Current Events > Users on Far Right free speech website are getting banned for posting Sonic porn

(+) Yeah! (+)

PBusted posted...

lol this is quite ironic. It's the far right who are likely to be socially stunted irl and barely able to speak two words to a cashier. Not to mention, the majority of them wouldn't dare speak their views to the face of one of the demographics they're against lest they get their faces smashed in. And of course, the possibility of them getting "cancelled" so they're the ones most likely to need to hide behind anonymity.

Do you have proof of any of that or?

---

Jabodie posted...

Damn we still got internet tough guys on gamefaqs.gamespot.com. impressive.

On the other hand we have a bunch of minge mops that have nothing but cartoons and trying to be funny.

---

I hope they exclusively posted the weird stuff

---

jon davis posted...

Do you have proof of any of that or?

Common sense. This topic is about how they had to create a whole alt platform specifically for themselves because normal people wouldn't accept them.

jon davis posted...

On the other hand we have a bunch of minge mops that have nothing but cartoons and trying to be funny.

people posting cartoons are much more successful at being funny than you are at looking tough right now just fyi

---

Ruvan22 posted...

@joe40001 Did you really state this?

No. Also I've never defended anti-vaxxers.

When it comes to the covid vaccine I do think all known risks should be public, but I still think it's likely the safest and most prudent response to covid. Not all vaccines are created equal and this one was fast tracked via the EUA so it's not got the same level of safety rigor on it, still it seems very safe when compared to the risks of COVID. So like we shouldn't lie or hide any info on the reality of it, but that's not anti-vaxx that's pro reality.

I have no idea where the anti-homosexual thing is coming from though.

---

jon davis posted...

Do you have proof of any of that or?

Nah, some people really just get off on dunking on people who aren't around to defend themselves and "the far right" are the most socially acceptable punching bags.

These same personality types generally would choose whatever fashionable target the social environment of the time allowed.

---

joe40001 posted...

No. Also I've never defended anti-vaxxers.

When it comes to the covid vaccine I do think all known risks should be public, but I still think it's likely the safest and most prudent response to covid. Not all vaccines are created equal and this one was fast tracked via the EUA so it's not got the same level of safety rigor on it, still it seems very safe when compared to the risks of COVID. So like we shouldn't lie or hide any info on the reality of it, but that's not anti-vaxx that's pro reality.

I have no idea where the anti-homosexual thing is coming from though.

About someone who got banned for being a hardcore anti-vaxxer.


About a pride music video that aired on Nick.

So this joe40001 guy is "pro-free speech", but is also "pro-ban free speech"

---

Tmaster148 posted...

So this joe40001 guy is "pro-free speech", but is also "pro-ban free speech"

Dude's pretty well known for having cognitive dissonance. Also I found these along the way which is pretty funny.

PBusted posted...

About someone who got banned for being a hardcore anti-vaxxer.

That isn't me arguing for anti-vaxx that is me arguing for free speech.

About a pride music video that aired on Nick.

Specifically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xprabkl1LD4

That wasn't "we accept gay people" that was a person in pretty heavy drag on kids tv. And considering even the gay community acknowledges drag as somewhat taboo/transgressive/sexualized it makes sense to ask "is this too much"?

Being a "drag queen" isn't a sexual orientation it's a kind of garrish performative thing that honestly even for typical gay kids might be confusing if you are like "this is what being LGBT+ is"

Finally I do think it's odd to add a racial dimension to sexual orientation and I stand by that.

So Ruvan22, you can see what I actually said, and then you can see how they dishonestly framed it. And considering that they are apparently pseudo-stalking me with logs of everything I said, you know had I ever said something actually anti-vaxx or actually anti-gay they'd have that queued up, but they didn't because I haven't said such things.

I'm pro free speech and I'm not certain drag queens are appropriate for children's television. If that makes me a "monster" so be it.

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm not certain drag queens are appropriate for children's television.

so you don't know. why are you even arguing then?

---

nfearurspecimn posted...

so you don't know. why are you even arguing then?

Because I think it's an appropriate discussion to have.

If I think it's possible it's inappropriate for children then I disagree with people uncritically rubber stamping it.

We should as a society decide what drag culture is, is it a sexual thing or harmless playful camp? Is it a gay thing or has nothing to do with gayness? These answers determine if it's appropriate for kids tv in this context.

---

joe40001 posted...

