Reddit CEO: "We stand for free speech... we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits." - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Starship;38077496]Didn't the owner of Imgur (A redditor) block Imgur for facepunch because alot of porn was hosted on it from Hot girls thread in fast threads while the whole /r/gonewild and shit was hosted on imgur?[/QUOTE] I thought it was because gufu used imgur for his massive rule34 image dumps.

[QUOTE=Webby2020;38075665]quick everybody start labelling all of reddit fuck those gay cancerous pedophiles and all their families we should lynch every single member of reddit fp is so much better[/QUOTE] except fp didnt take years to censor harmful communities

[QUOTE=Ownederd;38079766]except fp didnt take years to censor harmful communities[/QUOTE] and doesn't continue to agree with said harmful communities

They're still thinking that child porn and other creepy shit falls under freedom of speech? What the fuck?

[QUOTE=Amez;38079998]They're still thinking that child porn and other creepy shit falls under freedom of speech? What the fuck?[/QUOTE] It was creepy as all fuck, but IIRC there wasn't anything there that fell under the legal definition of CP.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38075801]the problem is people think creepshots is a victimless crime ergo it's not illegal and shouldn't be i don't know about you but taking photos of anonymous women for your personal sexual pleasue isn't harmless, but somehow because it's not illegal, keeping creepshots up is somehow defense of free speech[/QUOTE] While it may not cause any physical harm, creep shots is definitely not victimless. If I was a woman who found myself on that fucking piece of shit section I'd be horrified and humiliated. It really should be illegal.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;38075762]If I remember correctly back when we had custom forums there was one for loli or something. [B]It was removed very quickly.[/B][/QUOTE] which is why comparing Reddit to FP is insane One of those two sites actually has an administration that isn't insane

Isn't it illegal to take photos of people without their consent?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;38080991]Isn't it illegal to take photos of people without their consent?[/QUOTE] reddit's administration doesn't give a shit about anyone, they just want all their web traffic

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;38080991]Isn't it illegal to take photos of people without their consent?[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure: In a public place, where zero privacy is expected, its legal. In a place where privacy is expected, such as a dressing room, it violates the individuals privacy and could get the photograph taker into a bit of trouble. [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] [url]http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking[/url]

[QUOTE=Period;38081089]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure: In a public place, where zero privacy is expected, its legal. In a private place such as a dressing room, it violates privacy.[/QUOTE] no zero privacy is not expected. if you're in public you still have privacy, it just depends on why you're taking the picture and who of. if you can prove it's for legitimate artistic means and there's no derogatory context behind it it's fine ie getting pictures of underage girls so dudes can get gross over them is not legal and grounds for civil suit, or even criminal in California.

[QUOTE=Webby2020;38075665]quick everybody start labelling all of reddit fuck those gay cancerous pedophiles and all their families we should lynch every single member of reddit fp is so much better[/QUOTE] Facepunch is full of pseudo-intellectual twats.

-snip-

why anyone thinks facepunch is relevant in a discussion about reddit is beyond me.

[QUOTE=thisispain;38081118]no zero privacy is not expected. if you're in public you still have privacy, it just depends on why you're taking the picture and who of. if you can prove it's for legitimate artistic means and there's no derogatory context behind it it's fine ie getting pictures of underage girls so dudes can get gross over them is not legal and grounds for civil suit, or even criminal in California.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's right, for the same reason that you can photograph cops.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;38081233]I don't think that's right, for the same reason that you can photograph cops.[/QUOTE] Cops are public figures and do not have the right to privacy.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38075801]the problem is people think creepshots is a victimless crime ergo it's not illegal and shouldn't be i don't know about you but taking photos of anonymous women for your personal sexual pleasue isn't harmless, but somehow because it's not illegal, keeping creepshots up is somehow defense of free speech[/QUOTE] How is it not harmless? I'm not saying it's victimless since there is definitely a victim, but they are completely anonymous and will probably never know a photo of them is on reddit for wankcircles, it doesn't really harm anyone, it's just one step above thinking about some woman while fapping. I don't actually watch creepshots and whatnot but I don't see how its harming anyone either. You have to understand that your morals aren't universal truth, they are just morals and are not always entirely logical, and they always change throughought history.

