10
31

[–] VoatUser69 10 points 31 points (+41|-10) ago 

Pedophiles really are subhumans

11
2

[–] Salbuchi_2019 11 points 2 points (+13|-11) ago 

The very definition of manchildren. They haven't matured their sexuality past that of a little kid. To the chair with them.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
20

[–] go1dfish 3 points 20 points (+23|-3) ago  (edited ago)

If no government is threatening @puttitout for the content it shouldn't be removed.

The ability of governments and gatekeepers to threaten puttitout in demand for content restriction is why Voat is not sustainable in its current form.

Today the offensive material may be Jailbait, tomorrow it may be calls for Jewish boycotts.

Be careful what you wish for.

http://archive.is/BXKtp

I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug – that we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like to each other. And when people put their thumbs on the scale and try to say what can and can’t be sent, we should fight back – both politically through protest and technologically through software like Tor

—Aaron Swartz

Edit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/pmj7f/a_necessary_change_in_policy/

We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. However, child pornography is a toxic and unique case for Internet communities, and we're protecting reddit's ability to operate by removing this threat. We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform.

1
9

[–] WakkoWarner 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

I fully agree. We shouldn't let crybabies start their censoring jihad about what they consider offensive here on Voat. If their country has dumb laws that condemns content that didn't harm anyone they should man up and openly fight them instead than supporting and perpetrating them.

0
0

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

tomorrow it may be calls for Jewish boycotts.

If only.

0
1

[–] go1dfish 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

28
-25

8
12

[–] Clem_Fister 8 points 12 points (+20|-8) ago  (edited ago)

If it isn't illegal I don't know that there's anything you can do about it? I saw one of the images, clearly meant to entice.

Let me edit this to add that I went to the sub after posting, and some of those photos should be illegal if they aren't.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 11 points (+17|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
1

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

Is there a way to block the sub without visiting it? I live in the good ol' USofA but I'd rather not see a disturbing thumbnail by accident.

8
-7

13
11

[–] ZardoZ2017 13 points 11 points (+24|-13) ago 

WTF! This 'nonnude' is a pedo-sub. Tell me how we get this disgusting sub removed from voat.

[–] [deleted] 10 points 30 points (+40|-10) ago 

[Deleted]

9
21

[–] Conspirologist [S] 9 points 21 points (+30|-9) ago 

I agree. Pedophiles are not stupid to post this shit on a public forum. This is obvious sabotage.

8
11

[–] Clem_Fister 8 points 11 points (+19|-8) ago 

Yep, they can call VOAT a "kiddie porn site" and tar everyone with the same brush.

19
-16

6
13

[–] facevalue 6 points 13 points (+19|-6) ago 

I strongly disagree with Aged's choice of material. This site being based on free speech, if his posts are not illegal here in the U.S.A. then I will stand up for his ability to post them whether I think it's sick or not.

6
5

[–] ZardoZ2017 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago 

Like any normal man i like to look at beautiful nude WOMEN, and have no problem whatsoever seeing the difference between WOMEN and GIRLS. These ALA pictures is from a place called 'A Little Agency' and the next here is written in a article on WIKI: In early 2006 the operators of the child modeling agencies "A Little Agency" and "The VMS," (Matthew Duhamel) were arrested on charges of child pornography. Neither A Little Agency nor the VMS distributed nude photographs, but federal prosecutors argued that they still contained "lascivious exhibitions" of the genitalia based on the six-part Dost test. Federal prosecutors claimed the Web sites dealt in images of girls as young as 9 wearing scant clothing in suggestive poses. One photo reportedly shows a 9-year-old girl in "black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and a black jacket" sitting on a dining room table, according to court records. The operators were indicted on transportation of child pornography, possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography.[Attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them arguing that the pictures of young girls in suggestive poses on the websites they operated did not rise to the level of pornography. However, the judge assigned to the case, Chief Judge Campbell, denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined fully clothed pictures can be considered pornographic.

