Regarding the apparent and imminent repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the future of this website.

[Vecr]

Tirade?

Ah, I see because freedom of speech does not have an asterisk next to it regarding civility it means laws regarding civility do not apply to it?

Without going on a tirade I should point out that this type of thinking and abuse of freedom of speech laws is probably what is leading to section 230 being repealed.

This sort of argument is similar to what comes up with people who fight for 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment guarantees that a person can own a rifle. There is no asterisk next to this amendment saying the gun cannot be taken away with other laws to prevent violence just so people can have civil liberties. Likewise the 1st amendment basically says "say whatever you want." It does not mean if you go around cussing people out they cannot come put the fucking cuffs on you. Likewise it does not mean they cannot shut down every website that ever existed because of civil liberty rights if Feds believe these sites intend to promote racial, hateful, violent acts.

What more could I say? I even included myself. My right to say what I want ends when I am deemed as giving myself the privilege to freely attack someone. Period. No asterisk is needed.

Likewise my right to own a gun ends when someone thinks I can use that gun to do whatever I want to anyone whenever I want. Honestly in many ways we are lucky to have the Constitution and have Amendments. That Constitution can be rewritten at any time. Those Amendments can be removed at any time. Not abusing civil privileges is something people should well heed to if they want to continue using civil privileges. I mean a person can be arrested at any time for jay walking. Oh fucking well. That is the law.

No, that's exactly what both of those amendments mean, people just pretend they don't mean that. Punishing people for the contents of their speech is a violation of the first amendment.

 

[StraightShooter2]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-04/trump-again-threatens-veto-of-defense-act-over-tech-legal-shield

 

[HotPockets]

What constitutes giving someone medical advice without a license? Telling someone to take an aspirin if their head hurts? Or to apply pressure to a wound if its bleeding?

You can sue anybody for any reason.. All comes down to what you can get a jury to believe. OJ got away with murder, and a lady sued McDonald's for selling hot coffee.
Law is almost more of a guideline.

 

[Helvetica Standard]

You can sue anybody for any reason.. All comes down to what you can get a jury to believe. OJ got away with murder, and a lady sued McDonald's for selling hot coffee.
Law is almost more of a guideline.

Off-topic, but the McDonald's coffee case is actually interesting because it was hot enough to give her third degree burns. I've spilled coffee on myself and never had to go to the hospital about it. McDonald's just made sure to be as patronizing as possible so that people would remember it as a frivolous case. Sometimes, it's equally about the PR afterwards.

Anyway, it's really looking to be that this won't be a problem while Trump is president, and probably not until the coof settles down in regards to Biden. It makes me happy, since reading some threads on here makes me feel like I'm not totally insane about the world. Let's all hope for the best.

 

[xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx]

Yes but in real terms the freedom to call someone a "nigger" online does not apply to free speech. Free speech is done in a respectful way. You can say you hate President Trump all day you just cannot walk up and knock on his door and call him a Kike. Its aggressive behavior and is actual hate speech and beyond what is protected under freedom of speech.

Of course that applies to me as well. Is saying the word "nigger" something I do? All the time. Do I abuse the internet? Absolutely. To me the internet is made to be abused. To me the internet is the Wild West and if I don't act like a dirty whore slapping cowboy then I don't fit in. When in Rome do as a Roman.

But the time for the Wild West came to an end as will the internets time for the Wild West to come to an end. I use the word "nigger" not as an insult towards an actual black person but a a metaphor in a discussion, leverage towards a point, a crutch I can stand on and yet take and swing away if I want to.

Do I like freedom of speech? Yes. Am I entitled to use the word nigger to defend my freedom of speech? Absolutely not. Its hate speech. I use it to prove a point that if one person should be banned for saying it everyone should be banned for saying it regardless if they are a moderator and know the owner of the site.

The time has come for such hate speech and addressing of spergs to come to an end. Will repealing section 230 end kiwifarms and many other sites? Well I don't know only time will tell. I have nothing to do with it.

Will removing sites where I can go make horribly politically incorrect jokes affect me as well? Absolutely. It means I am cut off. Done. I have nowhere to go anymore and must now engage in polite respect discussion without using politically incorrect terms. I can say I do not believe a black man should be allowed to beat up my son, rape my wife and murder me all because his dad made him sell crack in the hood as a child. That is for sure. But I must say it in a respectful way engaging in the condition that I am participating in a discussion and not just being blatantly racist.

