Should 8chan be shut down?
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
oldngray
nowhere special
I believe that's CharlieChan.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
I use cloudflare for security on all of my websites, including this one. 8chan must have used cloudflare for hosting. I don't blame them for dropping that domain. Bad publicity. There are a gazillion other hosting companies in many different countries that will gladly accept 8chan's money.
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.[2] However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.[3]
The First Amendment's freedom of speech right not only proscribes most government restrictions on the content of speech and ability to speak, but also protects the right to receive information,[4] prohibits most government restrictions or burdens that discriminate between speakers,[5] restricts the tort liability of individuals for certain speech,[6] and prevents the government from requiring individuals and corporations to speak or finance certain types of speech with which they don't agree.[7][8][9]
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct,[10] speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.[11][12] Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander), and communications while a person is in prison. When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed invalid and the government bears the burden of convincing the court that the restriction is constitutional.[13]
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.[2] However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.[3]
The First Amendment's freedom of speech right not only proscribes most government restrictions on the content of speech and ability to speak, but also protects the right to receive information,[4] prohibits most government restrictions or burdens that discriminate between speakers,[5] restricts the tort liability of individuals for certain speech,[6] and prevents the government from requiring individuals and corporations to speak or finance certain types of speech with which they don't agree.[7][8][9]
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct,[10] speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.[11][12] Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander), and communications while a person is in prison. When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed invalid and the government bears the burden of convincing the court that the restriction is constitutional.[13]
Yeah, and you wonder why those who use TOR, visit websites like, subreddits, 4 chan, 8 chan, etc... come on this benign website that restricts bikini-clad women, cleavages, and dick pics... Oh, the Irony. 
A
A
Troublemaker...Yeah, and you wonder why those who use TOR, visit websites like, subreddits, 4 chan, 8 chan, etc... come on this benign website that restricts bikini-clad women, cleavages, and dick pics... Oh, the Irony.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Is kneeling speech?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
The internet and the tech industry in general used to hold libertarian leaning ideals about freedom. Now they're being taken over by fascists and Communists from the left and right.
Power is being centralized and the exercise of control over speech and ideas will only get worse.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
There’s no right enumerated in the Constitution that doesn’t have restrictions, but that’s not even what we’re talking about.
Yes, power centralizes, but it’s not clear to me why I should care that Cloudflare (a business) kicked a ‘chatroom’ for extremists off its rolls.
Tell me why I’m wrong.
I support cloudflare's decision to stop hosting 8chan. That's my personal opinion, not anything legal whatever.
Terminating Service for 8Chan - cloudflare
Rule of Law
We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone.
Instead our concern has centered around another much more universal idea: the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent. While it has been articulated as a framework for how governments ensure their legitimacy, we have used it as a touchstone when we think about our own policies.
Terminating Service for 8Chan - cloudflare
Rule of Law
We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone.
Instead our concern has centered around another much more universal idea: the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent. While it has been articulated as a framework for how governments ensure their legitimacy, we have used it as a touchstone when we think about our own policies.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
8chan owner says El Paso shooter didn't post manifesto
8chan owner says El Paso shooter didn't post manifesto
He implies the gunman used an Instagram account that hasn't been active in more than a year.
Jim Watkins, the owner of the 8chan message board, suggested in a YouTube video that the document had been loaded to his site by a different user. Watkins, who appeared in front of an image of Benjamin Franklin, said the site had made law enforcement "aware" of the manifesto when it appeared.
"First of all, the El Paso shooter posted on Instagram, not 8chan," Watkins said in the video. "Later, someone uploaded the manifesto. However, that manifesto was not uploaded by the Walmart shooter. I don't know if he wrote it or not, but it was not uploaded by the murderer; that is clear."
8chan owner says El Paso shooter didn't post manifesto
He implies the gunman used an Instagram account that hasn't been active in more than a year.
Jim Watkins, the owner of the 8chan message board, suggested in a YouTube video that the document had been loaded to his site by a different user. Watkins, who appeared in front of an image of Benjamin Franklin, said the site had made law enforcement "aware" of the manifesto when it appeared.
"First of all, the El Paso shooter posted on Instagram, not 8chan," Watkins said in the video. "Later, someone uploaded the manifesto. However, that manifesto was not uploaded by the Walmart shooter. I don't know if he wrote it or not, but it was not uploaded by the murderer; that is clear."
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Fake news.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Ya it's weird, a dozen people have chimed in to say that, even though no one ever suggested otherwise.
I'm not talking about if they CAN silence unpopular beliefs, I'm talking about if they SHOULD.
For starters, it's not just a chat room for extremists. It's like kicking Reddit offline because some users in one subreddit say some racist stuff. That's ridiculous.
Last edited:
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Soooo...
No restrictions, anywhere, anytime, even for businesses, to enforce a non-right.
K
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
It's all about $ bro. Ttku..
El Correcto
god is dead
The Christchurch shooter not only posted his manifesto and Facebook live stream there, the thread was left up for damn near max replies with no intervention by moderators, while neo-nazis posted things like “rolling for many dead
skins.”You can still find the entire archived thread and view what these “people” do for the shooters. Record and distribute their attacks, remix the video for laughs with music, idolize the man as Jesus in memes, create memes mocking the victims.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I'm suggesting companies who hold the keys to the internet should feel obligated to not suppress speech.
I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting. Seems like you just don't care because it's something you disagree with that's being silenced.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
You need to learn your place boy.
Speaking of money, the government never reimbursed my family when they freed your ancestors. I demand reparations.
El Correcto
god is dead
They will suppress anything bad for business.
There will be another company that hosts it.
I was mainly talking about people who wanted to use government to intervene. That’s where it gets dangerous in my eyes, when government can start fining platforms for what people say on them.