Is it time to crack down on 4Chan

[PlentyOkStupidBarracudas]

and other hate-spewing sites?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ght/588352

Or is it primarily a gun control issue?

Probably a combination of both plus obviously severe mental health disturbances. But what is extremely clear what all of these religious based mass shootings, including the one South Carolina as well as the the gay nightclub massacre in Orlando, is that all of the victims were minorities and targets of the alt-right.

[Annadog40]

They'll take their talk to another site. Plus that could be a slippery slope where trolls spew rhetoric on other sites and have them shut down.

[PJ.]

Not to say 4chan doesn't also suck, the issue is with 8chan. Not 4chan.

[Kublai Khan]

Yeah. Tear down 4chan. It's a failed social experiment into the freedom of anonymity. It's main output seems to be terror attacks and plain stupidity (QAnon). They should be shut down.

"But they'll just go somewhere else". Good. Let them try. Let them constantly scurry from place to place looking for a save haven. Let them try to find new hosting. Didn't Stormfront and Voat have hosting issues and shut down? Doesn't discord ban them? Force them to focus their energy into finding a place to converge instead of egging each other into committing new atrocities.

The owners of 4chan have blood on their hands and they should at least face public repercussions. 4chan is hosted by Cloudflare.com, why isn't there public pressure on Cloudflare about this? Anyone doing business with Cloudflare is doing business with enablers of terrorism.

P.Edit: 4chan, 8chan, whatever. It all needs to go.

[Drench]

go off kk, you legend

[PJ.]

2chan is super culturally relevant to Japan though....white people just suck.

[DeltaWave]

There's nothing wrong with 4chan. It's not the platform that's the issue.

[Kublai Khan]

There's nothing wrong with 4chan. It's not the platform that's the issue.

Then why don't we have a 4chan problem?

[Lycanfire]

I think it comes down to the states of California and Washington, where the company is registered in and its servers are hosted in, respectively. IANAL so I can't be sure whether the legal mumbo jumbo I've read on the subject applies to entities as well as individuals. I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime, therefore the administrators of that forum need to show that they've taken effort to eliminate perpetrators of that crime, and I'm sure they've done anything but that. Whether state prosecutors feel like they are justified in pursuing it I don't know.

In my country 4chan is committing a federal crime and I agree with that designation.

[DeltaWave]

I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime

There is, in fact, not. At least in the US.

[Kublai Khan]

I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime

There is, in fact, not. At least in the US.

DeltaWave is pro hate speech, then.

[Lycanfire]

I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime

There is, in fact, not. At least in the US.

It certainly is. An imageboard is no different than holding up a sign at the park. The proposition I'm considering is if the law extends past individuals and whether the host can be seen as liable if they create a place that is dedicated to the proliferation of hate speech. These individuals that post on 4chan are without a doubt engaging in criminal activity and it's definitely the responsibility of the website to cooperate with law enforcement.

I want to make it clear: we're not talking about your right to wear your "I hate n-ggers" t-shirt. We're talking about inciting violence against protected classes.

[PJ.]

Please don't mention my wardrobe choices, thx.

[popsofctown]

If you keep deplatforming them eventually it will move to the dark web. Then you would stop being able to continue deplatforming, and you would also be unable to do as much of the undercover law enforcement actions on the platform.

Like, isn't that why prohibition was bad, pushing something underground reduces its usage by like 10% and reduces law enforcement's visibility to it by like 50%.

[shaft.ed]

depends on what your prohibiting
most people can't be assed to go find the dark web just to be racist in their freetime

[Kublai Khan]

"oh noes, racism will only be available to 0.05% of the population".

[Vijarada]

I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime

There is, in fact, not. At least in the US.

Co fucking signed. Read any first amendment case, especially RAV v St Paul (ban on racial hate speech), Lee v Tam (Trademark registration of racial slurs) Snyder v Phelps (westboro Baptist church)

[Vijarada]

I'd say there's a good case to argue that hate speech in a public forum is a crime

There is, in fact, not. At least in the US.

It certainly is. An imageboard is no different than holding up a sign at the park. The proposition I'm considering is if the law extends past individuals and whether the host can be seen as liable if they create a place that is dedicated to the proliferation of hate speech. These individuals that post on 4chan are without a doubt engaging in criminal activity and it's definitely the responsibility of the website to cooperate with law enforcement.

I want to make it clear: we're not talking about your right to wear your "I hate n-ggers" t-shirt. We're talking about inciting violence against protected classes.

Okay yes, you're quite right that inciting violence isnt protected (if it is true incitement likely to lead to imminent lawless action). Web hosts are immunized by federal law from liability for user speech but it's unsettled to let what extent a website that specifically designs itself for criminal activities by users, say, is unprotected.

[Vijarada]

Its just that usin the term "hate speech" as a shorthand for "incitement to imminent lawless action on a racist basis" because all sorts of hate speech is protected. 4chan is also, by the way, not a public forum under the first amendment, and it being one would be, of course, irrelevant here.

I express no view by the way on whether private companies and individuals should use their resources to boycott or deplatform websites that enable repugnant or violent content.

[Lycanfire]

Federal law is weak because the supreme court hasn't been able to properly define hate speech. The fed has been relying on states to build up the definition.

Hate speech is a crime in a majority of states - most importantly, in Washington and California. Saying that there are no hate speech laws in the United States is factually wrong.

[Vijarada]

You are misinformed. Read RAV v St Paul.

[Vijarada]

Hate crimes are indeed crimes, but they require an underlying crime in addition to a racist (or otherwise impermissable) motive. The underlying crime being unprotected, so must be the hatel crime. And yes, the Supreme court has upheld these laws, although I cannother remember the cases name.

[Porkens]

and other hate-spewing sites?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ght/588352

Or is it primarily a gun control issue?

Probably a combination of both plus obviously severe mental health disturbances. But what is extremely clear what all of these religious based mass shootings, including the one South Carolina as well as the the gay nightclub massacre in Orlando, is that all of the victims were minorities and targets of the alt-right.

The internet is real life. We should treat real life like real life. Freedom of speech? Yes. Anonymity? No. Must regulate the internet.

[popsofctown]

I'm only really disagreeing on strategy.
Obviously people who spread hate to an extent they start committing crimes should be disrupted from it.
Deplatforming might be better, idk

[Kublai Khan]

Porkens has the right point. The goal isn't to stop hate speech. It's to stop ANONYMOUS hate speech.