Now of course sites can ban people for acting in such a way. Sure. They should. But at the same time now with section 230 repealed it will just be easier for sites to get the shit sued out of them for not making it clear they will ban everyone fairly for acting in a derogatory manner and not just those they do not take a liking to. It means if a post continues to stay around calling out "niggers" then the site owners can be sued if those posts are not deleted immediately.

Its sort of the way it is now. Except just more vivid and concrete. More tangible.

Actually I doubt it. I doubt much will change. Sites are already supposed to adhere to those rules. It just somehow means lawsuits will be easier to target at sites themselves and not just users.

Not to trample on anyone's sand castle. But really castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.


✌ peace out

You're a dumb nigger, and I don't like you.

That aside, lightning round because there are enough effortposts here~

• Freedom of speech =\= First Amendment; one is a philosophy/principle, the other is a law that tells the government to not tread on your nazi blog
• Hate speech isn't a thing and you're a retard for thinking so
• It's not illegal for Twitter to delete your post calling Michelle Obama a tranny
• Once a service becomes ubiquitous enough, the private/public line gets weirdly blurred; we're kind of in new territory here, precedent alone won't cut it
• Once speech stops just being speech, you get fucked; imminent threats of a crime become the beginning of that crime, potentially, and are treated accordingly
• I hope all our resident glowniggers are having a good time

Phew, good thing this thread now has my opinion in it too. That was close.

 

[Vinluv Handesbukia]

Goodnight everybody!

 

[NeckSleeve]

Tirade?

Ah, I see because freedom of speech does not have an asterisk next to it regarding civility it means laws regarding civility do not apply to it?

Without going on a tirade I should point out that this type of thinking and abuse of freedom of speech laws is probably what is leading to section 230 being repealed.

This sort of argument is similar to what comes up with people who fight for 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment guarantees that a person can own a rifle. There is no asterisk next to this amendment saying the gun cannot be taken away with other laws to prevent violence just so people can have civil liberties. Likewise the 1st amendment basically says "say whatever you want." It does not mean if you go around cussing people out they cannot come put the fucking cuffs on you. Likewise it does not mean they cannot shut down every website that ever existed because of civil liberty rights if Feds believe these sites intend to promote racial, hateful, violent acts.

What more could I say? I even included myself. My right to say what I want ends when I am deemed as giving myself the privilege to freely attack someone. Period. No asterisk is needed.

Likewise my right to own a gun ends when someone thinks I can use that gun to do whatever I want to anyone whenever I want. Honestly in many ways we are lucky to have the Constitution and have Amendments. That Constitution can be rewritten at any time. Those Amendments can be removed at any time. Not abusing civil privileges is something people should well heed to if they want to continue using civil privileges. I mean a person can be arrested at any time for jay walking. Oh fucking well. That is the law.

"If the Feds believe"... Again, like @Vecr points out, that is exactly what these amendments were put in place for.

Also, you keep mentioning "hate speech". Please give me a section of the 1st amendment that mentions this. I'll wait. The exceptions to the 1st amendment are extremely well-defined in US law. Unless you are inciting violence, you can hate all you want. Saying words that YOU find "blatantly racist" does not equate inciting violence, or at least we do not have a Supreme Court opinion that suggests it does.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

You're a dumb nigger, and I don't like you.

That aside, lightning round because there are enough effortposts here~

• Freedom of speech =\= First Amendment; one is a philosophy/principle, the other is a law that tells the government to not tread on your nazi blog
• Hate speech isn't a thing and you're a retard for thinking so
• It's not illegal for Twitter to delete your post calling Michelle Obama a tranny
• Once a service becomes ubiquitous enough, the private/public line gets weirdly blurred; we're kind of in new territory here, precedent alone won't cut it
• Once speech stops just being speech, you get fucked; imminent threats of a crime become the beginning of that crime, potentially, and are treated accordingly
• I hope all our resident glowniggers are having a good time

Phew, good thing this thread now has my opinion in it too. That was close.

You are as stupid as it gets huh? Well now the Feds are going to start taking down your faggot nazi blogs. Coup the government if you want to do something about it. Which you won't.

No amendment protects a persons right to be a dumb retard. Cry about it with your loser Nazi friends.

Goodbye internet

 

[Vinluv Handesbukia]

Where will the kiwi refugees go if this happens?

Encyclopedia Dramatica Forums. An ironically,under the whims of a Weeaboo Jew (Oddguy).

 

[crocodilian]

Yes but in real terms the freedom to call someone a "nigger" online does not apply to free speech.

