Cloudflare: "Terminating Service for 8Chan" -

pwnest injun

An Honest Man is Always in Trouble
kiwifarms.net
Furries are degenerates who are so degenerate they have made their fetish into a lifestyle and their primary identity. They're proud of it and want the world to know. It's kind of like exhibitionism. They revel in the reactions they get both positive and negative, especially negative. Negative reactions feed their victim narrative and allows them circlejerk, and literally masturbate, to how they made those dang dirty bigots uncomfortable.
Furry stuff is a byproduct of a low self esteem. Literally sub-human low.
 

BEST_MAN_202

Just a man.
kiwifarms.net
Weak excuse to call someone a pedophile. He knows why it became a 'haven for child pornography': the site had a thousand boards no one visited and no automated moderation.

Cheapening the word pedophile by making it a word for "everyone I don't like" is incredibly reckless and disgusting.
True, however him stating that isn't a good thing for him, and honestly might screw him up. Media publications don't have much of a spine and could call him one based on that quote alone. Most observers who have just heard about 8chan and read that would think badly of Hotwheels.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JoshPlz

BEST_MAN_202

Just a man.
kiwifarms.net
Yes, he is also being a fucking moron, but that's not my point.
>Cheapening the word pedophile by making it a word for "everyone I don't like" is incredibly reckless and disgusting.
Media publications don't have much of a spine and could call him one based on that quote alone. Most observers who have just heard about 8chan and read that would think badly of Hotwheels.
Now, I don't think he is one and the image is a bit of a joke.
Him stating this just shows a lot about him
 

BEST_MAN_202

Just a man.
kiwifarms.net
If you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it? Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
I've looked a bit into 8chan's history and imageboard history, (I am currently writing something about the history of the site) and in the past most 'free speech' imageboard sites like LibreChan and Null's 16chan (/phile/, text only) and 8chan for a while did allow paedophiles to talk freely with little guidelines other than don't post illegal shit. As long as it was legal, people could post what they want there.
8chan had very lax rules (librechan even laxer) about what images could be uploaded which lead to Dan Olslon, the daily beast and a few other publications calling it a place for illegal material due to how grey legally the images were. Then Jim watkins in 2016 after he got full control of 8chan had much harsher rules against this which lead to many pedos from /b/ and /hebe/ leaving as well as the daily pedo thread on /b/ getting removed.
Librechan got shut down by the french authorities and null shut down 16chan as it wasn't getting enough traffic.
If 8chan still had those lax rules it would have been gone years ago.
Most newer 'free speech' sites like the ACA/ACF (alt chan federation) affilieted sites ban this on sight.
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this
He advocated for the rights of pedophiles to view legal images of children or pornography of simulated children, based on the idea that pedophiles are a persecuted minority with a disability. So, maybe Pedophile Rights Advocate is the more accurate term?

It's certainly a friendly position.
Are you talking about this?
hw defends pedophile boards.jpg
 

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
kiwifarms.net
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this
No, it's a tad different since political speech is absolutely and specifically legal, SCOTUS has consistently made a point to reinforce the First Amendment. As far as shooters go, murder has always been illegal in the USA and elsewhere.

My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.
It's probably at least sometimes illegal for the shooter to post a manifesto announcing a massacre, as part of actually committing the massacre, but it is entirely legal for anyone else to repost it as a record of an event that happened later. The intent is what matters, not the content itself.

A different example would be the Unabomber manifesto. It was entirely legal for Ted Kaczynski to write "Industrial Society and Its Future." It would have been legal for him to distribute it or seek publication for it. It was illegal for him to send bombs to people. It was illegal for him to threaten to continue sending bombs to people unless it was published. So its original coerced publication was illegal on his part, though probably legal for the newspapers who published it. Even if it might have been illegal on some kind of accessory basis, they had permission from law enforcement to do it.

However, it's entirely legal to continue to publish Kaczynski's essay to this day, and it would be considered ridiculous to forbid it in any free society.

Banning others of these manifestoes is just as ridiculous, even though so far, none of them have had remotely the literary or philosophical value of Kaczynski's. However, that doesn't make any of them any less historical. Complaining about where they were posted originally and trying to get those places shut down after the fact is insane, and that's what Freddit's doing.
 

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
kiwifarms.net
It's probably at least sometimes illegal for the shooter to post a manifesto announcing a massacre, as part of actually committing the massacre, but it is entirely legal for anyone else to repost it as a record of an event that happened later. The intent is what matters, not the content itself.

A different example would be the Unabomber manifesto. It was entirely legal for Ted Kaczynski to write "Industrial Society and Its Future." It would have been legal for him to distribute it or seek publication for it. It was illegal for him to send bombs to people. It was illegal for him to threaten to continue sending bombs to people unless it was published. So its original coerced publication was illegal on his part, though probably legal for the newspapers who published it. Even if it might have been illegal on some kind of accessory basis, they had permission from law enforcement to do it.

