>Consider 4chan to be one of the final bastions of what i

>>61556403
before worrying about the code you should consider the sort of people it takes to administrate something like that.

not only the heat from the media (and law enforcement agencies) but also the ethical dilemma when publishing something like pro-pedophile articles.

>>61556517
right now there is so little traffic I am able to manage it alone. over time i plan on releasing an admin panel where others can manage with me too. though Content would only be deleted If it infringes on the basic human rights others would have as well. I thought about this a lot and put most of what I think on the rules section

>>61556620
>human rights

I hope you don't mean the UN or even legal definition of it, because if so, your website is already fucked from within.

that's what I meant. it takes someone absurdly objective to allow something that disgusts them.

>>61556517
Disclaimer
What are my rights as a reader?
You have the right to stay 100% anonymous in your reading.
1stAmender.com is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. The reader may assume that the writer of the article is solely responsible for the content that is displayed.
It is your right to decide whether something is a reportable offense. The moderators are the people.
It is your responsibility to report "victim-based" crime. (A person using drugs is a non-victim based crime. Advocacy of child pornography is a victim-based crime.)
It is your responsibility to assume writers stay on topic in their content. (e.g. an article featuring NSFW material must be about that NSFW material)
It is your responsibility to ensure that rumors are clearly stated as a rumor as the article 'type'.
It is your responsibility to ensure that opinions are clearly stated as an opinion as the article 'type'.
It is your responsibility to report plagiarism.
No account is needed to report, rate, or read articles.
It is your responsibility to ensure that articles are content-rich and not spam (e.g. irrelevant and/or inappropriate messages not suitable as a news article)
If you choose to donate to a writer's article, you assume loss of anonymity due to third party accounts through PayPal
What are my rights as a writer?
You can write with anonymity in mind. 1stAmender.com will protect your identity.
You cannot post content that advocates a victim-based crime. (e.g. child pornography, murder, theft. However reporting on these subjects is okay. You just cannot condone crimes with a victim.)

Cannot Post:
Advocacy of child pornography.
Advocacy of murder
Advocacy of harming people
Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person.
Items subject to copyright / patent claims.
Content that is clearly spam. (e.g. irrelevant and/or inappropriate messages not suitable as a news article)

You Can Post:
NSFW (Not Safe For Work) content provided there is no victim
Racism, provided it does not advocate physical harm of others.
Hateful speech. Provided it does not advocate with the intent of physical harm of an organization/person.
Drug advocating.
Anti-copyright / anti-patent advocating.
General news / subjects outside of the status quo, provided it does not physically harm anyone.
An article ABOUT child pornography, murder, harming of people, physical harm of people, however cannot advocate that behavior.

1stAmender.com is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. A writer may assume that they take on all responsibility for any content posted.
Anonymity is key as a writer. You may reveal yourself at your own discretion in your own articles for credit.
A writer may post rumors as long as it is clearly stated as a rumor as the 'type' of article.
A writer may post opinions provided it is clearly stated as an opinion as the 'type' of article.
You cannot plagiarize. 1stAmender.com is a site that condones free individual thought. You must post sources if you are to quote someone.
When you accept donations, you assume responsibility of paying individual taxes/regulations. You also assume responsibility that your anonymity is lost when you accept funds.
A writer's articles are subject to removal if they break these rules. 1stAmender.com will protect your rights to freedom of speech. Hateful or not, provided you do not write articles condoning crimes containing a victim.

while I applaud you for your work I have to say, I think you're in the wrong century for freedom of speech

>>61556709
>Cannot Post:
>Advocacy of child pornography

see, you fucked up already.

>>61556769
No, he's in the right. Kiddyfuckers are the cancerous bronies of the free speech world.

>>61556769
that infringes on individual freedoms and therefore is not okay.

>>61556784
and they deserve free speech just like everyone else.

you can't make a website hellbent on free speech and deny that with a straight face. that's hypocrisy at its best.

File: 1479910395335.png (487KB, 608x653px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 608x653px

>no https
>loads nonfreejavascript from fagbook/etc

fix that shit.