No.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

You can sue anybody for any reason.. All comes down to what you can get a jury to believe. OJ got away with murder, and a lady sued McDonald's for selling hot coffee.
Law is almost more of a guideline.

True. No idea though where people get the idea "the 1st amendment means I can stand in the street and yell faggot at every cop I see every single day of my life."

Well lol yeah you can if you want to get arrested for it like everyone else who does it. Freedom of speech does not mean "freedom of retard."

I kind of feel like the US truly rewards certain people of certain races of certain value of certain money for sure. But definitely punishes retards. Being a retard gets you nowhere in this country. lol

No.

Well no. But its hard to get that idea through someones head without a hammer. Or handcuffs and a lawsuit. lol

"If the Feds believe"... Again, like @Vecr points out, that is exactly what these amendments were put in place for.

Also, you keep mentioning "hate speech". Please give me a section of the 1st amendment that mentions this. I'll wait. The exceptions to the 1st amendment are extremely well-defined in US law. Unless you are inciting violence, you can hate all you want. Saying words that YOU find "blatantly racist" does not equate inciting violence, or at least we do not have a Supreme Court opinion that suggests it does.

We do not have a supreme court ruling that suggests it doesn't.

Where in the 1st amendment does it define exactly what "free speech" is and isn't.

Walking into an establishment and saying the word nigger has always gotten someone arrested or their ass beat in this country.

Well at least after the civil war. Err, well at least after the civil rights movement. Err, well at least if you aren't in Mississippi or Idaho or New Mexico or etc.

Lets put it like this. Freedom of Speech has always allowed people to talk in private about how much they want the President to die. As long as there are no microphones. Then you go to jail. As long as you don't say it in front of his face. Then you could go to jail. If you don't get shot. The secret service doesn't fuck around.

Somehow the web allows people to talk about killing the President. Its freedom of speech. If someone busts in your door and arrests you for posting that crap online good luck. If someone removes article 230 and removes the ability for any website to post that crap online good luck.

Freedom of Speech seems to be a really hard amendment to understand. It means you can't be arrested for an opinion. Saying "I want to kill niggers" may be interpreted as a threat and not an opinion. Saying "every time I walk down the street I want to tell niggers how much I want to kill them" may be a threat in the courts eyes.

Or maybe not. Maybe you can say it all you want. That is what people these days try and turn the 1st Amendment into. An excuse to be a 5 year old that cries to the police when someone smacks them. The police can refuse to help a person getting their ass beat to death for using that 1st Amendment excuse as some garbage to provoke a riot within their city. On a daily basis the last thing the cops give a fuck about is how much a Nazi is going to whine about people showing up at their door by the hundreds armed to the teeth to blow someone away because he felt the had the right to say the word nigger 15,000 times without consequence.

When people in the military have to go fight overseas they usually are not firing their weapon killing people saying "I am doing this for little Billy back home so he can live in freedom and call people nigger whenever he wants. God bless the 1st amendment."

Its kind of sad and even a 5 year old would understand this but......

The 1st Amendment doesn't give someone a license to act however they want. It just doesn't. Even if it said it does. Which it doesn't. No one enforces it. And now neither will Biden or Trump when they repeal this. No one will enforce it.

But people can always counter sue. I am honestly surprised any kind of section article ever existed which "blocks someone from suing someone else for freedom of speech laws." I mean I though in this country the right to sue someone always existed? There are homeless people who get sued for money they owed 20 years ago.

People were lucky to ever have article 230. Enjoy it before its gone.

I have never seen anyone drive down the street with a Nazi Swastika on their car and not get arrested because of "freedom of speech. It says so in the Constitution!"

It may go on youtube and get a lot of free spoken complaints in the comments section about how wrong it is. But they will arrest you. There are limits.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

just as a reminder free speech in the US is not unlimited, these two come to mind:

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States

 

[YayLasagna]

@Null Will you continue to do your Mad At The Internet channel if the site goes down?

 

[NeckSleeve]

We do not have a supreme court ruling that suggests it doesn't.

Where in the 1st amendment does it define exactly what "free speech" is and isn't.

Walking into an establishment and saying the word nigger has always gotten someone arrested or their ass beat in this country.

Well at least after the civil war. Err, well at least after the civil rights movement. Err, well at least if you aren't in Mississippi or Idaho or New Mexico or etc.

Lets put it like this. Freedom of Speech has always allowed people to talk in private about how much they want the President to die. As long as there are no microphones. Then you go to jail. As long as you don't say it in front of his face. Then you could go to jail. If you don't get shot. The secret service doesn't fuck around.

