Ok, so explain to me again why hate speech is still accepted on 4chan?
because hiro isnt a gommie
>>467410
Because Chris Cuomo is just a CNN anchor and not a Supreme Court justice who gets to decide what's acceptable or not.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
He's right, how did I never notice the part where it says hate speech isn't protected?
>>467410
>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/:
>Trolls,
>flames,
>racism,
https://www.4chan.org/rules
>>467417
lol yeah right, go tell that to /pol/
>>467419
I'm okay with leaving /pol/ alone, I know how thin-skinned they are about their precious little board, but the rest of 4chan should ban hate speech.
>>467421
>should ban hate speech
but why? you don't even have a good reason to do so besides:
>muh feelings
>>467419
/pol/ is /b/ with flags
>>467425
>/pol/ is /b/ with /int/'s flags*
*ftfy
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger
Come and get me, cops
>>467410
FIGHT ME NIGGER
>>467421
Fuck off, nigger.
Would you all please stop using that word? It doesn't make you look racist. It makes you look black and I really don't like black people.
>>467421
>call others thinskinned
>wants to ban "hatespeech" (read: made up crime)
>>467550
>/pol/ freaks out at pictures of mixed-race couples
>is not thinskinned
>someone suggests actual hate speech might be dangerous
>is thinskinned
Nice doublethink there, m80.
>>467550
>wants to ban phoneposters (read: made up crime)
>>467686
All crimes are made up by the law.
>>467410
Because this isnt fucking Twitter and isnt run by literal SJWs fresh out of college you dumb sack of shit.
We dont follow the same principles as social media sites. We believe that "hate speech" doesnt exist at all.
>>467813
You guys accuse liberals of making decisions based on "muh feels" but yet think "we believe" is even remotely a meaningful argument on whether something exists or not?
>>467818
Who is "you guys" ?
>>467410
Why are you still accepted on 4chan?
>>467421
Please just leave you fucking cuck. Anti free speech fags aren't welcomed here
>>468047
Hate speech is NOT free speech. Stop spreading that myth.
>>468101
Hate speech has no actual solid definition and you can technically class everything as hate speech, faggot.
>>468102
>stating opinion as if it was fact
Are you trying to lie faster than people can fact-check? Too bad for you I am well-informed.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
>>468104
>Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
Aka, anything that isn't sunflowers and daisy's to anything that isn't a white male is hate speech. Nice to know its a useless retarded word.
>>468104
Do you not understand language? That definition is hazy and vague to include words that have not even been spoken yet. Therefor it is not a solid definition.
What have you to say about the vulgarities of the past that sound ridiculous or benign today? They surely were hateful insults in the past. Should they be banned because they were once used to demean others, even if spoken today they'd literally not offend anyone?
>/pol/
>claims straightforwardly and repeatedly that it "hates niggers, jews and gays"
>says you can't define hate speech
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
How can there be any haziness about whether that is hate speech or not?
How can anybody argue that if that is banned, then expressing normal respectful opinions will as well?
>>467419
Don't be a bigot. /pol/ is the imageboard of peace.
>>468114
In Australia that is just called banter not hate speech, you retarded American.
>>468115
fuck off
>>468139
that's hate speech
>>468139
how hateful
>>467821
The /pol/osphere
>>467959
Because you don't have mod rights.
>>468108
So you think white people aren't a race?
>>468140
>>468147
Telling someone to leave isn't hate speech. And besides, /pol/ is not a race, religion, gender, etc - calling out bigoted groups for being bigoted is not hate speech in the first place.
>>468219
/pol/ isn't a monolithic group with the same beliefs. Your stereotypes about them make you no better than they are, however.
>>468219
leave
>>468219
I feel sad for you. 4chan, as it exists today is unprecedented in it's ability to connect people who would never consider being in the same room together.
I hope one day, you will learn to see past your /pol/ophobia, and not be so judgmental of political minorities.
Perhaps one day, you will even be comfortable enough with other people's opinions that you can "call them out" yourself directly, rather than simply trying to banish or shut down others. You might even find the experience culturally enriching.
Fucking triggered millenials I swear.
>>468333
>doesn't mean it is a bad definition.
It is a bad definition. It at the end of the day boils down to 'if i dont like it its hate speech'. It's a stupid concept and no one with a brain would actually incorporate it in anything. There is no point to having free speech if anything negative can be classed as hate speech.