>>61556821
Yes there is a facebook share link. Though I don't see it performing any data mining after checking it. I do plan on getting https to secure it better. Right now though no PII is requested when signing up or writing. You can write whatever you want. Though just so you know... I do plan on getting it but SSL is expensive to maintain.

>>61556793
>that infringes on individual freedoms
so do calls for murder

>>61556793
on /what/ individual freedoms? because, as far as I can tell, one is looking at pictures of a crime. it's no different than gore threads on /b/.

you could argue it's infringing on the child's right to privacy but what about videos and pictures than don't show their faces?

you can't use the law (much less the UN) as guidelines. you can't be the last bastion of free speech and still abide by rules that seek to limit it.

>>61556854
Child pornography does infringe on rights because the child is not able to come to a sound decision with an underdeveloped brain. Because of this: No amount of advocating child pornography is allowed.

>>61556878
Still censoring free speech. Your site it shit, fuck off

>>61556854
Looking at gore isn't a crime

>>61556903
I explained to you my basic reasoning and I feel it is a reasonable thing to uphold. Nothing I stated is outside of normal cognitive thinking.

>>61556762
Ah yes, we should go back tot he 20th century, to the prudish "please don't release that book Orwell" UK, the East communist block, the fascist Czech or Spain, the communist Cuba, or America where you might get called a Commie and blacklisted and no sex or swearwords allowed, maybe communist China, or the middle east when fundamentalists took over.

>>61556878
neither are drunken sluts but their videos are littered all across the internet.

also, what is an 'undeveloped' brain? are you even familiar with the human psyche or are you just parroting whatever your attorney told you to? 18 and not a minute less am I right?

you should quit while you haven't spent much on it. your outlet is no different than fucking Gawker.

>>61556941
what makes you think I was talking about the 20th century?

>>61556924
Sure but it's not when you are claiming to be a free speech site and slap a bunch of bullshit down no matter how much hand wavy reasoning you give. Either be full free speech with the only restrictions being legal ones or rebrand to what you really are, just shitty pet project with nothing original or good about it

>>61556945
Jeez we have an actual pedo trying to defend pedophilia

>>61556906
exactly. so why is c"p" any different?

>>61556924
>and I feel it is a reasonable thing to uphold

it's not. I mean, sure it is. but it clashes with your ideology. just like every other news outlet out there.

so your website is kinda useless.

>>61556945
Actually it's like 16-17 in most US states, about half are 16. Some places like in Mexico are 12, really varies.

>>61556403
So, I'm free to come to your site and post negative things about Trump and other liberal propaganda?

>>61556945
Okay. I feel like I am arguing with devil's advocate here so I will try to approach this with a very open mind that in fact what I know to be wrong and what you feel should be right.

>Drunken sluts
It is quite often when 'being under the influence' can negate a contract depending on how bad it can be. This is apparent in contract law and it is generally understood to be fully cognitive when signing for a contract. If a woman feels it is up to them to decide what to do with their body it is their choice.

>Underdeveloped at 18.
Honestly I think an underdeveloped brain is more along the lines of 25 and under. There are still cognitive processes that still develop even into your 30 years old. But with that being said to keep it as simple as possible... 18 is fine.

>No different than gawker
Explain I really have no realistic concept of Gawker but if I can answer your question I will.

>>61556964
There is not a century in which your speech would have been as free and most of all protected as it is now.

design is atrocious goddamn

>>61556973
>can't refute something
>resort to name-calling

EVERY TIME

and I'm not talking about pedophilia exclusively. this is why we, as a society, can't move forward.

because of sentimental fucks like you.

>>61556793
>infringes on individual freedoms

this is one step from "we need to monitor internet to not allow terrorists to use it in their quest to infringe on individual freedoms"

note that I'm not a libtard but this shit is extremely hard to balance right and better minds than you have tried

>>61556993
>There is not a century in which your speech would have been as free and most of all protected as it is now.
except any time before mass media when as long as you weren't shittalking the king or God you could do whatever the fuck you wanted

>>61556987
Yes. And so are nationalists. The point is to allow an even ground for everyone to say what they want.