However, it's entirely legal to continue to publish Kaczynski's essay to this day, and it would be considered ridiculous to forbid it in any free society.

Banning others of these manifestoes is just as ridiculous, even though so far, none of them have had remotely the literary or philosophical value of Kaczynski's. However, that doesn't make any of them any less historical. Complaining about where they were posted originally and trying to get those places shut down after the fact is insane, and that's what Freddit's doing.
Frederick's not doing it out of any moral or philosophical conviction, he's doing it because he has a hate boner for Jim Watkins. He's merely attempting to justify his jihad on moral grounds because no laws have been broken. Since there's a moral panic right now re: Nazees, alt-righty types, white supremacists, tard wave feminists and wokeness, he's attempting to appeal to anyone who's on board with the moral crusade of the day. It's working so far but who knows for how long? Jim might decide to weaponize his army of Q boomers.

I also don't think the mutant's long for this earth so he's going all out. He's got all kinds of health issues aside from the brittle bones, not to mention the cumulative effect of the long list of drugs he's taken, all of which have serious side effects on the body (especially on the brain).
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Frederick's not doing it out of any moral or philosophical conviction, he's doing it because he has a hate boner for Jim Watkins. He's merely attempting to justify his jihad on moral grounds because no laws have been broken. Since there's a moral panic right now re: Nazees, alt-righty types, white supremacists, tard wave feminists and wokeness, he's attempting to appeal to anyone who's on board with the moral crusade of the day. It's working so far but who knows for how long? Jim might decide to weaponize his army of Q boomers.
It's contemptible and hypocritical because every single thing he's accusing the pig farmer of, he's done and worse.
 

Venomine

Probably doesn't know what he's talking about.
kiwifarms.net
If you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it? Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
I've looked a bit into 8chan's history and imageboard history, (I am currently writing something about the history of the site) and in the past most 'free speech' imageboard sites like LibreChan and Null's 16chan (/phile/, text only) and 8chan for a while did allow paedophiles to talk freely with little guidelines other than don't post illegal shit. As long as it was legal, people could post what they want there.
8chan had very lax rules (librechan even laxer) about what images could be uploaded which lead to Dan Olslon, the daily beast and a few other publications calling it a place for illegal material due to how grey legally the images were. Then Jim watkins in 2016 after he got full control of 8chan had much harsher rules against this which lead to many pedos from /b/ and /hebe/ leaving as well as the daily pedo thread on /b/ getting removed.
Librechan got shut down by the french authorities and null shut down 16chan as it wasn't getting enough traffic.
If 8chan still had those lax rules it would have been gone years ago.
Most newer 'free speech' sites like the ACA/ACF (alt chan federation) affilieted sites ban this on sight.
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this

Are you talking about this?
View attachment 1002286
No, it's a tad different since political speech is absolutely and specifically legal, SCOTUS has consistently made a point to reinforce the First Amendment. As far as shooters go, murder has always been illegal in the USA and elsewhere.

My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.
the bank robber analogy is a false equivalency. That implies you know the intent of the people accessing your site. if you are just driving someone to the bank because they asked to be there, and then they robbed the bank, you have not committed a crime. if you disagree, lets say someone took he train to a station just outside the bank. is the owner of the train now liable?

the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoshPlz

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
the bank robber analogy is a false equivalency. That implies you know the intent of the people accessing your site. if you are just driving someone to the bank because they asked to be there, and then they robbed the bank, you have not committed a crime.
If they were wearing ski masks and carrying suspicious "violin cases," your protestations that you had no idea what was going on might be less than credible.

the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.
The cripple is claiming the pig farmer deliberately invited that kind of people and encouraged them to do it, in order to make money.

He is silent on why exactly he encouraged the most violent Nazi terrorist group of all time, GamerGate, to the same site when he ran it.
 

Venomine

Probably doesn't know what he's talking about.
kiwifarms.net
If they were wearing ski masks and carrying suspicious "violin cases," your protestations that you had no idea what was going on might be less than credible.
this is true, but what if you claim to be an incompetent, exceptional, and physically disabled midget who identifies as a racoon as part of your defense?

would certainly make for an interesting court case.

The cripple is claiming the pig farmer deliberately invited that kind of people and encouraged them to do it, in order to make money.
if he can prove it, then fuck it, lock him up.

He is silent on why exactly he encouraged the most violent Nazi terrorist group of all time, GamerGate, to the same site when he ran it.
something something he who is without sin
 

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
kiwifarms.net
the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.
 

Venomine

Probably doesn't know what he's talking about.
kiwifarms.net
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.
precisely because in most cases, the site owner will not know of the crime being committed and not considered an accessory. it is still possible to prove they knew about the crime and get charged for not reporting it. please correct me if i am wrong.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JoshPlz

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.
That doesn't prevent criminal liability or intellectual property liability. Something like CP is in its own category as well since merely possessing it is a crime and failure to report it can also be.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino