I'm sorry. You were a good debater but you aren't going to change my mind and I doubt that I'll change your mind.
It may be legal and it may be free speech, but it is a psychological weapon. And those who use weapons against the denizens of Voat are enemies and shall be destroyed as such.
I don't even think it should be legal in white countries. But I'm giving everyone arguing the benefit here. It doesn't matter if it is or not. The intention of posting porn on voat is to harm the people here and so just like anything else that is legal but hurts voaters, like doxxing, it should be at the very least completely contained to its subverses if not banned outright.
Go clutch your pearls on reddit, you fat fuck. 6 month old account and begging on your knees for censorship. You must be a super loser in life (hidden cock? Small cock?) to be so damn power hungry and bossy; throwing out decrees like we owe you.
Porn still isn't speech, you pretending it is is rather sad, I hope it isn't a sign of addiction on your part. Insults don't change the fact porn isn't speech or that it enslaves it's workers and addicts alike. If you want porn over actual free speech you can go to Reddit yourself or any of the numerous porn sites.
Muddying the waters is a textbook tactic to drive people away from something. When a person used to come to voat there used to a lot more diverse conversation. Now if someone comes here they get animated CP and Nazis.
Animation is by legal definition not child porn. Nazis, also, aren't illegal content.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything is illegal or should be banned. I'm saying when a user comes to voat they see that loli shit and Nazis.
As they should. A free place will tend to have that kind of content when it's not allowed elsewhere.
That would be one thing (granted I haven't seen anyone selling stuff on here, so really you mean all speech is accepted here, and porn isn't speech), but if you hadn't noticed more porn is being posted and up voted by bots, so this subversion should not be tolerated.
Shall we block whatever as well since it was recently posted on there? Ultimately we'll have to block everything since porn spreads, as all cancers do.
Instead of saying cancer should be accepted here, maybe you could go to an actual porn website.
Really now? Even though it's clear that no one except a couple of Jews want to see porn on Voat and it's just bots keeping it a problem? "Ban shit you don't like," aka objectively harmful material that doesn't qualify as speech.
And brain dead Christ cuck? Normally I'd ignore the petty insults, but you used cuck while defending porn, with that irony in mind you also used brain dead. It's clear you're a kike whose inbreeding has done far too much damage to his mind. Not once have I mentioned Jesus here, it's funny how you snakes feel the need to criticize him whenever your dirty work comes under scrutiny.
No, niggers are harmful. Pushing more Jewry I see.
Dunno about petroleum.
You gotta be 18 to buy cigarettes and tobacco companies can't run positive ads, you gotta be 21 to buy beer, but for porn you can view it for free so long as you have internet access.
You seem to not know the basics of the Internet if you just used that as an argument. Age restrictions don't work without a communist system in place to track everyone
"Oy vey! He's trying to prevent us from selling poison! He must be a communist!" Actually, it's not selling porn, it's being handed out for free. The bare minimum would be to make all porn cost money which would stop probably 50% of kids from viewing it, real communistic. You must be a real Jew for you to lie so much.
Except porn is not freedom. It is not speech. It enslaved it's workers and it enslaves it's addicts. If you wish to be a slave you can go to Reddit or SlaveHub.
Noone is forcing you to watch it. You do not have the right to stop someone making a bad life choice. You are no better than a communist retard trying to enforce your world view onto everyone else
But sure, just don't look at it, even when this faggot is pushing your nose into it. "I have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to object to obscenity."
Posted automatically (#81963) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@TrialsAndTribulation: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Joe_McCarthy)
It has been spammed by bots, and not just into p0rn but into whatever as well. It will continue spreading. You're merely a kike who wants to peddle his poisonous slavery under the name of freedom, even though porn is not freedom nor is it speech.
It isn't. Or at least much of it is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Harder stuff really. But anything legal under US law basically is allowed on Voat. So effectively it is speech for our purposes.
The kike Joe_McCarthy chiming on. This is the faggot retard who posted explicit porn on v/whatever without using a NSFW tag. So, you have the freedom to post it, but no one has the freedom to object to it because it's inappropriate and they don't want to see it. Fuck off, kike.
Posted automatically (#81962) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@TrialsAndTribulation: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Joe_McCarthy)
Had I left it with a NSFW tag you may have missed it. And don't tell me you don't love watch her orgasm. I suspect this is just another excuse for you to play internet asshole. Judging by your posting history that seems to get you off almost as much as she does. So give it a rest old man.
Anonfag ago
Keep telling yourself that. I’m sure it won’t backfire.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
It's not speech.
