Quote (balrog66 @ Aug 5 2019 09:22am)

Yeah, the first amendment really is not a hurdle at all!

Quote (thesnipa @ Aug 5 2019 04:23pm)

there are hurdles and Hurdles my man.

Quote (bogie160 @ 5 Aug 2019 14:23)

At its most basic, 8chan is a less regulated 4chan that doesn't pull shit down unless they're legally mandated to do so.

Cloudfare is making an editorial decision as a quasi utility that a free speech website shouldn't exist. Would it be ok for an internet provider to do the same thing?

Too phrase it slightly differently, would eliminating 8chan in any significant way decrease the number of mass shootings? If not, what exactly are we trying to accomplish? If yes, how?

Quote (balrog66 @ Aug 5 2019 09:25am)

Idk man, from what I've heard and read from Americans 1A is as much a biggie as 2 or 4. Don't see why that one would be easier.

Quote (thesnipa @ 5 Aug 2019 15:35)

because of how much easier it is to enforce.

take mental health checkups and detainment:
you need a list of rules on who can refer the police to a potential shooter, and we know like 99% of them aren't going to turn out to be shooters in fact. They'll just fit the m.o. and be mentally ill dudes who browse the same sites and act similarly. then how long can they be detained for, how effective will that be in stopping them from doing it when they get out. who pays for their mental healthcare, the family? will that stop many low income people from refering them. what challenges do the detained retain in a court of law for their own release? can they sue for wrongful detainment? will they have job protection while detained? what recourse is their for falsely weaponizing detainment? etc.

take gun reform:
no real need to expand, we all know how big of a ball of yarn that is.

take banning printing the name:
1 law, passed in legislature, FCC fines for all people violating. increase fines every offense.


i dont see how its harder to make a law around it, nor how it's nearly as hard to rollout and enforce.

Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 5 2019 09:48am)

I'd encourage you to look at the Prevent program in the UK.

Quote

The 'Prevent' strategy was criticised in 2009 by Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, a domestic spying programme collecting intelligence about the beliefs of British Muslims not involved in criminal activity.[17] The Communities and Local Government Committee was also critical of the Prevent programme in 2010, stating that it stigmatised and alienated Muslims the government wanted to work with.[18]

Prevent has been criticised as legitimising and reinforcing Islamophobia, and restricting freedom of expression for Muslims in the UK.[19][20]

At the National Union of Teachers' 2016 conference in Brighton, the union members voted overwhelmingly against the Prevent strategy and supported its abolition, citing concerns over the implementation of the strategy and causing "suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom".[21]

In June 2016 the MPs Lucy Allan and Norman Lamb introduced a private member's bill to repeal provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 where it requires a staff to report possible signs of extremism or radicalisation amongst primary and nursery school aged children, following a number of high-profile cases where the provision was inappropriately used in relation the Prevent strategy. The Bill did not become law.[22]

In 2017 two brothers, aged seven and five, were paid damages after they were reported to the Prevent programme after telling a teacher they had been given toy guns. The children had been kept from parents for two hours. After a legal challenge, Central Bedfordshire council admitted the children's human rights were breached and they had been racially discriminated against.[23]

Prevent has also been accused of reducing academic freedom. In November 2018, the University of Reading highlighted the article Our Morals: The Ethics of Revolution by Professor Norman Geras as potentially harmful. Students were instructed not to download the article on personal devices and not leave the article where it could be visible ″inadvertently or otherwise, by those who are not prepared to view it″.[24] In March 2019, the Court of Appeal found that the Prevent guidance on inviting controversial speakers at Universities was unlawfully unbalanced and must be rewritten.[25]

Quote (Saucisson6000 @ Aug 5 2019 10:26am)

8chan has the full freedom to create its own hosting or to chose another provider: white supremracists have no excuse regarding free speech on 8chan or... Do you want to create a regulation FORCING providers to keep customers ?

However i bet that a large part of these white supremracists/trolls/mentally ill people are just hiding behind some kind of abusive anonymity, even hiding their activity to their own family: Almost no one want to involve himself beyond/above the cowardice of xenophobic, falsified, offensive memes or others terrible content posting, excepted a few who are going outside and kill innocents... And 2-3, grilled, doing some youtube business around it

So yeah, they will cry because their easy murder plate-form is no longer easy, they would have to invest themselves to build something.
And oh, it's so much fucking easier to divide & destroy than unify & build, isn't it ? Technically i would define them as some kind of parasites.

ty

Quote (thesnipa @ 5 Aug 2019 15:52)

this list of issues is expected, but also the constitution makes them more problematic for a rollout in the USA



in short all of the potential issues i identified would still be present, and codifying it into law is equally as hard, especially with a deeply divided USA legislature.

I dont expect banning the press from running names/photos to solve everything, i just expect it to be a more realistic success.

Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 5 2019 09:58am)

Prevent has problems but it's problems aren't in victimising people who aren't likely to commit crimes, more in letting some slip through the cracks and some not responding to the program.

Quote (bogie160 @ 5 Aug 2019 16:56)

I believe they have a right to editorialize content, but if they do, they should be held liable to editorial standards.