If I think it's possible it's inappropriate for children

but you don't know that it's inappropriate

---

joe40001 posted...

That isn't me arguing for anti-vaxx that is me arguing for free speech.

Arguing for intentional misinformation and fake news while against porn and pride content on kid shows.

joe40001 posted...

Specifically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xprabkl1LD4

That wasn't "we accept gay people" that was a person in pretty heavy drag on kids tv. And considering even the gay community acknowledges drag as somewhat taboo/transgressive/sexualized it makes sense to ask "is this too much"?

Being a "drag queen" isn't a sexual orientation it's a kind of garrish performative thing that honestly even for typical gay kids might be confusing if you are like "this is what being LGBT+ is"

Finally I do think it's odd to add a racial dimension to sexual orientation and I stand by that.

So Ruvan22, you can see what I actually said, and then you can see how they dishonestly framed it. And considering that they are apparently pseudo-stalking me with logs of everything I said, you know had I ever said something actually anti-vaxx or actually anti-gay they'd have that queued up, but they didn't because I haven't said such things.

I'm pro free speech and I'm not certain drag queens are appropriate for children's television. If that makes me a "monster" so be it.

No, the majority is fine with it. It's clear you're just grossed out by it and you think something grossing you out shouldn't be shown to kids. Well, kids also use social media and hate speech and conspiracy theories are much more inappropriate. And non-loony adults also don't want to see it.

PBusted posted...

Arguing for intentional misinformation and fake news while against porn and pride content on kid shows.

No, the majority is fine with it. It's clear you're just grossed out by it and you think something grossing you out shouldn't be shown to kids. Well, kids also use social media and hate speech and conspiracy theories are much more inappropriate. And non-loony adults also don't want to see it.

You are projecting and wrong.

And yeah a kid can use a computer to access all manner of things, but that doesn't make them appropriate, and that doesn't mean I wouldn't speak up if they showed up on kids tv.

When youtube kids was super fucked up a few years back I was really critical of that too.

This shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9EKV2nSU8w

---

joe40001 posted...

You are projecting and wrong.

And yeah a kid can use a computer to access all manner of things, but that doesn't make them appropriate, and that doesn't mean I wouldn't speak up if they showed up on kids tv.

When youtube kids was super fucked up a few years back I was really critical of that too.

Otherwise there's nothing wrong with drag queens on kid shows. But everyone who's familiar with you knows you're an alt right concern troll. You're not for free speech. Only your own.

PBusted posted...

Otherwise there's nothing wrong with drag queens on kid shows. But everyone who's familiar with you knows you're an alt right concern troll. You're not for free speech. Only your own.

Um, no I'm pretty consistently free speech, whether that means I'm backing the left or the right.

Also you've been shown to be wrong/misrepresenting several things about me and my arguments, so it seems like that misrepresentation is caused by a flaw in your understanding of me.

I'm pretty independent. Maybe that's confusing for you if you live in a partisan world, idk.

And do you really think there is nothing taboo/sexual about drag? And you are confident all of society would agree with that?

---

If porn is part of free speech, then shouldn't porn be allowed on Facebook and GameFAQs?

Orlando_Jordan posted...

If porn is part of free speech, then shouldn't porn be allowed on Facebook and GameFAQs?

No because this isn't a porn site.

It's an ideas/discussion site.

---

joe40001 posted...

Um, no I'm pretty consistently free speech, whether that means I'm backing the left or the right.

Also you've been shown to be wrong/misrepresenting several things about me and my arguments, so it seems like that misrepresentation is caused by a flaw in your understanding of me.

I'm pretty independent. Maybe that's confusing for you if you live in a partisan world, idk.

And do you really think there is nothing taboo/sexual about drag? And you are confident all of society would agree with that?

You already showed in this topic that you're fine with porn being banned on what's supposed to be a site centered around free speech and very mildly sexual things that gross you out but are otherwise harmless shouldn't be shown on kid-friendly shows. It's pretty clear you're generally sex-negative, probably due to still being a forever alone incel in your 30s and as long as you're sex-negative you're not pro free speech.

And society sees dangerous far right idealogy as worse than drag which is why sites ban it so that's not helping your case.

joe40001 posted...

No because this isn't a porn site.

It's an ideas/discussion site.

But Democrats on GameFAQs thought they had a "gotcha" moment.

joe40001 posted...

No because this isn't a porn site.

It's an ideas/discussion site.

There's an entry for nearly every porn game here.

