Plagued 4chan - the Internet hate machine

Will the 4chan hack be the end of it?

  • Yes, goodbye forever 4chan

    Votes: 1,033 18.5%

  • No, they will rise from the ashes, stronger than ever

    Votes: 344 6.2%

  • This will rattle them but it will be forgotten about next week

    Votes: 2,328 41.7%

  • I am just here for the janny phonebooking

    Votes: 1,094 19.6%

  • What the fuck is 4chan

    Votes: 219 3.9%

  • Yotsuba&!

    Votes: 571 10.2%
  • Total voters
    5,589
Un Platano said:
People were getting arrested for it a century ago under 18 USC Section 871, see United States v. Stickrath:

The indictment was upheld in a district court. Whether this would happen in today's court is debatable but there is precedent for it. 18 USC Section 871 applies specifically to threats made against the president but doesn't lay any special definitions for what constitutes incitement.
Click to expand...
Again, we have an issue. This doesn't match this case. Black haired retard didn't say he'd "do it himself" if he had the opportunity. That's where it crosses into being an actual actionable threat.
 
Toolbox said:
Again, we have an issue. This doesn't match this case. Black haired retard didn't say he'd "do it himself" if he had the opportunity. That's where it crosses into being an actual actionable threat.
Click to expand...
That is not correct if you actually read the case. The court's decision was particularly focused on the first part of that sentence where he says the president "ought to" be killed. The court held that using the word 'ought' "denotes an obligation of duty" which made it an actionable threat.
 
Un Platano said:
That is not correct if you actually read the case. The court's decision was particularly focused on the first part of that sentence where he says the president "ought to" be killed. The court held that using the word 'ought' "denotes an obligation of duty" which made it an actionable threat.
Click to expand...
I was agreeing that your cited case was a closer match to being an actual threat. I just don't see how you can compare it to 4channer here.
 
Toolbox said:
I was agreeing that your cited case was a closer match to being an actual threat. I just don't see how you can compare it to 4channer here.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of reasons it's not a great comparison, but not over the actionability of their statements. They're both recommendations that an unspecified person should kill somebody. Where their differences lie is that they violate different federal laws and were made in vastly different political environments.
 
iirc that guy who got fedded around here was specifically because he was "I'm going to fed at specific time and place at a specific person" rather than just "lets go fed some dems whenever lol #racewarvan #fukobeme"
 
1679095411156.png
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Ayana Otonashi, XYZpdq Jr., Toolbox and 11 others
I just hate how god damn ethereal and aloof most of these "free speech" and "anonymity" advocates are. One day they're shilling the cause of the week and the next they are nowhere to be found.

Yes I know its ironic because that's part of the anonymity, but you can't have a community without a core fanbase of regular anons, which is why no alternative imageboards ever took off for long and are largely not still around today.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Salvador Dali
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back