>>467413
/thread ended here
>>467784
>Literally everything ultimately comes down to muh feelings.
It's still a shit reason.
>>468118
And why does Australia matter here?
>>468416
Do you have any idea how many Australians post here?
>>468361
^Shitposter started here.
>>468423
/thread
>>468434
>I don't go around spamming racist slurs.
But you do go around spamming slurs about /pol/ users based on your preconceptions of who /pol/ users are. Racism on the internet existed long before /pol/ and not every racist on 4chan is automatically from /pol/.
>>468438
I don't claim that all racism comes from /pol/. But "cultural marxism" and so on are all /pol/ memes.
>>468453
I kek'd
>People unironically trying to ban """""HATE SPEECH"""""
wew
>>468482
>YOU unironically using the word unironically and ''''''''''''''LOTS OF QUOTATION MARKS'''''''''''''''''
Pathetic.
>>468485
>Having an issue with that
wew
>>468486
>Not having an issue with that
GO FUCK YOURSELF
>>468488
wew
>>468512
I know.
>>468458
I assume the 2015 /pol/ spike occurred due to the tumblr raid but what in God's name happened in late 2011?
>>468538
Breivik
>>468488
>being this fanny flustered about /pol/ while having Hitler dubs
Troll confirmed, you had me for a while my emuphobic friend.
>>468419
Should I have any idea how many Australians post here?
>>468416
Because Australia considers your offensive words as just mere banter and conversation instead of Satan and labeling it as hate speech, thinskin,.
>>468879
And why does Australia's opinion matter to me?
Hate speech is legal in America. It's illegal here in Sweden though, but the police can't do anything when the servers are located in America.
>>468883
Because you are retarded.
>>468888
Oh, well I'm not retarded and Australia's opinion doesn't matter to me. I'm glad we cleared all of that up. Thanks!
>>468898
You don't care because you are a silly american who can't take the banter and has to resort to hiding in his safe box to hide from all those mean words.
>>468903
Yeah, and?
>>468903
Calm down, my Aussie friend. This guy's a shitposter! Just leave him be.
>>468905
Australians just can't handle other people having opinions. I can, and I just don't care what they have to say. They're free to say it though.
>>467412
worse, he's a Hillary supporter.
>>468560
Wasn't that the sequel to Braveheart?
>>468906
>Australians just can't handle other people having opinions.
10/10, my gelatinous friend.
You should have posted that with an image of the American borne phenomena such as Tumblr, Twitter and /pol/; the trigger-niggers of the digital landscape. The irony would have hilarious.
>>469062
For all you know, I'm probably an Australian, considering how much I'm shitposting.
![Ned-Kelly[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CiBxkmy.jpg "Ned-Kelly[1].jpg")
ITT bantering Australians pretend to be Americans complaining about hate speech.
>>467616
>dangerous
yeah, you have thin skin. grow a pair, fag
Because 4chan is a business, and without a userbase, it wouldn't be worth anything.
Neo-conservatism is a very profitable niche right now. Do you think Hiro is an idiot?
Those perpetuating hate-speech on 4chan are just cogs in the machine.
>>469172
>the irony of this coming from a libcuck
>>469180
There's no need to get defensive. Think about it. /pol/ is one of the most popular boards on 4chan in years. You're basically just an asset to make the advertisers here some cash, or YouTube entrepreneurs who want to rake in some ad revenue from GamerGate/neo-con discussion vids.
/pol/ users must follow a very strict way of behaving -- this makes it like 5 times easier to use them as business assets.
>>469162
>hate speech isn't dangerous
![400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tn6j4Ti.jpg "400[1].jpg")
>>469590
>>469598
Good thing your comic admits hate speech and free speech aren't the same thing. It's already a start.
Now it's just a matter of finding a way to make that bullet only hit hate speech, but not free speech. If only we could like ban hate speech or something like that...
![sorry-you-just-lost-the-game[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TQzlW1H.jpg "sorry-you-just-lost-the-game[1].jpg")
>>469601
You are not going to find that proverbial bullet on this site.
Try >>>/tumblr/
It's been my observation for years that unrestrained free speech only leads to suppression of certain speech via hivemind. When people want to protect hate speech via free speech, then the only speech is hate speech because they suppress everything else or try to steer the subject into hate speech, as an example.