Somehow the web allows people to talk about killing the President. Its freedom of speech. If someone busts in your door and arrests you for posting that crap online good luck. If someone removes article 230 and removes the ability for any website to post that crap online good luck.

Freedom of Speech seems to be a really hard amendment to understand. It means you can't be arrested for an opinion. Saying "I want to kill niggers" may be interpreted as a threat and not an opinion. Saying "every time I walk down the street I want to tell niggers how much I want to kill them" may be a threat in the courts eyes.

Or maybe not. Maybe you can say it all you want. That is what people these days try and turn the 1st Amendment into. An excuse to be a 5 year old that cries to the police when someone smacks them. The police can refuse to help a person getting their ass beat to death for using that 1st Amendment excuse as some garbage to provoke a riot within their city. On a daily basis the last thing the cops give a fuck about is how much a Nazi is going to whine about people showing up at their door by the hundreds armed to the teeth to blow someone away because he felt the had the right to say the word nigger 15,000 times without consequence.

When people in the military have to go fight overseas they usually are not firing their weapon killing people saying "I am doing this for little Billy back home so he can live in freedom and call people nigger whenever he wants. God bless the 1st amendment."

Its kind of sad and even a 5 year old would understand this but......

The 1st Amendment doesn't give someone a license to act however they want. It just doesn't. Even if it said it does. Which it doesn't. No one enforces it. And now neither will Biden or Trump when they repeal this. No one will enforce it.

But people can always counter sue. I am honestly surprised any kind of section article ever existed which "blocks someone from suing someone else for freedom of speech laws." I mean I though in this country the right to sue someone always existed? There are homeless people who get sued for money they owed 20 years ago.

People were lucky to ever have article 230. Enjoy it before its gone.

I have never seen anyone drive down the street with a Nazi Swastika on their car and not get arrested because of "freedom of speech. It says so in the Constitution!"

It may go on youtube and get a lot of free spoken complaints in the comments section about how wrong it is. But they will arrest you. There are limits.

Again, just because you haven't seen it or heard it doesn't mean it doesn't happen or exists. Your comment on driving down the street with a swastika? Look up Collin vs. Smith 1978, an example that is much worse than driving a car through a random street (and I think even you'd agree with that sentiment), yet was protected under the 1st amendment (i.e. marching through a jewish majority community with swastikas did not constitute fighting words).

And "walking into an establishment and saying the word nigger has always gotten someone arrested or their ass beat in this country" is undoubtedly not correct. Also, "having their ass beat" has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

 

[Samoyed]

even if the site goes down, i'm still eating chick fil a. mmm, chick fil a.

 

[SillySherman]

I'm gone one or two months off the Farms, and this happens. Damn. Really sucks.

Well, if we're gonna have a last hurrah, I suggest we preserve some threads with the wayback machine. I guess lolcow discussions will move to a 4chan board then.
If the site goes down in the next few months, twas a pleasure discussing internet retards with you guys. Cheerio.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

Again, just because you haven't seen it or heard it doesn't mean it doesn't happen or exists. Your comment on driving down the street with a swastika? Look up Collin vs. Smith 1978, an example that is much worse than driving a car through a random street (and I think even you'd agree with that sentiment), yet was protected under the 1st amendment (i.e. marching through a jewish majority community with swastikas did not constitute fighting words).

And "walking into an establishment and saying the word nigger has always gotten someone arrested or their ass beat in this country" is undoubtedly not correct. Also, "having their ass beat" has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

"Nevertheless, the Court reversed Cohen's conviction on the ground that in Cohen's case there was no showing that the speech had been used in a context which even made the occurrence of breach of the peace a possibility: "No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult . . . There is . . . no showing that anyone who saw Cohen was in fact violently aroused or that appellant intended such a result." Id."

Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (1978)

They marched through a Jewish area with Swaztikas and Jews tried them in court for using the word nigger. They said there was no evidence they said the word nigger. The case was dropped on criminal charges since no hate slur was recorded. Yet still in a civil trial a judge ordered the Nazi Party to pay $300,000 insurance for such a gathering to ever take place again and go with cops and if one time the word "nigger" was heard the group would be arrested and charged. So they never marched there again. At least according to that 80 page article I just linked. It was indeed a lengthy trial. Lots of debate in that one.

Once again no example you provided shows how freedom of speech means you can go online and use hate slurs and use threats without repurcussion under "1st Amendment Rights."

But you know now you sparked my curiosity. When this thing is over and 230 has been repealed and probably for good reason based on peoples understanding of what 1st Amendment rights. I really hope when its made totally illegal to talk about killing someone else because of their race online people continue to go online and do it anyway.