Anonfag ago
Technically neither is this, but I'm sure you'd be opposed to it being illegal.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
On the contrary, this can be viewed as saying something and isn't addictive or harmful to look at, like a cross or a hippy peace sign. Porn says nothing (well I guess it has subliminal stuff such as promoting cuckoldry) and is addictive and harmful to watch.
From an American standpoint pornography/obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment, what you brought up is.
Anonfag ago
It’s a kike caricature and has nothing to say in of itself, it’s a joke or an insult.
It says nothing more than what you could find out of old airport novels.
Everything is addictive to some degree so that’s a half added excuse and if your only other reason is it’s “harmful” then any halfwit could justify any censorship on those grounds. I could say the happy merchant is harmful because it misrepresents our enemy. There is literally no difference the justification between banning “porn” and banning “hate” speech.
Actually it is under freedom of expression, which was designed to close the loophole you’re currently exploiting.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
What does porn say then? Besides "cucking yourself is good, race mix, sodomy is okay, women must be whores, men must be passive."
Porn acts like a drug on the human body and can lead to things such as erectile dysfunctions, looking at a picture of a Jew will not. https://educateempowerkids.org/8-harmful-effects-of-pornography-on-individuals/
This isn't including most porn stars are rape victims or sex slaves.
No, it's not. This was ruled by the Supreme Court before it was 1/3 kikes and 1/3 kike sympathizers. Sorry it's Wikipedia but I'm lazy and it gets the main point across. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law
"The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but that the courts still need to determine whether material in question in each case is obscene. ..."
Anonfag ago
Whatever it wants to. What do you think constitutes "porn"? Take this statue for example. If a great deal of people were to fap to it, does that make it porn?
As I said, anything can be addictive and harmful in high enough quantities. And again, I could easily use the argument that exposure to enough negative caricatures of a group could incite one to murder them. Whether or not any of it is justified is obviously a different matter, but the point still stands.
Irrelevant, not all porn is film or involving actors. A good chunk of it is drawn or animated these days.
From your wiki source
Even back then, they had no objective distinction between the two. You can't argue that they banned all porn when it wasn't explicitly done. "Obscenity" is too obscure and relying on it is part of the reason Jews are such a protected class today.
None of this matters anyway, since you said "porn is not speech" and legally speaking in the US today it is.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
It's very obvious what is and what isn't porn. As Justice Stewart said, I know it when I see it. Nudity can be artistic, zooming in on genitalia and filmed sex cannot be. Porn still doesn't say anything, it isn't speech.
No. As science has shown porn is addictive and harmful (as my source said). This is scientific fact. There is no scientific evidence for your example. It's not a two way argument, as you say, when only porn is proven to be harmful.
Not irrelevant, I can't fathom how you can say that fact is irrelevant so I don't know how to continue.
It still isn't protected by the first amendment, as I said. You're in favor of porn bruh, that unfortunately means you can't say you're remotely against Jews (the people who run the porn industry). I mean you could, but that would make you a hypocrite. "I'm against Jews! Except when they give me my fix."
It still isn't, from a legal standpoint (although it depends on wether or not the judges or lawyer types ruling on it are Jewish) or a common sense standpoint. It says nothing anymore than watching a man drinking beer does.
Anonfag ago
This is a cop-out answer. You have no objective measure of what it is, partly because even what arouses men has some subjectivity to it. A magazine consisting of nothing but old erotic paintings is effectively no different than a Jap doujin in terms of arousal.
Funny thing about scientific fact is that it doesn't care at all about the articles you throw at it. Unless we're willing to dive into the actual research, we're still relying on the word of "magic science man". Anyway, this wasn't my argument to begin with.
It's irrelevant to your claim that porn exploits women. Not all porn does this, so it is not an argument against it as a whole.
Except it is, as evidenced by the fact that porn is not outlawed on the federal level.
If you think being pro-speech means being pro-porn you're completely missing the point. Just because I think it should be legal doesn't mean I think people should use it. Furthermore, as I said earlier porn isn't all film; a great deal of it is written and drawn.
Just like the hypocrisy of many on this site to say "I'm all for free speech!
Except when it's icky to me".
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
It's very obvious what is and what isn't porn. You're probably the only person who feels arguing that it isn't super duper obvious is a reasonable argument.
Your source writer appears to be a Mexican, just an observation. How long did it take you to find that link from 2014 btw? I'm just going to guess that might be outdated. Plus he's only addressing relationship problems, not erectile dysfunction or it's addictive aspect.
Not all black people are violent, let's bring in more black people. "That's not what I said!" Yes but that's your line of thinking here. Instead of one bad apple to ruin the whole bunch, it's not all apples eh?