>>469608
A hivemind cannot stop a dedicated individual dead intent on getting his message out to the world. If you post something it will appear at the top of the page and people will read it.
A mob can make it annoying or impractical to be heard, but if you traded your job and your life for a 4chan shitposting career you could easily overcome them.
>>469611
A hivemind CAN however fill a thread with counter-arguments which, although weak and easily refutable individually, when in large numbers they can seem convincing as no one has the time to argue against every single one of them.
>>469608
1. People do not have true free speech, this is a privately owned website. Here the admin(s) allow us to have pseudonymous moderated speech that may be wordfiltered or spamfiltered or bannable for a variety of reasons. >>>/global/rules/3 effectively takes care of "hate speech" if mods choose to enforce it, which is their perogative as designated by the admin(s).
2. There is no fine line between hate speech and free speech. You're either for free speech or not. Banning hate speech means there is no free speech.
3. Hate speech, when uttered by individuals in a mass media/internet setting, is a venting mechanism for people that would commit hate violence otherwise.
4. By banning hate speech you're only fueling the arguments of those who use it. You're codifying what they're saying by telling them to not talk about it rather than debunking it. If you have a problem with hate speech you see it's up to you to be the counterbalance.
>>467410
Just grow some thicker skin, you have to learn to ignore idiots sometimes, bitch nigga
>>469729
I'm not the one shrieking over pictures of interracial couples.
>>469613
A giant mob of people sounding right because they constitute a loud majority is a staple of human history.
There are places where we can dream about intellectual discourse overcoming human nature, but an anonymous shitposting website is not one of them.
>>469948
You're shrieking over words in a screen which is even worse
>>469603
ah fuck i just lost.
>>469948
You're shrieking about shrieking about pictures of interracial couples.
You're shrieking about interracial couples.
>>469172
>4chan
>Worth money
What are you, stupid?
>>469172
>/pol/
>neocon
ayy lmao
>>467410
Hate speech is protected.
You should be free to express your hate without fear of legal reprecussions.
That said, it wouod be perfectly within 4chan's right to ban hate speech if they saw fit.
The 1st amendment protects people from legal consequences, but it doesn't mean that other free people and businesses have to tolerate whatever opinion somebody may have.
>>469948
Both you and racists have the freedom to shriek whatever you like.
Speaking of shrieking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjVYqczQ76M
>>470877
Yeah but we can all agree it would be a gay move.
...right?
>>470890
Nope.
>m-muh feeling
Fuck off, there's nothing wrong with it.
Just do it with your OWN consequence.
>this triggers the /pol/lack
>>471025
>this triggers the non-/pol/lack
>>467410
It's very tricky with 4chan having no identy system. It mostly comes down to the fact, that half the hate speech usually is just banter. From then on it's just a number of anons echoing these bantz at each other, which gets boring fast, but they won't stop.
On the bright site, since no one has a identity, idiots will be called out for their bullshit and meme spouting sooner or later. Dumb frogposters get called out as are edgy neets who insult minorities on literally every occassion.
Of course, it doesn't help that moderation is lacking quite a bit. Which isn't surprising, considering mods aren't paid. They're basically volunteers who try to keep this place acceptable. They can't watch every thread on this site, so they're dependent on the reporting system.
Which is another problem. At what point is a post, or maybe a string of posts in a thread, hate speech? The line between opinion, banter and hate speech is very thin and subjective. This makes reporting a post only harder than simple nsfw or spam.
Upside is, you can basically post anything you like and others will see it without a mod looking through it first or ass blasted faggots downvoting hit into oblivion. If it gets deleted, just screenshot it for later use.
>>470758
That's a non sequitur. It loses all meaning if we go down that road, you're basically saying that complaining about opposition to X is the same as complaining about X, which is totally nonsensical. You might as well say complaining about gun control laws is equivalent to complaining about the right to bear arms.
>>471088
I'm saying that if X weren't around there would be no opposition to X.
>>468434
Why the fuck not? You a nigger or somethin son?
>>467419
Some time ago on here there was a thread of people clamoring for a /leftypol/. My response was if the mods would just enforce GR 3 on /pol/, we wouldn't have a problem.
Plus we'd never have to suffer another GamerGate ever again, since it was really /pol/ that blew the whole thing up.