>>61556762
Free speech has always been restricted. The left wants to ban all speech they find offensive and the right wants to ban all speech they find degenerate. Nobody actually wants completely unregulated free speech no strings attached.

>>61556965
>>61556977
It's as if pedophilia is condoned on this website. The lack of moderation on some board is a different story.

>>61557075
Boards*

>>61557011
>The King
>The nobles
>God
>The Clergy
>the military
>Anything written in the bible
---------------------------------------
>whatever the fuck you wanted
Tell that to Socrate, Jesus, Seneca, Lavoisier, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Spinoza, the Huguenots, and many others.

>Guy posts cool website
>/g/ asks: Why no child porn
>Guy reasonably explains why not
>/g/ spergs out.

>>61557124
They all criticized exactly the entities you listes

>>61556991
>It is quite often when 'being under the influence' can negate a contract depending on how bad it can be.
a woman 'under the influence' can't consent. but a quick Google search will net you hundreds of thousands of 'amateur' drunken sluts. on the clearnet nonetheless.

following your post chain one could assume that's the same as cp, except nothing is done about it and there's no stigma if you masturbate to it.

>Honestly I think an underdeveloped brain is more along the lines of 25 and under.
and you're right. but you should look past that, otherwise we wouldn't function as a society. rather than brain development you should be overanalyzing sexual development and the concept of consent itself.

the mind of a child as old as 5 is, theoretically, sexually matured. of course this varies greatly and their bodies mature at a different rate, but there would be no lasting psychological damage other than behavioral/societal.

also, what is consent? legally, in some places someone as old as 12 can consent according to >>61556980. but that invalidates 'regret' as a concept, at any age. which is absurd. 10 year olds are also sometimes more mature than a 30-something airhead.

>Explain I really have no realistic concept of Gawker
Kotaku. what I meant is that your website is no different than literally every other 'freedom fighter' out there.

you can only post what's in line with 'socially acceptable'. that's not free speech.

>>61557149
>a woman 'under the influence' can't consent. but a quick Google search will net you hundreds of thousands of 'amateur' drunken sluts. on the clearnet nonetheless.
Viewing "rape", obviously the shit on the internet is staged, is not illegal. Viewing cp is

>>61557075
moot made it very clear that 4chan had rules and, despite its nature, wouldn't allow some content.

you came here proposing a place for freedom of speech, something we are all in dire need of. but then you yourself come up with restrictions, like everywhere else.

so it's fucking nothing.

>>61557133
That's hyperbole but here's your (You).

>>61557166
no you fucking idiot. OP said that a child can't consent. well, neither can someone under influence.

that means that real, amateur/leaked videos in which the woman seems to be enjoying herself should be treated as cp.

rape has nothing to do with this.

>>61556784
>>61556793
>>61556793
Advocacy of child pornography is different from posting it.

>>61556839
>SSL is expensive to maintain.
StartSSL of what is treny right now.

There are so many places to publish writings on the internet. Why would anyone publish there?
The site is also ugly. If you can't make it pretty, at least make it functional but minimal. like danluu.com
Also is this some kind of joke? When I open a story, see the source, I notice that the entire story is literally a copy paste from some other site.

>>61557228
Not fucking really tho

>>61557308
it is. something like 60 years ago you could buy it on newsstands. then there was a massive push by feminists to criminalize it.

I won't even bother with the fact studies show that it cutbacks on actual abuse, outlawing media is fucking absurd.

>>61557188
I'm not the one you were arguing with previously.

>>61557376
>I won't even bother with the fact studies show that it cutbacks on actual abuse, outlawing media is fucking absurd.
Oh, really? You won't bother with evidence for a ridiculous claim? And let me ask you something - how does it get made? In an ether, without any human beings and no suffering surely, but only in your mind.

>>61557602
I won't even bother because you can easily google it you mong.

>>61557628
>I won't bother providing a source for a ridiculous claim
>Mong
There it is, you did it. Pedophilia and child pornography don't harm anyone and should be encouraged. I can only hope you and many posters who actually agree with you are not serious.