---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

But Democrats on GameFAQs thought they had a "gotcha" moment.

lol

---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

But Democrats on GameFAQs thought they had a "gotcha" moment.

Both those sites also ban people frequently for shitposting, which you're well aware of, which is also free speech.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's an entry for nearly every porn game here.

I haven't dove deep into those, I'd imagine they aren't more explicit than is necessary to discuss tips and strategies for the game. Wikipedia has entries about porn, but that doesn't make it a porn site.

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean in this context.

---

joe40001 posted...

I haven't dove deep into those, I'd imagine they aren't more explicit than is necessary to discuss tips and strategies for the game. Wikipedia has entries about porn, but that doesn't make it a porn site.

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean in this context.

So you're fine with porn being on non porn sites then, such as Wikipedia.

---

PBusted posted...

You already showed in this topic that you're fine with porn being banned on what's supposed to be a site centered around free speech and very mildly sexual things that gross you out but are otherwise harmless shouldn't be shown on kid-friendly shows. It's pretty clear you're generally sex-negative, probably due to still being a forever alone incel in your 30s and as long as you're sex-negative you're not pro free speech.

And society sees dangerous far right idealogy as worse than drag which is why sites ban it so that's not helping your case.

Wow this is like 8 different levels of toxic.

If porn is against the rules of a discussion site that makes sense. And yeah the rules for kids tv are obviously going to be different than the rules of places like twitter or porn sites.

Your inappropriate ad-hominems not withstanding I am very much pro free speech. To be clear about the drag thing, I think nickleodeon has a right to show it, I'm just not sure it's appropriate for children. They probably have a right to just put the "SAW" movies on kids tv but it wouldn't be appropriate.

And saying things like "dangerous far right ideology" is bad faith, when almost half the country finds there to be merit in something, it's not "far right" and IMO this dystopian censorship is more dangerous than most things people on either party are saying. Free speech isn't nearly as dangerous as it's alternatives.

---

Wait, so how is porn not freeze peach?

---

joe40001 posted...

Um, no I'm pretty consistently free speech, whether that means I'm backing the left or the right.

You are literally arguing against free speech right now.

---

joe40001 posted...

And saying things like "dangerous far right ideology" is bad faith, when almost half the country finds there to be merit in something, it's not "far right" and IMO this dystopian censorship is more dangerous than most things people on either party are saying. Free speech isn't nearly as dangerous as it's alternatives.

I'm pretty sure tons of people say dangerous things and it isn't "dystopian censorship" and far worse to call them out on their free speech with free speech

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

So you're fine with porn being on non porn sites then, such as Wikipedia.

I'm fine if it fits within the rules and context of the site. If this free speech site had a subsection for cartoon porn, I'm sure nobody would get banned for posting their sonic porn there. Hell they'd likely be fine if they posted it in the porn section of the site.

I can't tell if people are being delibrately obtuse about this or not, but if a site has porn specific sections it's ok to talk about porn in there in the appropriate context.

It's like you all are asking "is it ok to shit in a IHOP?" And I'm saying "well if there's a bathroom it's ok to shit in there" and you all are acting willfully confused "IS IT OK TO SHIT IN AN IHOP OR NOT?"

It's ok to post porn in porn specific sections of sites, when we are talking about free speech protections is largely the protections of sharing all ideas, not the protection to post graphic images, or screamers, or epilepsy inducing things etc.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

You are literally arguing against free speech right now.

Um no I'm not.

---

joe40001 posted...

Wow this is like 8 different levels of toxic.

If porn is against the rules of a discussion site that makes sense. And yeah the rules for kids tv are obviously going to be different than the rules of places like twitter or porn sites.

Your inappropriate ad-hominems not withstanding I am very much pro free speech. To be clear about the drag thing, I think nickleodeon has a right to show it, I'm just not sure it's appropriate for children. They probably have a right to just put the "SAW" movies on kids tv but it wouldn't be appropriate.

And saying things like "dangerous far right ideology" is bad faith, when almost half the country finds there to be merit in something, it's not "far right" and IMO this dystopian censorship is more dangerous than most things people on either party are saying. Free speech isn't nearly as dangerous as it's alternatives.

So you're either being incredibly dishonest here or you have a serious persecution complex (something else you're known for). Regular conservative opinions are allowed on all these sites. There are tons of proud conservatives on them. It's only hate speech and far right conspiracies/misinformation, the kind that will get you fired for being a piece of shit/an idiot, that get you axed.
In any case, if porn can be against the rules of a discussion site, then so can hate speech and intentional consistent fake news.

joe40001 posted...