MUDDAFUKKA BIX NOOD
>>471334
Fuck off.
>>471334
This.
>>471334
dumb tripwhore
>PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT
>UNLESS IT HURTS MUH FEELINGS
You have no concept of what free speech is.
Everything is covered under Amendment 1, which is more than free speech, it's freedom of expression. Burning the flag is still considered free speech, and perfectly legal. It is your right to do anything, as long as it does not physically harm the person or the property of others. (See Texas v. Johnson)
Above that, you are on 4chan, a site whose entire method of titles (for lack of a better word) revolves around the word fag. I think you are on the wrong website if you really want to keep people from saying anything "rude".
Also, if I say "Jews should all be gassed" I assume that would be "hate speech" in your eyes. But if you say "Trump supporters are all assholes", would that not also be "hate speech"? I don't even support Trump, but pic fucking related.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
>>473393
I think you're missing the point that this website is a privately owned and that means you only have as much free speech on this site as mods allow you to have. If admins or mods want to declare that "hate speech" is not allowed here (see >>>global/rules/3 ) then there is nothing you could legally do to stop them.
>>473396
Obviously they could, I'm not arguing with that. I'm mostly arguing with the retards (oh no hate speech) like OP who think that "hate speech" isn't covered under free speech. 4chan has always been seen as a platform that supports free speech (mostly) and they don't ban "hate speech" see /pol/ because of it. the mods could ban it if they want, but I really doubt they would.
Also what really triggered me was OP's image.
>>467410
Grow thicker skin. If you refuse to do so, there are sites like tumblr much more willing to accomodate you.
>>467410
Please kill yourself kindly
>>473439
softly and gently?
>>473441
Yes, I want him to die a calm and painless death without sorrow, I just want it to happen now.
>>473393
>You have no concept of what free speech is.
I know hate speech isn't it.
>Everything is covered under Amendment 1
So you fell for the 300 year old piece of paper meme?
Not everyone on 4chan is American, you know? Hate speech is illegal in most countries. Damn, not even the owner of this site is American!
>"jews should all be gassed" = "trump supporters are all assholes"
Really? Wow.
>>473401
>tells me to grow thicker skin
>gets mad when sees pictures of mixed couples
lol
>>473536
If you ever left your legacy weeb containment board you'd know that cuck spammers are a plague on 10 or 12 boards and not just /pol/, genius. It's hilarious what you weebs think triggers /pol/.
>>473535
>Really? Wow.
>>473540
>if they're posting something I don't like, then they must be spammers trying to get at me
Not everything is about you, son.
>>473543
>he thinks I have any say in the matter
Take it up with mods if it triggers you.
>>473541
Can someone link me to this guy's part in the video?
>keeping a board made up of edgy teenagers who actually believe hate speech is okay
Shiggy
>>473649
Perhaps you would have better luck venting your frustration with /pol/ on /pol/.
>>467410
Please cite the exact article of the constitution that says hate speech is not protected.
Do you 4channers have any idea how many people's FEELINGS you hurt when you use derogatory terms like the homophobic F word?
You need to STOP. This is why hate speech needs to be banned from 4chan. JUST BECAUSE I USE REDDIT GIVES YOU NO RIGHT TO CALL ME THE F WORD! How about you don't judge a book by its cover?
>>473761
your shitposting hurts my feelings
>>473761
8/10, Anon, you just forgot to use emoticons.
>>467410
/pol/ goes beyond reason.
You're free to hate the culture blacks, Jew, Muslims etc.
But some people on that board would legitimately make their lives a living hell, and what's OK about that ?
>>471035
tldr
>>473712
Of which constitution?
>>473393
Not really, you have obviously never studied law.
>The First Amendment ensures that they have almost limitless opportunities to express their views. They may write and distribute books, articles, and other texts; they may create and disseminate video and audio recordings; they may circulate petitions; they may speak to individuals and groups in public forums and in any private venue that wishes to accommodate them; they may picket peacefully in countless locations; they may appear on television and speak on the radio; they may post messages on the Internet and send out e-mails. And they may express their views in terms that are “uninhibited,” “vehement,” and “caustic.” It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate. To protect against such injury, “most if not all jurisdictions” permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (or IIED).
Justice Samuel Alito
>inb4 durr he's a librul
Nope, he was appointed by George W. Bush and is a conservative.