8
10

[–] Conspirologist [S] 8 points 10 points (+18|-8) ago 

He is posting them everywhere. Check his posting history.

8
5

[–] ZardoZ2017 8 points 5 points (+13|-8) ago 

Okay. i will downvoat/report as much as possible!

1
1

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

Then what? /v/fatpeoplehate gets banned, right?
Isn't that how it goes?
First r/jailbait, then r/fatpeoplehate, then r/coons, r/niggers....

1
8

[–] european 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Weird how non nude pictures elicits such fear and loathing in the general population. I wonder if this says more about modern society in general than @aged Sometimes o wonder hf the whole pedopile thing is a tavistock psyops . You have the double bind linguistic paradox of calling abusers lovers , inferring anyone loving children is to be suspected. We see this kind of thing rear it's head in subtle and creeping ways like not being able to take photos at school plays or cameras and phones being banned.

1
1

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

yeah definitely fucky. theres no way alphabet agencies dont operate these websites in some capacity

1
1

[–] Tb0n3 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

There's been numerous stories about the FBI running child porn sites for months after catching the operators to try and honey trap it. If that's not wrong then I don't know what is.

1
0

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

It's more that the intent of the guy posting it is clearly sexual, but I agree it's a slippery slope to start deleting it on that basis.

[–] [deleted] 19 points 8 points (+27|-19) ago 

[Deleted]

5
31

[–] Broc_Lia 5 points 31 points (+36|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Depicting swastikas is illegal in Germany. Don't want to get extradited? Better delete them.

Images offensive to Islam are illegal in Saudi Arabia. Don't want to get extradited? Better delete them.

I don't approve of the shit aged is posting here, but you should think very carefully about the standard you're calling for. Putitout deletes content which would be illegal in the US, and refuses to delete anything else on free speech grounds. This is an important line in the sand and it is vital that it remains in place.

2
5

[–] piratse 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

This. @aged isn't posting anything illegal. Block the subverse and fuck off if you have a problem with it, free speech means things you might not like, niggers.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
6

[–] LostandFound 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Can we just make groups like that invite only and clear of the homepage please. No censorship no worries.

0
4

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Quarantine them you mean?

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

3
3

[–] VieBleu 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

I was told puttitout Quit! last Friday.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] kevdude 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

By who?

1
2

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

Still posting + no mention of quit hope your wrong

https://voat.co/user/PuttItOut/Comments

3
2

[–] greycloud 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

subs for you to block so that this shit doesn't end up on your page.
https://voat.co/v/Starlet
https://voat.co/v/Starlets
https://voat.co/v/youngladies
https://voat.co/v/nonnude
https://voat.co/v/JailbaitAnon
https://voat.co/v/Girls
https://voat.co/v/Preteens
https://voat.co/v/VoatPingPong

there may be more, if so i am not subscribed to them. if you want i can create a list of the "drawings" sites as well so you can block them. free speech like most good things in life isn't free. you gotta work to curb your own desire to censor. you do that by either growing some thick skin or when you can't grow it thick enough, to avoid places where you can't handle the message.

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

[Deleted]

2
6

[–] Goathole 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Lol! I saw this post when it first popped and I thought....MY EXACT WORDS, "this'll never fly on voat. I mean this is voat. We may not like it but the entire fucking site is about freedom of speech and not letting others control us. This will never fly.

Three hours later and I happen to see it again and here all you faggots are VIRTUE SIGNALLING just like we criticize the fucktard liberal SJWers for. You people are pathetic.

All you have to do is not go to that sub. That's it, I do it all the time here. There are subs I just stay away from because I disagree with them or they don't interest me. I'm really disappointed in you.

4
5

[–] 1quickdub 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

Going over his submission history is alarming, however this telling submission gives us a window into his mentality: https://voat.co/v/whatever/2009878

This person is anti free speech and dislikes voat's user base, and is posting questionable and alarming content in order to discredit voat.

I feel that a sitewide ban would be appropriate in this case, however it would not really accomplish much as most of you know these things can be easily circumvented.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)