1
4

[–] SwissDev 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Posting a link means giving access to this content. And thats illegal if the content linked is illegal by swiss law.

Its easy as that but very unfortunate for a site like Voat.

0
1

[–] hg341 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While voat is based their the it's servers are in the us.

0
1

[–] SwissDev 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thats something that @Atko needs to look into. If the servers are in the US. US Law applies and to some extended for him the Swiss Law.

Needs to look into it.

1
4

[–] pray_the_gay_away 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

why am I reading this post in an Israeli accent?

1
2

[–] ButcherOfBlaviken 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Is it because you are Israeli?

0
1

[–] Contrefaire 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Voat could very easily be considered "legally responsible" for hosting illegal content, even if said content wasn't directly uploaded to their servers, simply because it hosts links to the material in question. If a site/forum/board is known as a place to find or trade pictures or even merely links to CP they could be shut down and held legally responsible.

If I ran a bar which was widely known to be a place where Johns could pick up hookers on a regular basis, and that I in fact, not just condoned said behavior but profited from it, by god my ass we be put under the jail.

1
1

[–] PM_nudes_pls 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

voat may not be legally responsible for it, but considering voat is run by 2 blokes without lawyers, it doesnt matter what is legal or not, they dont have the money to fight the sjw cunts who want this place gone.

0
1

[–] AtheistComic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

sjw don't want this place gone (they need people to demonize)... reddit does, however.

2
1

[–] format 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It falls under a "better safe than sorry" policy AFAIK. Also you realize it was child porn right?

0
0

[–] moons 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Because people don't know the difference between hosting and aggregating. If we applied the same laws across the board, google would have a lot of explaining to do. It's also just really bad pr for site that's incredibly young and to voat's credit, they handled their jail bait problem a lot quicker than reddit did.

1
-1

[–] bohda 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I would think they are hedging their legal options. Facilitating criminal activity is not always defensible. Dealing with and hosting CP or potential CP, isn't defensible under laws in Europe or America. More importantly, the people that run this site (two people,) don't have the funds for a lengthy court case for it. I don't know about Europe, but in America, you might as well piss on your state appointed lawyer (public defender, as we call them,) than actually rely upon them to argue the best case possible. I'm not agreeing with CP peddlers, but I am condemning state appointed defence in my country. Simply, and I think this is the case in most civilized countries, you have to have money to fight legal charges.

1
-1

[–] bohda 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

As an addendum, charging someone is easy in civilized countries.

2
-1

[–] Magnar 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

People would see voat as a catalogue of that content, a centralized place where others can go to find it.

It's not illegal, however it's such a grey area that it's not worth taking risks.