Enjoy your ignorance.
Does race mixing hurt your feelings, /pol/? Is that why you want it banned?
Hypocrites.
>>473831
US Constitution
the only one that matters
>>473836
>Not really, you have obviously never studied law.
speak for yourself
the requirements to recover for IIED are ridiculously high. Saying "you fag" or "you nigger" definitely is not something that will give you a claim
>>474065
>my constitution is the only one that matters
>I'm not childish at all
>>473836
You're the one who has never studied law even in the slightest if you think that a dissent overrules the majority opinion at the Supreme Court.
The fact that hate speech is free speech is now settled case law in the United States.
>>474851
>the supreme court is god
The same supreme court that legalized abortion and gay marriage? No, thanks, I'll stay with longtime proven conservative and libertarian Samuel Alito.
>>474840
It's the only one that matters on an American imageboard hosted in America.
>>474858
Nobody cares what you personally want to stick with because the Supreme Court decides law in the United States, and you don't get to decide it doesn't apply to you because you don't like their decisions.
>>474860
>international imageboard owned by a japanese
>>474866
4chan community support LLC is a privately owned American company. It is currently privately owned by a Japanese man, but it is registered in America. Its main asset, 4chan.com is hosted in California.
>>474863
Triggered
>>474871
>.com
Shamefur dispray. I meant .org, obviously.
>>474871
>what is international law?
>how does jurisdiction on the internet work?
If this wasn't an anonymous imageboard, no German would get away with posting holocaust denial, you know?
The laws still apply, even though you're shielded (partially - warrants still apply) by anonymity.
It's unwise for 4chan to keep allowing illegal content. It's a bomb waiting to explode.
>>474881
>It's unwise for 4chan to keep allowing illegal content. It's a bomb waiting to explode.
And the illegal content you're referring to is?
>>474881
Posting anonymously without direct government oversight is illegal in some countries.
Posting about certain movies is illegal in some countries.
Posting certain opinions is illegal in some countries.
But the only country that actually matters is the one that the company is registered in and the one that the server resides in. That country is the same for both of those things.
>>474891
>All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
>>474899
If 4chan conspired with the German government to shit on its German holocaust deniers, it could do so, but nobody finds that a realistic proposition.
Even if posted under a German flag, the German government has no power to compel 4chan to assist it in a criminal investigation.
>>474891
In the US, the Communications Decency Act applies.
Touché.
>>474902
>Touché.
you can't add this to your own post you huge fucking sperglord
>>474902
>Communications Decency Act
Uh I've got news for you Anon
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/26/cda.overturned.hfr/index.html?eref=sitesearch
>>474901
Not really. See LICRA v. Yahoo.
>>474915
The US District Court declared that the ruling of the French court was not recognizable or enforceable in the United States based on 1st Amendment considerations; this was reversed on by the appellate court on grounds of jurisdiction and ripeness, but is not a sign that their reasoning was legally invalid.
The judgment of the foreign court was also interpreted as practically unenforceable by the appellate court:
>LICRA and UEJF have not sought enforcement of the French court's orders in this country, and they have stated that they will not seek enforcement or penalties so long as Yahoo! continues its current course of conduct. However, LICRA and UEJF have not sought to vacate the French court's orders, and it is at least possible that they might later seek enforcement based on a continuation of Yahoo!'s current conduct. Or more likely, they might seek enforcement if Yahoo! changes it conduct in the future. But even if LICRA and UEJF seek enforcement at some time in the future, and even if the French court finds a violation that warrants the imposition of a penalty, enforcement of that penalty is extremely unlikely in the United States. Enforcement is unlikely not because of the First Amendment, but rather because of the general principle of comity under which American courts do not enforce monetary fines or penalties awarded by foreign courts.
>>474932
>local gov'ts force ISPs to block Yahoo/4chan/whatever
>site loses revenue money
>gives in
Yahoo gave in. It's just a matter of time, the pressure is slowly building up. We better enjoy our free speech while we have it.
>the internet will be massively censored worldwide in your lifetime
>>468434
You're mom's a shit reason :^y
>>468419
Straya cunt! Straya Straya Straya Straya
>>473649
A: If I told you the truth will you fuck off?
B: This thread would be extremely gay
A: You're gay
B: For reddit