>>61557740
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

first result, mong.

but before you quote the correlation, word by word, it's important to observe the societal differences between a 1980 pedophile and a modern one. in short, back then the users were also the producers/abusers. they're a lot less bold now.

>how does it get made?

the same way it always did? you're confusing legalizing cp- or rather, the viewing of criminal footage- with abuse. producers would still be prosecuted. nothing would change.

>>61556709
>Cannot Post:
>Advocacy of child pornography.
...and you already have more limits on free speech than Reddit.
leaving+and+taking+my+loli+with+me.jpg

>>61557851
>Viewing criminal footage
And how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted? What changes do you propose? Not prosecuting criminals and people with psychiatric disorders? What's more, even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient.

>facebook and twitter botnet integration
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D

>>61556839
>SSL is expensive to maintain.
cloudflare provides free SSL certificates if you don't mind signing up for their botnet

>>61557965
>What's more, even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient.
Just to add to this - what's the most sensible thing a rational person would do in this situation? Since you're advocating for a position which isn't peovable - the answer would be to wait for adequate research and not hold an unreasonable opinion until such research surfaces.

>>61557308
Yes it fucking is. It does not physically anyone to discuss anything except what can be directly used to harm someone.

>>61558008
Provable*

>>61557986
This, a site like OP's will probably need something like Cloudflare anyway.

File: 1500562008124.png (57KB, 221x221px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 221x221px

>Using the same font as Garrys Mod

>>61557965
>And how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted?
places like LiveLeak, WorldStar, BestGore, etc. render this point moot, really. there's also 20 years old stuff out there. in most cases the perpetrator has already been caught and the victim is in her mid 30s.

>What changes do you propose?
legalizing the viewing of such footage to begin with?

>Not prosecuting criminals and people with psychiatric disorders?
of course not. abusers should still be prosecuted.

>even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient.
because their studies are mostly biased and don't account for the societal factor, like every other psychological study.

>>61558008
focus on the practical use? there are a handful of countries who experimented with it and, in most cases, abuse was reduce. I'm trying to find a particular study but I don't remember much about it.

the whole thing was quite enlightening.

>>61558062
I'm at a loss for words at this point, but I'll try. You agreed with me that abusers, child pornography producers and criminals in general should be prosecuted, but in the same breath there's "in most cases the perpetrator has already been caught and the victim is in her mid 30s", along with "legalizing the viewing of such footage to begin with"? Don't people who endure abuse want justice and don't the victims undergo psychiatric treatment after the incident? How is it moral to create a demand for illegal child pornography even if older perpetrators were caught and sentenced? I hope you also realize that pedophilia is classified as a psychiatric disorder and governments along with tech companies do everything in their power in most cases to stop the distribution and demand for it.

>>61558180
Here's a very interesting example of my "in most cases" remark:
https://youtu.be/esKnWAIgpLY

>>61556403
Holy fuck, that registration nag is fucking awful. That alone makes me not want to use the site.

For most people who are avidly reading the news and opeds online, the information density is very low. Move the "you may also like" to below the article and make it much smaller. Make the default font size on the actual article smaller. Decrease the size of the header image. Move the author information to the bottom.

You also have to consider that if you're going to have author's username's publicly listed, people are going to start shit with specific authors just because they know what their previous bent is. You're nowhere remotely close to as free there as you are here because no matter what you say here, odds are 99.999% that you won't be found out unless you specifically out yourself. Usernames encourage powertripping and flame wars.

All the content appears to be is people reposting articles from other sites. It's fine that your site is a mirror, but it would behoove you to move all such content into a different section.

>>61558180
>You agreed with me that abusers, child pornography producers and criminals in general should be prosecuted
abusers/producers yes, not 'criminals in general'. that's a very broad categorization and the law isn't always right, let alone just.

>Don't people who endure abuse want justice and don't the victims undergo psychiatric treatment after the incident?
this has nothing to do with viewing criminal footage. or media in general, really.

>How is it moral to create a demand for illegal child pornography[...]
the morality of it is not up for discussion here and is, quite frankly, irrelevant.