I'm fine if it fits within the rules and context of the site. If this free speech site had a subsection for cartoon porn, I'm sure nobody would get banned for posting their sonic porn there. Hell they'd likely be fine if they posted it in the porn section of the site.

I can't tell if people are being delibrately obtuse about this or not, but if a site has porn specific sections it's ok to talk about porn in there in the appropriate context.

It's like you all are asking "is it ok to shit in a IHOP?" And I'm saying "well if there's a bathroom it's ok to shit in there" and you all are acting willfully confused "IS IT OK TO SHIT IN AN IHOP OR NOT?"

It's ok to post porn in porn specific sections of sites, when we are talking about free speech protections is largely the protections of sharing all ideas, not the protection to post graphic images, or screamers, or epilepsy inducing things etc.

They is the crux of the issue. They made gettr specifically to be anti censorship and then immediately began censoring things.

At least the guy who made voat (which has since shut down) was serious about it. Nothing there for censored unless he was legally compelled to do so like child porn which isn't protected free speech anyway.

---

PBusted posted...

So you're either being incredibly dishonest here or you have a serious persecution complex (something else you're known for). Regular conservative opinions are allowed on all these sites. There are tons of proud conservatives on them. It's only hate speech and far right conspiracies/misinformation, the kind that will get you fired for being a piece of shit/an idiot, that get you axed.
In any case, if porn can be against the rules of a discussion site, then so can hate speech and intentional consistent fake news.

Saying lab leak was plausible was banned, and saying it was impossible wasn't. And the former was true and the latter was false. They banned information and supported misinformation.

Maybe if people can't get what is and isn't true right, you shouldn't give them the power to ban it.

Same goes for "hate speech". I PROMISE you, in other right leaning authoritarian states some of the common sense liberal things we'd say would be banned as "hate speech". People on the right even 20 years ago were trying to ban gay acceptance with similar authoritarian nonsense.

If you support authoritarianism when it goes in your favor you are unprincipled.

Also "hate speech" is obviously nebulously defined to police speech we don't like.

"Men aren't women" = Bannable hate speech
"White men are the devil/subhuman" = Not hate speech
"All cops are bastards" = Not hate speech

It's not that hard to understand free speech for ideas is different than posting sonic porn where-ever you want. You know god damn well that you will never post sonic porn here or on twitter or anywhere, because you'd feel they are totally in their right to ban you for such things, so don't pretend like you care or believe in a person's right to post sonice porn whereever they please. It's as simple as "you don't like people on the right, people on the right are annoyed by this trolling, you are getting off on their annoyance."

It's shallow schadenfreude at your fellow human being, and anybody who is largely defined by getting satisfaction over hurting people they don't like isn't a ethical person.

Also it's telling how often you dive back into the well of ad hominin and generalizations.

It's weird how the anti-"hate speech" folks so often have so much damn hate in their hearts.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

They is the crux of the issue. They made gettr specifically to be anti censorship and then immediately began censoring things.

At least the guy who made voat (which has since shut down) was serious about it. Nothing there for censored unless he was legally compelled to do so like child porn which isn't protected free speech anyway.

Maybe they would have dodged this harassment if they were more clear and said "No censorship of ideas". But I think that's pretty clear what they are doing anyway when they are building anti-censorship social media alternatives.

Why was voat shut down?

---

joe40001 posted...

Maybe they would have dodged this harassment if they were more clear and said "No censorship of ideas". But I think that's pretty clear what they are doing anyway when they are building anti-censorship social media alternatives.

Why was voat shut down?

The creator ran out of money. He paid out of pocket for it until he just had nothing left to give. Trump won't have that problem but also doesn't believe in free speech the way there voat guy did.

---

PBusted posted...

So you're either being incredibly dishonest here or you have a serious persecution complex (something else you're known for). Regular conservative opinions are allowed on all these sites. There are tons of proud conservatives on them. It's only hate speech and far right conspiracies/misinformation, the kind that will get you fired for being a piece of shit/an idiot, that get you axed.
In any case, if porn can be against the rules of a discussion site, then so can hate speech and intentional consistent fake news.

Oh also CSPAN testimony on ivermectin was banned from these sites.

A lot gets banned. It's not "far right", it's shit 40% of the country or more thinks has potential merit.

