4 ms·

> The House Homeland Security leaders previously asked Watkins to "provide testimony regarding 8chan's efforts to investigate and mitigate the proliferation of

> The House Homeland Security leaders previously asked Watkins to "provide testimony regarding 8chan's efforts to investigate and mitigate the proliferation of extremist content" This seems... fairly self evident? What do they want his testimony for, except a dog and pony show?

malandrew 7y ago
> efforts to investigate and mitigate the proliferation of extremist content Since the focus is "content", this reaks of trying to violate the 1st amendment. Sometimes I wonder if our government should be involved in this at all given that (1) the country was founded by people that would have been characterized as extremists by the crown prior to 1776, and (2) the ability to challenge the government through violence if necessary is natural right of the people when that government no longer represents the will of the people. As much as I disagree with those fomenting the violence in this instance (El Paso, Dayton and others), my fear in allowing government additional powers beyond what they already have is that some day it might be me, my family, my community and others that share my values that find themselves at odds with the government of the day, and if that day should come I don't want there to be an omnipresent, omnipotent government that curtails unalienable rights that afford us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US government is supposed to be subservient to the people and the states by design, not vice versa.
henryfjordan 7y ago
I had the same thought, there's not much he has to do and the first amendment protects him. Maybe there's some potential civil liability if he profits off running 8chan and provides the white nationalists haven, but that's it. Maybe they'll accuse him of Aiding and Abetting?
jcims 7y ago
Did 8chan even have any legal obligations to do what they are asking about?
- manfredo 7y ago
  If the content it hosts violates the law, then yes. Granted, 1st Amendment protections extend beyond what I typically find people believe it covers. Illegal content mostly falls under the category of: 1. Credible, specific, and actionable threats. 2. Illegal videos & images (CSE, I think revenge porn might fall into that category now). 3. Recruitment or tangible assistance to terrorist groups. Even things like broad threats of violence are protected by the 1st Amendment (e.g. calling for killing of groups of people, provided the statements do not amount to specific or actionable threats). See this case as one example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  - jcims 7y ago
    Great info thank you!
    - jlgaddis 7y ago
      In 8chan's case, I believe that Section 230 is mostly what protects them.

malandrew 7y ago

> efforts to investigate and mitigate the proliferation of extremist content Since the focus is "content", this reaks of trying to violate the 1st amendment. Sometimes I wonder if our government should be involved in this at all given that (1) the country was founded by people that would have been characterized as extremists by the crown prior to 1776, and (2) the ability to challenge the government through violence if necessary is natural right of the people when that government no longer represents the will of the people. As much as I disagree with those fomenting the violence in this instance (El Paso, Dayton and others), my fear in allowing government additional powers beyond what they already have is that some day it might be me, my family, my community and others that share my values that find themselves at odds with the government of the day, and if that day should come I don't want there to be an omnipresent, omnipotent government that curtails unalienable rights that afford us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US government is supposed to be subservient to the people and the states by design, not vice versa.

henryfjordan 7y ago

I had the same thought, there's not much he has to do and the first amendment protects him. Maybe there's some potential civil liability if he profits off running 8chan and provides the white nationalists haven, but that's it. Maybe they'll accuse him of Aiding and Abetting?

jcims 7y ago

Did 8chan even have any legal obligations to do what they are asking about?

manfredo 7y ago
If the content it hosts violates the law, then yes. Granted, 1st Amendment protections extend beyond what I typically find people believe it covers. Illegal content mostly falls under the category of: 1. Credible, specific, and actionable threats. 2. Illegal videos & images (CSE, I think revenge porn might fall into that category now). 3. Recruitment or tangible assistance to terrorist groups. Even things like broad threats of violence are protected by the 1st Amendment (e.g. calling for killing of groups of people, provided the statements do not amount to specific or actionable threats). See this case as one example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- jcims 7y ago
  Great info thank you!
  - jlgaddis 7y ago
    In 8chan's case, I believe that Section 230 is mostly what protects them.