>[...]even if older perpetrators were caught and sentenced?
what I meant is that these cases are closed. have been closed for years. you said 'how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted?', what I meant is that, in these cases, that does not apply.

>I hope you also realize that pedophilia is classified as a psychiatric disorder
wrongly. it's an orientation no different than homosexuality. but of course, due to political and societal reason, this cannot be acknowledged.

>and governments along with tech companies do everything in their power in most cases to stop the distribution and demand for it.
again, wrongly. for all the reasons I've listed time and again in this thread.

honestly, whenever this topic comes up the replies are always the same and in the vain of 'I can't even'- I'm at a loss for words, I can't only hope you're not serious, etc. no one is objective enough to discuss it, even though you could literally buy this shit in newsstands years ago.

>>61558247
Yes I am sorry I wanted to promote. Though if you register the nag goes away.

>>61556793
Advocating for pedophilia will cause the website a lot of problems and will alienate the rest of the users on the website, thereby restricting their freedom.

Since this project is a concrete one rather than an idealistic one, OP shouldn't be bothered about unachievable ideals.

>>61558391
Exactly. This is what I mean... I can't be pro pedophilia because three reasons:

1. Infringes on the individual rights of the child
2. It is a victim-based crime. Not non-victim based.
3. It does alienate other users.

>>61558391
congrats, that's how modern feminism works. I hope you're proud of yourself.

>>61558412

Then don't pretend you're a bastion of free speech.

>>61558351
Even you can acknowledge that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and you're still advocating for it. Just as how psychopaths can't be cured, neither can pedophiles. I think that any further discussion is futile.

>>61556403
it's ugly as shit, mate

>>61558464
>Even you can acknowledge that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder
re-read my post. I clearly say it's a sexual orientation. and psychopaths can be cured. it's just not worth the hassle.

but you're probably right, people are too emotional and lacking in psych knowledge to tackle the subject objectively.

>>61556403
>No https
Dropped

>>61558442
It is a proponent to freedom as someone elses freedom is just as important as your freedom. I don't think this is hard to understand.

>>61556403
Make a website where you host opinions, debates etc of people from all sides and origins what free speech means for them. Thats more productive than some 4vhan clone i guesd

>>61556403
The problem is that you're going to shit you pants the next second someone fills up an abuse email against you

Plus there is no anonymity on your website, anon, connection is not encrypted so ISPs can spy on who writes which article

Plus you have an FTP server and Plesk control panel looking straight into internet

Brush up your computer skills and come back later

>>61558527
except (if you're OP) your definition of 'individual rights of a child' is skewed. and the 'it alienates other users' bit is just laughable.

what you said is basically just a cop out. you can pretend all you want but your website is yet another safe space.

>>61558427
That's how most societies work.

>>61558503
>but you're probably right, people are too emotional and lacking in psych knowledge to tackle the subject objectively.
And yet, you're not providing any sources.
>re-read my post. I clearly say it's a sexual orientation. and psychopaths can be cured. it's just not worth the hassle.
This is simply not true. Everyone can make claims. That doesn't make them true because someone made them (on an anonymous image board of all places).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17418075
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23793393
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/195539

>>61556709
>Advocacy of child pornography.
>Advocacy of murder
>Advocacy of harming people
>Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person.

Yeah but what if its satire?

>>61558514
I will get this.

>>61558550
Thats what this is.

>>61558576
How do you tell me "if it doesn't advocate child pornography then it isn't for me."
What kind of argument is that? That's insane man. We're not talking about not using trigger words but actual advocacy of child pornography. I had no idea I would recieve this kind of backlash. Though I think you are just one guy and most of /g/ agrees with me.

And a child has an underdeveloped mind and cannot make sound decisions without a parent. How can you say that it's okay reasonably?

>>61558576
You assume ideal forms can exist in real life. The way you imagine freedom can't exist in real life.

>>61558584
and that's why OP came up with this, to fight that notion. except he himself is doing it.

