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

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;38087095]r/feminism is run by men's rights activists so I doubt that[/QUOTE] Wait, what?!

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38083288]in both cases neither subject desires to be the neckbeard jerk-off subject of the day[/QUOTE] Yeah and most celebrities don't ether yet nobody complains about that.

I didn't know kiddy porn was a form of free speech! Welp, time to masturbate.

[QUOTE=Swilly;38087108]Wait, what?![/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/wksar/meta_an_%C3%A9xp%C3%B3s%C3%A9_rfeminism_is_run_by_mras/[/url] they're also horrible mods who are vehemently anti-SRS and delete any sort of criticism, even on the r/meta_feminism sub they created specifically for that (which is why r/meta_meta_feminism exists)

What a bunch of shit, feminism is basically the name for promoting equality between genders. The name only stuck because it was a movement.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;38087194][url]http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/wksar/meta_an_%C3%A9xp%C3%B3s%C3%A9_rfeminism_is_run_by_mras/[/url] they're also horrible mods who are vehemently anti-SRS and delete any sort of criticism, even on the r/meta_feminism sub they created specifically for that (which is why r/meta_meta_feminism exists)[/QUOTE] THE FUCK!?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38083742]I guess that's true as well. There's really nothing you can do legally against creepshots though, what with phones getting better and better cameras. It'd be hard to tell.[/QUOTE] Just do what Japan does and require all cameras make loud clicking noises when they snap a photo.

[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38087297]Just do what Japan does and require all cameras make loud clicking noises when they snap a photo.[/QUOTE] You can bypass this by plugging earphones in.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38087311]You can bypass this by plugging earphones in.[/QUOTE] Like they didn't make it mandatory for that sound to come out of the speaker.

[QUOTE=Swilly;38087062]Wait seriously :v:[/QUOTE] Yes. They just shut it down as a completely unnecessary precaution, he even snipped it within the hour we mentioned it because we told him that he was being an idiot. I'm pretty sure the real reason it was shut down was because craptasket didn't like the content of the thread.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;38087095]r/feminism is run by men's rights activists so I doubt that[/QUOTE] like I said before r/actuallesbians or something then

Sharing child porn has nothing to do with free speech at all. They're not expressing thoughts or opinions, they're uploading illegal content to a public space which is illegal in itself

[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;38086944]Reddit is one of the biggest communities on the net, and labeling it all based on the absolutely indefensible acts of a single subreddit is sensationalist and ignorant. From what I've experienced, [b]it's a very small minority that believes that the subreddits in question, in this case r/jailbait and r/creepshots should be kept alive[/b], because they are clearly illegal, immoral, and in conflict with the established rules of reddit.[/QUOTE] Except it's not. It's a very large majority that believes objectionable subreddits like r/jailbait and r/creepshots should stay alive, along with reddit's CEO (see the article) and [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZYvrue1BE]reddit's co-founder.[/url]

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38087709]like I said before r/actuallesbians or something then[/QUOTE] You gave a link in the other thread about Reddit that referenced r/actuallesbians and it turned out to just be guys pretending to be lesbians posting creepshots and talking about "how wet this makes my pussy". [QUOTE=Broseph_;38087311]You can bypass this by plugging earphones in.[/QUOTE] Not on my 3DS, at least.

Gee, Subreddits like this sure are tasteful and in the name of free speech! [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/beatingtrannies[/url]

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;38087943]Gee, Subreddits like this sure are tasteful and in the name of free speech! [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/beatingtrannies[/url][/QUOTE] Disgusting, could someone break out that entitlement qoute again?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;38087512]Yes. They just shut it down as a completely unnecessary precaution, he even snipped it within the hour we mentioned it because we told him that he was being an idiot. I'm pretty sure the real reason it was shut down was because craptasket didn't like the content of the thread.[/QUOTE] Craptastic giving [i]US[/i] crap about the content of what we post? Anyway, enough derailing.

[QUOTE=RobbL;38087746]Sharing child porn has nothing to do with free speech at all. They're not expressing thoughts or opinions, they're uploading illegal content to a public space which is illegal in itself[/QUOTE] That's the thing, though. The content was treading very close to being illegal, but to the best of my knowledge it actually wasn't. It was still creepy as fuck, though.

