4 ms·

Leading media, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post are calling for immediate and drastic action against 8chan. It's only a matter of time until it wi

by 781 8y ago

Leading media, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post are calling for immediate and drastic action against 8chan. It's only a matter of time until it will be shutdown.

snvzz 8y ago
A bunch of Anons and Pseudonyms exercising freedom of speech is extremely annoying to some. They were waiting for an excuse.
- Mr_Shiba 8y ago
  > exercising freedom of speech uuughh..
  - ChillBoi 8y ago
    Freedom of speech should always be legal
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Incitement is not, nor has it ever, been protected speech. Even in the US, which originated the concept of free speech as a fundamental human right.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    In the US, incitement is a very narrow exception. According to a first-amendment lawyer: > In America, under the First Amendment, I can say something like "if Donald Trump gets elected, someone should assassinate him for the good of the nation." That statement may be immoral, and destructive of the very American values it purports to defend, but unless it calls for imminent action or expresses an objectively credible intent to do harm, it's protected speech. Source: https://www.popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-isnt-criminal/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-tru...
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      Your example is not incitement... Incitement is a specific call to action, not a general, broad-based statement. In the US, it must further be for "imminent" unlawful acts, though the "imminence" required varies based on the act incited. If Michael Cohen were to say to Roger Stone, "kill Donald Trump by poisoning his Big Mac tomorrow" that could be incitement if Cohen had previously or afterwards tried to convince stone to actually do it. (Alternatively, it could also be seen as conspiracy, and frequently prosecutors charge conspiracy instead of or in addition to incitement because they usually both apply and it's much easier to prove conspiracy.)
      - deogeo 8y ago
        > Your example is not incitement... I know - I gave it to illustrate how narrow incitement is, if even that doesn't qualify. And it's not really mine, but given by popehat.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    In the US, only incitement to imminent lawless action can be made illegal. I don't see how it applies now that the perpetrator is in custody.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The US didn't ban 4chan or 8chan...New Zealand did, and it does not appear that imminence is a requirement over there. Also, imminent doesn't mean immediate. It depends on the circumstances of the crime...if a crime takes a long time to plan and carry out, "imminent" can actually mean weeks before the actual commission of the crime.
RandomGuyDTB 8y ago
Thank god.
ryandrake 8y ago
Expect other sites to be caught up in the dragnet. I'm sure politicians across the globe all have laundry lists of "naughty sites" that they'd love to see shut down, and now they were given a great reason to go do it. We've seen this played out before: patiently wait for a horrific event to happen, then push the ready-to-go agenda through while people are grieving.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I'm sure they'll start by shutting down the biggest .. YouTube?
shiado 8y ago
It's pretty surreal to see such publications that sold the war in Middle East all those years disavow anti-Islamic terror, are they finally admitting they were wrong all those years? Are they aware that perhaps their legitimization of the foreign occupation and demonization of the Muslim world might make them complicit in the ideology and subsequent actions of this shooter?
- deogeo 8y ago
  The shooter's manifesto was mostly ranting about demographic displacement, which those newspapers seldom cover. While you can certainly blame the publications for parroting US government talking points and helping sell the war, I don't think you can pin this particular shooting on them.
faissaloo 8y ago
As someone who browses 8chan I'd rather the entire site doesn't take the hit, since not the entire site partakes in this. It's only /pol/ that needs to be removed.
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  8ch is jim's ego project now, it'll continue to exist as long as it amuses him or is regulated out of existence. removing /pol/ wont remove /pol/ users. however, removing places like /pol/ or /baph/ would fundamentally kill 8ch as it would no longer be a free speech site. nor would such a move appease the disingenuous opportunists who use tragedies like this for their own personal gain.
  - faissaloo 8y ago
    Modern 8ch has been overrun by /pol/, they've been a consistent problem that's only gotten worse. 8ch already isn't a free speech site, /pol/ will ban you for even questioning their rhetoric. Sure you can create a new board, but almost no one ever browses those except to stash CP when they eventually get abandoned. Removing /pol/ would certainly remove /pol/ users, they would need to find another place and it takes time for these sorts of communities to regroup.
- robocat 8y ago
  New Zealand simply doesn't have the censorship infrastructure in place to do that. We are ineffectively blocking websites through very crude technical means that are not designed for censorship. I am just saying you are requesting something that has deeper implications... My opinions on censorship are not relevant to that.
  - faissaloo 8y ago
    Crude technical means are often enough to get the brunt of it out of the way, just look at what happened to /r/incels which at its height had 42000 users, the place the ones that cared enough moved to has only 9155, the rest of them by and large have successfully been deplatformed. I used to be very much on the side of 'free speech', but it's become increasingly clear to me that deplatforming and censoring, while indeed unpleasant, is effective and necessary.
panarky 8y ago
Please provide links to where these publications demand drastic action against 8chan. I've seen nothing of the sort. The closest I can find is this WP perspective urging giants like Facebook and Youtube to "deal with the crisis that they have helped create". https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/social-media-platforms-were-used-like-lethal-weapons-in-new-zealand-that-must-change-now/2019/03/15/aaeafbc8-471e-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/social-media-...
sdinsn 8y ago
> Leading media... are calling for immediate and drastic action against 8chan. Sources?

by 781 8y ago

Leading media, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post are calling for immediate and drastic action against 8chan. It's only a matter of time until it will be shutdown.

snvzz 8y ago

A bunch of Anons and Pseudonyms exercising freedom of speech is extremely annoying to some. They were waiting for an excuse.

