[–] MeatballPizza 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Voat allowed an Anti-Pizzagate ad a few days ago. This was Jimmy's buddies posting something to mock us and our efforts.
[–] SoManyQuestions 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yeah. The internet doesn't mind /222 but /pizzagate is a problem. I get the difference but, damn..........
[–] TheKFCNyanCat ago
Voat is under no obligation to support us or not support them. The only obligation they have is to not ban us.
Free speech allows for most any crappy kind of communication one can imagine...but it DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SPEECH THAT THREATENS PHYSICAL HARM.
If Voat is going to have any moral agency AT ALL (as with any organization) it does need to ban subs encouraging actual physical harm to others.
This is the standard -- U.S. -- definition of free speech. I realize voat comes out of another country. But the U.S. has set a very good and reasonable definition in place of where the line of free speech must be drawn.
It would behoove Voat to follow it. I am an avid devotee of free speech. But am also an avid devotee of the line of free speech being drawn at physical harm.
[–] TheKFCNyanCat ago (edited ago)
It's an ad for a visual novel with fictional pedophilia. No real people have been actually harmed as far as we can find evidence for.
[–] wittyfool 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Likely explanation: $