Biting the hand that feeds - A brief history of the Kiwi Farms and why A&T is the redheaded stepchild of the site.

[Kirito]

I never denied the existance of dumb shit like "I'm gonna burn down Mt Rushmore" which aren't problematic and the feds won't get involved with.
Show me the posts of A&N making specific threats against specific people with specific times and places. Oh wait you cant, lololol

"It has to be advocating terrorism in this specific format otherwise it's fine"

 

[KingCoelacanth]

"It has to be advocating terrorism in this specific format otherwise it's fine"

It has to be something that would get the feds involved with the site.

 

[Alrakkan]

It has to be something that would get the feds involved with the site.

Rather much like the post that started your bitching in the first place?

 

[KingCoelacanth]

Rather much like the post that started your bitching in the first place?

You mean the one made by sig in an effort to troll A&N?

 

[AnOminous]

I doubt the A&N/Happenings boards are going to die out just because their denizens aren't allowed to literally threaten to murder specific people at specific locations and times.

It wasn't even an A&N sped who did that.

It has to be something that would get the feds involved with the site.

For some reason actually bringing the feds to the door gets nool's interest. I seriously don't get anyone who can't understand that.

 

[Kirito]

It has to be something that would get the feds involved with the site.

lol you're so transparent about trying to defend these people. It's obvious that they're unhinged, and so are you. In what world is any of what I linked an acceptable thing to say on a website about laughing at retarded people? How is any of that defensible?

 

[Cardboard Box Mountain]

Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or the like. I thought everybody knew this.

 

[drain]

Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or the like. I thought everybody knew this.

I don't know if people who unironically believe making violent threats on the internet is just ''free speech'' are just dumb or disingenuous.

Free speech doesn't mean the law won't get involved when you actively do something that catches the law's attention.

People are free to eat their own shit, but this doesn't mean they won't get called a freak or die because of it.

 

[Bob Barker]

I do want to remark how autistic the FBI is for not getting the joke. They are probably all fat too and I don't think anyone would have sex with them.

 

[Seventh Star]

Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or the like. I thought everybody knew this.

There's ramifications to that idea that people might not like, because you can justify a lot of things that happen now, that threaten freedom of speech, with similar arguments.

 

[Kartoshki]

I do want to remark how autistic the FBI is for not getting the joke. They are probably all fat too and I don't think anyone would have sex with them.

My problem with the FBI is my problem with polititards: they can't take jokes. Everyone who posts any sort of non-kosher joke is a Rothschild trying to subvert society, and everyone who posts a hyperbolic threat is a terrorist in the making.

 

[Kirito]

and everyone who posts a hyperbolic threat is a terrorist in the making.

Nobody should be making threats of any kind.

 

[Cardboard Box Mountain]

We don't live in an ideal world. There is always going to be a fight to maintain balance.

 

[Kartoshki]

Nobody should be making threats of any kind.

Say that to my face faggot not online see what happens

 

[Kirito]

Say that to my face faggot not online see what happens

I'll kill you

 

[AnOminous]

Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or the like. I thought everybody knew this.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. regretted ever saying this. It also isn't currently the law anyway. The law as it currently is is stated in Brandenburg v. Ohio, not in Holmes's unfortunately worded fire in a crowded theater dicta:

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I'll note that applies to the federal government now as well under the doctrine of reverse incorporation, which applies the Constitutional protections against State violations against the federal government as well. Unless speech is both directed toward and also actually likely to result in imminent lawless action, it is protected. Obviously, of course, one could shout fire in a crowded theater if it were actually on fire.

I should note SIG's dumb shitpost not only carried (at least on its face) an incitement to violence, but was itself actually a thread. That is governed by Watts instead. In this case, the defendant had made this statement: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J." This was found not to be a "true threat" but merely political hyperbole. Americans have a long history of saying violent shit and we generally like these rights.

Now, the traits of SIG's post, unfortunately for him, actually meet the criteria, at least if taken as explicit statements of fact rather than what it obviously was to Kiwis which was a shitpost. You can see why feds would at least be interested in ascertaining exactly what the fuck he meant by that statement, and it's possible they'll prosecute him just for wasting their time. I don't think his glowpost warrants a prosecution but the feds may disagree.

 

[A_throwaway_name62919]

Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or the like. I thought everybody knew this.

Free speech does include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater".

Shouting "I'm going to burn this place down" in a theater on the other hand is the sort of thing that just about everyone is comfortable with you getting your shit kicked in for.

 

[KingCoelacanth]

My problem with the FBI is my problem with polititards: they can't take jokes. Everyone who posts any sort of non-kosher joke is a Rothschild trying to subvert society, and everyone who posts a hyperbolic threat is a terrorist in the making.

I don't think the FBI has any capacity to take jokes. Do you want to be the agent who overlooked a specific threat that was carried out, with your defense being "dude I thought he was joking"?

 

[Calandrino]

I do want to remark how autistic the FBI is for not getting the joke. They are probably all fat too and I don't think anyone would have sex with them.

My problem with the FBI is my problem with polititards: they can't take jokes. Everyone who posts any sort of non-kosher joke is a Rothschild trying to subvert society, and everyone who posts a hyperbolic threat is a terrorist in the making.

In a better society, we'd have more leniency for sarcasm, but brutal crackdowns on autism.

Obviously, of course, one could shout fire in a crowded theater if it were actually on fire.

Important note: setting fire to the theater is also illegal, so you can't use that as a loophole.

 

[Kirito]

Obviously, of course, one could shout fire in a crowded theater if it were actually on fire.

Whats the story about the clown who did that, who nobody took seriously because they thought it was a joke? It seems oddly applicable here.