Mr_Shiba 8y ago
> exercising freedom of speech uuughh..
- ChillBoi 8y ago
  Freedom of speech should always be legal
gamblor956 8y ago
Incitement is not, nor has it ever, been protected speech. Even in the US, which originated the concept of free speech as a fundamental human right.
- deogeo 8y ago
  In the US, incitement is a very narrow exception. According to a first-amendment lawyer: > In America, under the First Amendment, I can say something like "if Donald Trump gets elected, someone should assassinate him for the good of the nation." That statement may be immoral, and destructive of the very American values it purports to defend, but unless it calls for imminent action or expresses an objectively credible intent to do harm, it's protected speech. Source: https://www.popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-isnt-criminal/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-tru...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Your example is not incitement... Incitement is a specific call to action, not a general, broad-based statement. In the US, it must further be for "imminent" unlawful acts, though the "imminence" required varies based on the act incited. If Michael Cohen were to say to Roger Stone, "kill Donald Trump by poisoning his Big Mac tomorrow" that could be incitement if Cohen had previously or afterwards tried to convince stone to actually do it. (Alternatively, it could also be seen as conspiracy, and frequently prosecutors charge conspiracy instead of or in addition to incitement because they usually both apply and it's much easier to prove conspiracy.)
    - deogeo 8y ago
      > Your example is not incitement... I know - I gave it to illustrate how narrow incitement is, if even that doesn't qualify. And it's not really mine, but given by popehat.
- icebraining 8y ago
  In the US, only incitement to imminent lawless action can be made illegal. I don't see how it applies now that the perpetrator is in custody.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    The US didn't ban 4chan or 8chan...New Zealand did, and it does not appear that imminence is a requirement over there. Also, imminent doesn't mean immediate. It depends on the circumstances of the crime...if a crime takes a long time to plan and carry out, "imminent" can actually mean weeks before the actual commission of the crime.

RandomGuyDTB 8y ago

Thank god.

ryandrake 8y ago

Expect other sites to be caught up in the dragnet. I'm sure politicians across the globe all have laundry lists of "naughty sites" that they'd love to see shut down, and now they were given a great reason to go do it. We've seen this played out before: patiently wait for a horrific event to happen, then push the ready-to-go agenda through while people are grieving.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
I'm sure they'll start by shutting down the biggest .. YouTube?

shiado 8y ago

It's pretty surreal to see such publications that sold the war in Middle East all those years disavow anti-Islamic terror, are they finally admitting they were wrong all those years? Are they aware that perhaps their legitimization of the foreign occupation and demonization of the Muslim world might make them complicit in the ideology and subsequent actions of this shooter?

deogeo 8y ago
The shooter's manifesto was mostly ranting about demographic displacement, which those newspapers seldom cover. While you can certainly blame the publications for parroting US government talking points and helping sell the war, I don't think you can pin this particular shooting on them.

faissaloo 8y ago

As someone who browses 8chan I'd rather the entire site doesn't take the hit, since not the entire site partakes in this. It's only /pol/ that needs to be removed.

odessacubbage 8y ago
8ch is jim's ego project now, it'll continue to exist as long as it amuses him or is regulated out of existence. removing /pol/ wont remove /pol/ users. however, removing places like /pol/ or /baph/ would fundamentally kill 8ch as it would no longer be a free speech site. nor would such a move appease the disingenuous opportunists who use tragedies like this for their own personal gain.
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Modern 8ch has been overrun by /pol/, they've been a consistent problem that's only gotten worse. 8ch already isn't a free speech site, /pol/ will ban you for even questioning their rhetoric. Sure you can create a new board, but almost no one ever browses those except to stash CP when they eventually get abandoned. Removing /pol/ would certainly remove /pol/ users, they would need to find another place and it takes time for these sorts of communities to regroup.
robocat 8y ago
New Zealand simply doesn't have the censorship infrastructure in place to do that. We are ineffectively blocking websites through very crude technical means that are not designed for censorship. I am just saying you are requesting something that has deeper implications... My opinions on censorship are not relevant to that.
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Crude technical means are often enough to get the brunt of it out of the way, just look at what happened to /r/incels which at its height had 42000 users, the place the ones that cared enough moved to has only 9155, the rest of them by and large have successfully been deplatformed. I used to be very much on the side of 'free speech', but it's become increasingly clear to me that deplatforming and censoring, while indeed unpleasant, is effective and necessary.

panarky 8y ago

Please provide links to where these publications demand drastic action against 8chan. I've seen nothing of the sort. The closest I can find is this WP perspective urging giants like Facebook and Youtube to "deal with the crisis that they have helped create". https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/social-media-platforms-were-used-like-lethal-weapons-in-new-zealand-that-must-change-now/2019/03/15/aaeafbc8-471e-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/social-media-...

sdinsn 8y ago

> Leading media... are calling for immediate and drastic action against 8chan. Sources?