Which I am sure they will. If this thing gets repealed. First Trump has to cry about it then maybe Biden then it will go to the courts then maybe this year or it will be repealed or maybe not maybe it will be fought over in court for years and years and repealed one day or not in any of our lifetimes.

I am sure until then people get to go online and talk about killing people of other races "just because the 1st amendment said I could so." God forbid peoples freedom of speech is taken away. Its obviously very important to people to say whatever the fuck they want wehenever they want all the time with no repurcussions because America says so. And any example anyone can use to justify doing so can and will be used.

Many months ahead of using the internet for free speech.

Damn shame to remove that huh?

 

[super thug]

I'm grateful for this website. If it wasn't for kiwifarms I never would've learned just how much of a menace the troons truly are. Free speech is not just important, it's an absolute necessity.

If section 230 is repealed then this website (or a clone of it) could still be viable:

IF
The owner/operator and all moderators maintain complete anonymity.
AND
The website exists only on the dark web.

Thank god for onion routing.

There are other ways as previous posters have pointed out but meeting these two conditions would make the site entirely bullet-proof regardless of any law changes wherever the owner/operator lives or hosts from.

It'd suck because google rankings would be gone, but the site and free speech would still exist.

 

[NeckSleeve]

"Nevertheless, the Court reversed Cohen's conviction on the ground that in Cohen's case there was no showing that the speech had been used in a context which even made the occurrence of breach of the peace a possibility: "No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult . . . There is . . . no showing that anyone who saw Cohen was in fact violently aroused or that appellant intended such a result." Id."

Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (1978)

They marched through a Jewish area with Swaztikas and Jews tried them in court for using the word nigger. They said there was no evidence they said the word nigger. The case was dropped on criminal charges since no hate slur was recorded. Yet still in a civil trial a judge ordered the Nazi Party to pay $300,000 insurance for such a gathering to ever take place again and go with cops and if one time the word "nigger" was heard the group would be arrested and charged. So they never marched there again. At least according to that 80 page article I just linked. It was indeed a lengthy trial. Lots of debate in that one.

Once again no example you provided shows how freedom of speech means you can go online and use hate slurs and use threats without repurcussion under "1st Amendment Rights."

But you know now you sparked my curiosity. When this thing is over and 230 has been repealed and probably for good reason based on peoples understanding of what 1st Amendment rights. I really hope when its made totally illegal to talk about killing someone else because of their race online people continue to go online and do it anyway.

Which I am sure they will. If this thing gets repealed. First Trump has to cry about it then maybe Biden then it will go to the courts then maybe this year or it will be repealed or maybe not maybe it will be fought over in court for years and years and repealed one day or not in any of our lifetimes.

I am sure until then people get to go online and talk about killing people of other races "just because the 1st amendment said I could so." God forbid peoples freedom of speech is taken away. Its obviously very important to people to say whatever the fuck they want wehenever they want all the time with no repurcussions because America says so. And any example anyone can use to justify doing so can and will be used.

Many months ahead of using the internet for free speech.

Damn shame to remove that huh?

You bring up an 80-page memorandum and still manage to only cite a completely different case? Jeez.

Again, I do not need to show that there is a Supreme Court ruling saying that IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. The burden of proof is on you if you say that using the word "nigger" online is unlawful. In the context of what is discussed in this thread, I don't think it is. And as several people have already pointed out (yet you do not seem capable of understanding) freedom of speech does not equal the 1st amendment.

I am well aware that there are things you cannot say according to the law. I even concede that talking about killing people of other races could be considered "fighting words" or at the very least, inciting violence. I don't have a problem with that. But I believe that if I call you (or someone who is not active here on this board) a bad word that you find blatantly racist, I am protected by the first amendment. Please note that this is not something I do and have refrained from in this discussion. Nonetheless, I believe it is my right to do so.

 

[KingCoelacanth]

Once again no example you provided shows how freedom of speech means you can go online and use hate slurs and use threats without repurcussion under "1st Amendment Rights."

This is a huge issue, regarding "hate slurs" however. Of all the lolcow threads on this site, how many of them do not have "hate slurs" appear commonly? Keep in mind sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, and genetic information are attributes of protected classes (this includes sexual orientation, gender identity and familial status).
If you mean 1st ammendment as in corporations can do whatever they want, this is also a huge issue since Null can't even use a credit card and can hardly sell t-shirts to people, despite being a perfect law abiding citizen.