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

What's the difference between a guy looking at these teenage girls (clothed) IRL and looking at them (clothed) on Reddit. Nothing, really. And you could say well it's about the intent, well, what's stopping said guy from looking at a teenage girl (clothed) and fapping to the memory after. This whole row is just silliness, nobody is getting hurt from this.

[QUOTE=Conna;38104114]What's the difference between a guy looking at these teenage girls (clothed) IRL and looking at them (clothed) on Reddit. Nothing, really. And you could say well it's about the intent, well, what's stopping said guy from looking at a teenage girl (clothed) and fapping to the memory after. This whole row is just silliness, nobody is getting hurt from this.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're right. Trading around photos of unsuspecting women for sexual reasons is totally indistinguishable from having an imagination. I mean, it's not like the subjected women are being objectified and having their own personal freedoms violated.

[QUOTE=Conna;38104114]What's the difference between a guy looking at these teenage girls (clothed) IRL and looking at them (clothed) on Reddit. Nothing, really. And you could say well it's about the intent, well, what's stopping said guy from looking at a teenage girl (clothed) and fapping to the memory after. This whole row is just silliness, nobody is getting hurt from this.[/QUOTE] Because when it's a image it can easily be distributed over the wast internet on sites like Reddit. And memory fades over time, a digital image doesn't (unless it's stored on a shitty storage media). And you're still kind of a pervert if you do that every time you get. In short, turn your brain on brosef.

This article really saddens me. Some content SHOULD be censored. Just for the sake of humanity.

[QUOTE=Van-man;38104197]Because when it's a image it can easily be distributed over the wast internet on sites like Reddit. And memory fades over time, a digital image doesn't (unless it's stored on a shitty storage media). And you're still kind of a pervert if you do that every time you get. In short, turn your brain on brosef.[/QUOTE] I'm not in to that shit, I'm just saying, it doesn't pull my chain.

It's funny cause I just read a joke the other day on FP about how all they do at reddit is bitch and whine about free speech. :v:

Free speech is not getting persecuted because you say a politicians a total fuckface, not posting jailbait and "niggerbait" and getting called out on being a piece of poop

[QUOTE=Conna;38108786]I'm not in to that shit, I'm just saying, it doesn't pull my chain.[/QUOTE] Well wasn't that a waste of everyone's time then?

[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] It isn't illegal because they are in public, not private space, if these picutes were taken of women in their home then it would be illegal. I know that banning Gawker was an oxymoron but it really is a terrible, terrible site that shouldn't exist in the first place.

[QUOTE=TGiFallen;38114540]It isn't illegal because they are in public, not private space, if these picutes were taken of women in their home then it would be illegal. I know that banning Gawker was an oxymoron but it really is a terrible, terrible site that shouldn't exist in the first place.[/QUOTE] If gawker is terrible, then Reddit is horribly bad for defending those subreddits. Gawker is the lesser evil of those two, even though I'd prefer neither existed, or they both had a tighter administration with a basic morale.