---

joe40001 posted...

But I think that's pretty clear what they are doing anyway when they are building anti-censorship social media alternatives

Yet they censor things they don't like and have people like you defending said censorship.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The creator ran out of money. He paid out of pocket for it until he just had nothing left to give. Trump won't have that problem but also doesn't believe in free speech the way there voat guy did.

That kinda a bummer, he should have got a patreon.

No, trump is maybe the least principled person in the world, he wouldn't have the tech savvy to even hire the right people to build a free speech platform, but if he did the moment it was ready it would get spammed by anti-trumpers, and he would immediately want them banned and the who thing would fall appart.

People saying anti-trump things btw would be something I would be fine with. Really any idea is fine, it's posting porn on a non-porn site and pretending like you don't understand how that's different.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Yet they censor things they don't like and have people like you defending said censorship.

to make it explicit for people who are dense or delibrately obtuse:

I'm pro free speech when it comes to the discussion of ideas, I don't consider the right to post sonic porn anywhere the same thing. Porn is not part of the free exchange of ideas, which is why you can stand on the street corner of the town square and legally say whatever but you can't hold up pictures of sonic porn.

Everybody pretending to be pro-sonic porn would never post such a thing on twitter or facebook and I believe is likely acting in bad faith by trying not to recognize the distinction.

---

joe40001 posted...

to make it explicit for people who are dense or delibrately obtuse:

I'm pro free speech when it comes to the discussion of ideas, I don't consider the right to post sonic porn anywhere the same thing. Porn is not part of the free exchange of ideas, which is why you can stand on the street corner of the town square and legally say whatever but you can't hold up pictures of sonic porn.

Everybody pretending to be pro-sonic porn would never post such a thing on twitter or facebook and I believe is likely acting in bad faith by trying not to recognize the distinction.

So you aren't pro-free speech, because you are making exceptions to free speech based on things you don't like.

---

joe40001 posted...

Everybody pretending to be pro-sonic porn would never post such a thing on twitter

Bruh I got some real bad news for you about what you can find on Twitter.

---

joe40001 posted...

Saying lab leak was plausible was banned, and saying it was impossible wasn't. And the former was true and the latter was false. They banned information and supported misinformation.

Maybe if people can't get what is and isn't true right, you shouldn't give them the power to ban it.

Same goes for "hate speech". I PROMISE you, in other right leaning authoritarian states some of the common sense liberal things we'd say would be banned as "hate speech". People on the right even 20 years ago were trying to ban gay acceptance with similar authoritarian nonsense.

If you support authoritarianism when it goes in your favor you are unprincipled.

Also "hate speech" is obviously nebulously defined to police speech we don't like.

"Men aren't women" = Bannable hate speech
"White men are the devil/subhuman" = Not hate speech
"All cops are bastards" = Not hate speech

It's not that hard to understand free speech for ideas is different than posting sonic porn where-ever you want. You know god damn well that you will never post sonic porn here or on twitter or anywhere, because you'd feel they are totally in their right to ban you for such things, so don't pretend like you care or believe in a person's right to post sonice porn whereever they please. It's as simple as "you don't like people on the right, people on the right are annoyed by this trolling, you are getting off on their annoyance."

It's shallow schadenfreude at your fellow human being, and anybody who is largely defined by getting satisfaction over hurting people they don't like isn't a ethical person.

Also it's telling how often you dive back into the well of ad hominin and generalizations.

It's weird how the anti-"hate speech" folks so often have so much damn hate in their hearts.

On Twitter and Reddit? I don't believe that. Maybe if they insisted it was true, not saying it's a possibility. If we're talking about here, this site is both stricter, and the mods act on the history of the users so they know if someone is being malicious about it or not. Though, this site also does ban cartoon porn so it's harsher in general.

Those authoritarian countries also ban porn. It's ironic how you were the one pushing about how it's fair game for a site to prohibit porn yet when it's pointed out the same thing applies to unwanted posts now you're suddenly talking about countries.

And it also shows how dishonest YOU are when you intentionally twist examples to make your narrative sound better. Nowhere is "men aren't women" considered hate speech. I don't see accounts who repeatedly push "white men are subhuman" keeping their accounts for long, and cops are a voluntary occupation.