This part is going to drive me crazy, I've proven with a Supreme Court ruling it isn't protected, it being outlawed federally doesn't change the fact it isn't protected. Alcohol is not protected by any laws, but it's also not banned federally.
Porn isn't speech.
Anonfag ago
Not in a way that makes sense for outlawing it.
That's because I'm one of the few people who doesn't like ambiguously worded legislature coming back to bite me in the ass.
Yeah I took the first article that wasn't complete garbage I could find, that was the point I was making. You didn't talk about the merits of your article and its sources or show any graphs or argue anything from it, you just shoved a link in my face and said "science man says so!"
That's stupid, you're comparing people and inanimate objects in a way that makes no sense. It amounts to arguing that fighting games are inherently terrible because most of them suck.
Furthermore, filmed porn and other porn aren't made the same. If filmed porn exploits women in pseudoslavery then it actively harms those people involved and is similar to CP, albeit not as bad. Drawn porn doesn't require anyone other than the person drawing it; the only people that could be harmed are the ones consuming it. At that point you're just restricting peoples' rights for what you think is their own good.
Yeah that's my fuck-up, sorry. I misremembered the wording of the 1st and the 10th and thought it was technically enshrined unless explicitly outlawed. I still don't believe it should be, though.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Mate. I'm tired of arguing. If I insulted you at any point I'm sorry. You were a good debater but you aren't going to change my mind and I doubt that I'll change your mind.
Anonfag ago
Same. I'm also sorry if I sounded harsh, I've got a tendency to argue over inane crap.
Dumb_Comment_Bot ago
It may be legal and it may be free speech, but it is a psychological weapon. And those who use weapons against the denizens of Voat are enemies and shall be destroyed as such.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Objection your honor, while it is legal it is not speech.
Dumb_Comment_Bot ago
I don't even think it should be legal in white countries. But I'm giving everyone arguing the benefit here. It doesn't matter if it is or not. The intention of posting porn on voat is to harm the people here and so just like anything else that is legal but hurts voaters, like doxxing, it should be at the very least completely contained to its subverses if not banned outright.
Titanbikes4ever ago
Go clutch your pearls on reddit, you fat fuck. 6 month old account and begging on your knees for censorship. You must be a super loser in life (hidden cock? Small cock?) to be so damn power hungry and bossy; throwing out decrees like we owe you.
BillyBobBoJangles ago
Bruh why would he need to go back to reddit when he has someone like you to complain about the age of his account right here?
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Porn still isn't speech, you pretending it is is rather sad, I hope it isn't a sign of addiction on your part. Insults don't change the fact porn isn't speech or that it enslaves it's workers and addicts alike. If you want porn over actual free speech you can go to Reddit yourself or any of the numerous porn sites.
antiracistMetal ago
But but but, @Crensch said:
/v/Identitarian/2285910/11341994
@bojangles @eagleshigh @trigglypuff @heygeorge @gothamgirl
PalmSprings21 ago
porn is for fags
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
If you want censorship go to reddit you mentally handicapped christ cucks
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
If you want porn instead of free speech go to any other website on the internet you you mentally handicapped porn addict.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
If you don't want porn, block the porn, you incompetent retard
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Due to porn's cancer like nature it spreads, even then it would effect others. If you want your fix, go to one of your numerous websites meant for it.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
This site is meant for everything. You are not the arbiter of acceptability.
Others can block the shit aswell you retard
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
That would be one thing (granted I haven't seen anyone selling stuff on here, so really you mean all speech is accepted here, and porn isn't speech), but if you hadn't noticed more porn is being posted and up voted by bots, so this subversion should not be tolerated.
Shall we block whatever as well since it was recently posted on there? Ultimately we'll have to block everything since porn spreads, as all cancers do.
Instead of saying cancer should be accepted here, maybe you could go to an actual porn website.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Don't use the bot bullshit to ban shit you don't like you braindead christ cuck. The bots and porn are 2 separate issues
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Really now? Even though it's clear that no one except a couple of Jews want to see porn on Voat and it's just bots keeping it a problem? "Ban shit you don't like," aka objectively harmful material that doesn't qualify as speech.
And brain dead Christ cuck? Normally I'd ignore the petty insults, but you used cuck while defending porn, with that irony in mind you also used brain dead. It's clear you're a kike whose inbreeding has done far too much damage to his mind. Not once have I mentioned Jesus here, it's funny how you snakes feel the need to criticize him whenever your dirty work comes under scrutiny.
JJNova ago
There's literally a RANDOM NSFW link at the bottom of every page...