[QUOTE=RobbL;38087746]Sharing child porn has nothing to do with free speech at all. They're not expressing thoughts or opinions, they're uploading illegal content to a public space which is illegal in itself[/QUOTE] Nobody is supporting child porn or implying it is protected by free speech; the Images in questions are pictures of 14-17 year olds in their underwear/bikinis or topless in provocative poses; which under Federal Law; does not qualify as pornographic.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;38088221]That's the thing, though. The content was treading very close to being illegal, but to the best of my knowledge it actually wasn't. It was still creepy as fuck, though.[/QUOTE] I don't blame him, those boundaries aren't 100% set in stone, and [I]better-safe-than-sorry[/I]. [editline]18th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;38088353]Nobody is supporting child porn or implying it is protected by free speech; the Images in questions are pictures of 14-17 year olds in their underwear/bikinis or topless in provocative poses; which under Federal Law; does not qualify as pornographic.[/QUOTE] You ignored the whole wall of comments and jumped right to the reply box.

[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38087933]You gave a link in the other thread about Reddit that referenced r/actuallesbians and it turned out to just be guys pretending to be lesbians posting creepshots and talking about "how wet this makes my pussy". [/QUOTE] someone failed reading comprehension [quote][B]A tipster from the subreddit r/actuallesbians alerted us to two new creepshot forums[/B], in which moderators are not only posting photos of unsuspecting women but mocking the LGBTQ community at the same time.[/quote] [quote][B]The women on r/actuallesbians are appalled[/B], especially since r/Cshots linked to their subbreddit to validate itself.[/quote] [url]http://jezebel.com/5952293/creepshots-is-back-and-impersonating-lesbians[/url]

Yeah, I saw that stuff at Gawkerjerk and at SRS.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38089231]someone failed reading comprehension [url]http://jezebel.com/5952293/creepshots-is-back-and-impersonating-lesbians[/url][/QUOTE] Lovely, the creeps are just digging themselves deeper and deeper into shit.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38089231]someone failed reading comprehension [URL]http://jezebel.com/5952293/creepshots-is-back-and-impersonating-lesbians[/URL][/QUOTE] Ah sorry, just skimmed the article then looked at the actual subreddit that was linked there then forgot about the whole thing for the most part.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38088353]Nobody is supporting child porn or implying it is protected by free speech; the Images in questions are pictures of 14-17 year olds in their underwear/bikinis or topless in provocative poses; which under Federal Law; does not qualify as pornographic.[/QUOTE] The legal definition of pornography is a little bit iffy. Some definitions do include non-nude photography/videos that focus mainly on the sexual parts or are sexual in nature. Though that's mainly to shut down those "Child Modeling" agencies that would essentially produce child porn of children in clothes and swimsuits and shit.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38090523]The legal definition of pornography is a little bit iffy. Some definitions do include non-nude photography/videos that focus mainly on the sexual parts or are sexual in nature. Though that's mainly to shut down those "Child Modeling" agencies that would essentially produce child porn of children in clothes and swimsuits and shit.[/QUOTE] That's the Dost test which mainly applies to under 14s; and child modeling shit is iffy since it's borderline legal as it tends to be labeled 'child erotica' by the Courts; which is not illegal currently. That aside, from the cases I've seen most courts don't view a self-shot of a 14 year old bare breasted as CP except in those really backwater places in like Kansas and Mississippi.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38090885]That aside, from the cases I've seen most courts don't view a self-shot of a 14 year old bare breasted as CP except in those really backwater places in like Kansas and Mississippi.[/QUOTE] And Michigan. If a teen texts a nude photo of themselves here, it's considered producing, possessing, distributing and encouraging child pornography, even though I'm not sure how many cases of it have actually made it to court recently.

Theres a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom to wank to CP.

[QUOTE=OhHello;38102356]Theres a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom to wank to CP.[/QUOTE] Not really, it's actually an incredibly broad line.

[QUOTE=Paramud;38103951]Not really, it's actually an incredibly broad line.[/QUOTE] Oh shit did I have a fucking brainfart while posting that