And no, porn falls under free speech. I do support Twitter and Reddit allowing them and think Tumblr is stupid for banning them. Although yes, kind of the whole point is that Twitter and Reddit are supposed to be accessible to the mainstream so them banning more stuff is understandable. Gettr's whole appeal being about free speech and allowing things the other sites don't becomes meaningless and hypocrisy when they still ban the things they personally are offended by. At that point it's not about free speech, it's just about them wanting their little racist circles.

joe40001 posted...

to make it explicit for people who are dense or delibrately obtuse:

I'm pro free speech when it comes to the discussion of ideas, I don't consider the right to post sonic porn anywhere the same thing. Porn is not part of the free exchange of ideas, which is why you can stand on the street corner of the town square and legally say whatever but you can't hold up pictures of sonic porn.

Everybody pretending to be pro-sonic porn would never post such a thing on twitter or facebook and I believe is likely acting in bad faith by trying not to recognize the distinction.

This is wrong. There are many "ideas" that you can't yell out to the public like encouraging terrorism, harassment, and shouting the personal information of others out in the open. There are also charges like disrupting the peace you can get from them and more and more states are considering it a hate crime. Porn itself is only prohibited due to outside charges and not because it doesn't fall under free speech.

PBusted posted...

On Twitter and Reddit? I don't believe that. Maybe if they insisted it was true, not saying it's a possibility. If we're talking about here, this site is both stricter, and the mods act on the history of the users so they know if someone is being malicious about it or not. Though, this site also does ban cartoon porn so it's harsher in general.

Those authoritarian countries also ban porn. It's ironic how you were the one pushing about how it's fair game for a site to prohibit porn yet when it's pointed out the same thing applies to unwanted posts now you're suddenly talking about countries.

And it also shows how dishonest YOU are when you intentionally twist examples to make your narrative sound better. Nowhere is "men aren't women" considered hate speech. I don't see accounts who repeatedly push "white men are subhuman" keeping their accounts for long, and cops are a voluntary occupation.

And no, porn falls under free speech. I do support Twitter and Reddit allowing them and think Tumblr is stupid for banning them. Although yes, kind of the whole point is that Twitter and Reddit are supposed to be accessible to the mainstream so them banning more stuff is understandable. Gettr's whole appeal being about free speech and allowing things the other sites don't becomes meaningless and hypocrisy when they still ban the things they personally are offended by. At that point it's not about free speech, it's just about them wanting their little racist circles.

Facebook for sure it was banned, maybe yt and twitter. Yt has taken down the CSPAN ivermectin testimony and a fair amount of stuff like that.

Porn and discussion of ideas are obviously different things. No ideas are being suppressed by limiting porn to appropriate areas, like I said, even the law recognizes this. You can say crazy ideas on the public street corner but you can't show porn on the street corner.

Somebody did get banned for saying "men aren't women"
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a

Here are twitter results for "white men are the devil":
https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=%22white%20men%20are%20the%20devil%22&src=typed_query

And "white men are evil"
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22white%20men%20are%20evil%22&src=typed_query

To be fair I did search "black men are evil" but didn't really find any where the person was saying it instead of suggesting somebody else was implying it or thinking it.

---

PBusted posted...

This is wrong. There are many "ideas" that you can't yell out to the public like encouraging terrorism, harassment, and shouting the personal information of others out in the open. There are also charges like disrupting the peace you can get from them. Porn itself is only prohibited due to outside charges and not because it doesn't fall under free speech

You are being obtuse though.

If you have an online site that is pro free speech and you clearly mean "something that isn't illegal to say in public" it's bad faith to say "BuT wHaT aBoUt DoXxInG? BuT wHaT aBoUt SoNiC pOrN?"

You know exactly the distinction I'm talking about, a free exchange of ideas is quite clear what that means and it doesn't involved doxxing, crimes, or sonic porn.

If it helps you "Totally free speech, but not a place for porn."

---

joe40001 posted...

If it helps you "Totally free speech, but not a place for porn."

So it's not free speech.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

So it's not free speech.

If you consider posting porn everywhere you want (which is something society does not consider legal) to be "free speech" then yes, not totally free speech because it's a place about the exchange of words and ideas, and not porn.

I seriously doubt anybody is confused by this distinction and I think people are just being obtuse because they want to run these people off twitter, but that's not enough and they also want this people not to find a new place.

They support a company's right to do what it wants on twitter, but not on twitter alternatives.

What are even your rules? Companies can do whatever they want so twitter bannings are justified? If so you have literally no argument against this site banning porn.

---