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Objectively harmful? You retard. You are not the arbiter of acceptability
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Objectively harmful on the human body and society:
https://educateempowerkids.org/8-harmful-effects-of-pornography-on-individuals/
I could get more links but I know none will satisfy you, Juden.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Guns are objectively harmful. Let's ban guns.
Petroleum is harmful, Let's ban that aswell.
It's not the worlds job to protect you from seeing ass and tits
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
No, niggers are harmful. Pushing more Jewry I see.
Dunno about petroleum.
You gotta be 18 to buy cigarettes and tobacco companies can't run positive ads, you gotta be 21 to buy beer, but for porn you can view it for free so long as you have internet access.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
You seem to not know the basics of the Internet if you just used that as an argument. Age restrictions don't work without a communist system in place to track everyone
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
"Oy vey! He's trying to prevent us from selling poison! He must be a communist!" Actually, it's not selling porn, it's being handed out for free. The bare minimum would be to make all porn cost money which would stop probably 50% of kids from viewing it, real communistic. You must be a real Jew for you to lie so much.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
I never mentioned anything about buying it you retard kike. At least counter arguments i make you incompetent faggot
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
The problem seems to be you're actually retarded.
happycutie ago
Correct. If porn was speech then whipping out your dick in public is speech; they both are not. Voat needs to ban porn.
walrusescapades ago
I'm using that line from now on.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Gore is fine, but nudity makes me sick
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
People who said gore is fine: zero.
What's that? You mean gore isn't speech either and shouldn't be treated as such? How about that.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
No, i'm saying your morality is fucked to think nudity and sex is obscene
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
You have no morals if you thinking video tapping sex to show to the world, which is proven to be harmful, is okay.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
If you can't handle the freedom, fuck off to reddit or resetera. Not that complex
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Except porn is not freedom. It is not speech. It enslaved it's workers and it enslaves it's addicts. If you wish to be a slave you can go to Reddit or SlaveHub.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Noone is forcing you to watch it. You do not have the right to stop someone making a bad life choice. You are no better than a communist retard trying to enforce your world view onto everyone else
TrialsAndTribulation ago
Fuck off, faggot. Explain this to me. Also explain why Joe_McCarthy posted this three times in v/whatever without a NSFW tag.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/3579664
https://voat.co/v/whatever/3579425
https://voat.co/v/whatever/3578728
But sure, just don't look at it, even when this faggot is pushing your nose into it. "I have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to object to obscenity."
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/whatever submission by @Joe_McCarthy.
Posted automatically (#81963) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@TrialsAndTribulation: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Joe_McCarthy)
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
He posts it because you are an easily triggered snowflake faggot
TrialsAndTribulation ago
Really? That's why he does it? How would you know that? I'd suggest you're Joe_McCarthy, but he doesn't post comments from a phone.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
Oh no, someone who can't handle seeing a woman masterbate almost tried to claim i am using multiple accounts to help himself get over the trauma
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
It has been spammed by bots, and not just into p0rn but into whatever as well. It will continue spreading. You're merely a kike who wants to peddle his poisonous slavery under the name of freedom, even though porn is not freedom nor is it speech.
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
If you repeat the lie often enough it might come true.
You aren't complaining against bots you faggot, you are complaining against porn
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
I'm complaining against both. Porn on Voat wouldn't be a problem if bots weren't up voting it on multiple subs.
You would know about lying, ay Schlomo?
Itty-bitty_Tity-trap ago
You dumbass kike.
RunOverByASchoolBus ago
Ok Pornstein
JJNova ago
But SOMEONE has to regulate people or they will be responsible for their decisions!
anticlutch ago
No it isn't. Obscenity isn't protected but somehow got through. Very cohencidental that porn is a jewish industry.
Joe_McCarthy ago
It isn't. Or at least much of it is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Harder stuff really. But anything legal under US law basically is allowed on Voat. So effectively it is speech for our purposes.
TrialsAndTribulation ago
The kike Joe_McCarthy chiming on. This is the faggot retard who posted explicit porn on v/whatever without using a NSFW tag. So, you have the freedom to post it, but no one has the freedom to object to it because it's inappropriate and they don't want to see it. Fuck off, kike.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/whatever submission by @Joe_McCarthy.
Posted automatically (#81962) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@TrialsAndTribulation: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Joe_McCarthy)
Joe_McCarthy ago
Had I left it with a NSFW tag you may have missed it. And don't tell me you don't love watch her orgasm. I suspect this is just another excuse for you to play internet asshole. Judging by your posting history that seems to get you off almost as much as she does. So give it a rest old man.
anticlutch ago
Fuck off kike.
Diogenes_The_Cynic ago
Obscenity isn't protected.