[QUOTE=Lazor;38081196]why anyone thinks facepunch is relevant in a discussion about reddit is beyond me.[/QUOTE] Because we're quashing reddit's free speech duh

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;38075967]Pedophilia is [I]not[/I] illegal. It is only illegal when there is actual evidence[/QUOTE] this is why i bought a woodchipper

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38077460]last I seen most were well within legal limits for photography, but it's still sexual harassment to some degree and violates the privacy of the subject, and while it's not illegal, they also reduce them to an object of sexual desire.[/QUOTE] I may come across as a massive asshole for this, but how is it an invasion of privacy? I can understand the sexualization argument, but if you go out in public looking a particular way, I don't see how that appearance being documented is violating your privacy. American law at least has a clear precedent that you have a right to privacy in your home, but no general expectations of privacy out in public. I remember a lawsuit a few years ago where a couple who had sex on a hotel balcony were videotaped, and were suing to have the video taken off the Internet as an invasion of privacy. The court ruled that they were outdoors and in public, and so could not dictate the use of a video with them in it. Seems the same idea, pretty much.

66 dumbs, lol. Amount of hypocrisy is astounding.

[QUOTE=Robbi;38081745]66 dumbs, lol. Amount of hypocrisy is astounding.[/QUOTE] Hypocrisy? Mind telling me more about that?

guys do you want to be a part of my new subreddit r/babydicks?

Next on Fox News: PRESIDENT OBAMA VISITED A PEDOPHILE WEBSITE!!!!!!

Freedom of Speech means you are allowed to stalk women, make child porn and be a general fucking creep, and if people don't agree, Emperor Obongo will assimilate them with his Freedom-Gun.

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;38075916]I don't think 'free-speech' counts for things that are perverse, disrespectful, stupid and just plain wrong.[/QUOTE] Uh, yes, it does, and you're fucking stupid if you seriously think that you're not allowed to say something perverse, disrespectful, stupid, or wrong. Matt Stone and Trey Parker in particular have made a god damn career out of it. Free speech doesn't cover a lot of things, but you can bet your ass it covers being a rude disrespectful dickwad. (Not specifically talking about Reddit, just your post.) [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Also, what freedom of speech covers does vary from country to country, but they do generally cover the above.

The subreddits dedicated to CP need to be removed of course, but I dunno about the ones that are just creepy and morally hazy, being a wierdo isn't illegal. I mean, yeah, I'm not trying to advocate a witch hunt for pedophiles but CP is not good. I mean, they have loli.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38082227]The subreddits dedicated to CP need to be removed of course, but I dunno about the ones that are just creepy and morally hazy, being a wierdo isn't illegal. I mean, yeah, I'm not trying to advocate a witch hunt for pedophiles but CP is not good. I mean, they have loli.[/QUOTE] reddit isn't a government institution. it doesn't need to be illegal for them to disallow it.

-snip- I'm stupid and misread the post.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38082218]Uh, yes, it does, and you're fucking stupid if you seriously think that you're not allowed to say something perverse, disrespectful, stupid, or wrong. Matt Stone and Trey Parker in particular have made a god damn career out of it. Free speech doesn't cover a lot of things, but you can bet your ass it covers being a rude disrespectful dickwad. (Not specifically talking about Reddit, just your post.) [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Also, what freedom of speech covers does vary from country to country, but they do generally cover the above.[/QUOTE] Freedom of Speech might allow it, but if you do it in public, it's just fuckin' crude. And what these guys are saying is that we should be allowed to let men stalk women, take pictures of them, and share them with other fucking creeps. That's Invasion of Privacy, if I'm correct.