>>61558616
proof of that particular claim, that people are too emotional, is that you yourself turned the conversation from 'c"P" is no different than criminal footage and thus shouldn't be outlawed', which was my original point, into the morality of pedophilia.

homosexuality was also a psychiatric disorder. Aspergers was purged because reasons. ADHD meds were pushed into every misbehaving kid in the '90s and now the same is happening with autism. how do you explain that? how could they be so massively wrong?

if you trust the DSM or the psych community you're a moron. I'm part of it and I know it's all about funding and titles.

>>61558576
>if you are not advocating child diddling you are not free speech
that's pretty desperate . I know for pedos like you this is very personal and if it's not good enough for you you can fuck right off

>>61558616
We're not arguing about psychopathy here necessarily, but just for a good measure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422648
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24469633

>>61558631
>How do you tell me "if it doesn't advocate child pornography then it isn't for me."
>What kind of argument is that?
you're putting words in my mouth. what I said is that you can't think of yourself as a freedom fighter, the last bastion of free speech on the internet while censoring X.

>And a child has an underdeveloped mind and cannot make sound decisions without a parent.
we've already been through this here >>61557149. at least I think I was responding to OP.

>>61558679
it can. just don't censor anything. whether that's a viable political strategy and the aftereffects of publishing controversial material is an entirely different matter.

>>61558726
At this point not only are you arguing for the morality of pedophilia, you're also pointing out potential financial biases as if those are provable. Not to mention that you've crossed into the realm of conspiracy theories. Again, any further discussion is futile and I've sadly seen that I was right.

>>61558796
only a state entity can censor, duh. a private entity not allowing your degenerate shit isnt censoring but a right

>>61558735
more like
>if you don't allow for people to advocate for child diddling you are not free speech

there's a difference. a very important one.

>>61558827
it's in any way a reductio ad absurdum to make some retarded point.

>>61558798
>conspiracy theories
homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder. how do /you/ explain that without sounding as crazy as I am?

and I'm only discussing the merits of pedophilia because /you/ brought it up. my point is that criminal footage shouldn't be illegal. that's it.

Jesus Christ this thread has turned into a shit show. It happens every time.

>>61558878
not at all. it's a very realistic scenario that pedophiles need an outlet to publish their opinions.

you don't have to have pro-pedo articles to be free speech. that's how feminism and inclusiveness work. but you do have to allow for it to be full free speech.

besides, just advocating for it doesn't hurt anyone's freedoms, unlike what OP seems to think.

>>61558926
you dont seem familiar with the overton window. if pedos need an outlet so they can make one.

>>61558951
and that's not the point you moron.

>>61558926
It violates and causes 'physical' harm to a victim. How the fuck can you advocate that...

Even if I did advocate it my website would get taken down so fast if I were to allow it anyway.

>>61558926
and I want to add that paedophilia isnt some idea that needs discussion and dont need a discussion

>>61558967
advocating for pedo rights doesn't harm anyone. it might indirectly do so, but that's irrelevant. otherwise you might as well ban feminism, #blm, etc.

>how the fuck can you advocate that...
>and I want to add that paedophilia isnt some idea that needs discussion and dont need a discussion
I don't know, how the fuck can you advocate against free speech? because, to me, it's leagues more important.

my guess is that people are just biased and unperceptive of things they don't understand, quickly to censor those that scares their perceptions.

>Even if I did advocate it my website would get taken down so fast if I were to allow it anyway.
not really. lots of big news outlets publish minor pro-pedo articles.

>>61559036
unreceptive*

>freedom of speech discussion
>immediately pedo defenders swarm the thread

Fucking always. Can't you move away from these topics for once? Freedom of speech isn't just about a single issue.

>>61559036
yes you take the most extreme thing you can think off and make it conditional to agree with you or you are not for free speech. good one. go on your own website and advocate there as much as you want and stay the social pariah you are. I dont care.
see Im for free speech as much as you.

>>61559036
Advocating for pedo rights result does directly harm someone. It harms many and encourages a behavior that physically harms others. It's like being 'pro-lynching' and and stating that the advocation itself doesn't harm people directly. That's insane.

>>61559090
you must be a special kind of retard.

it's not conditional. you can't ban something and then say you're full free speech. be it pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia or even left-leaning articles which have a billion other outlets and would probably be shunned by your userbase.

it's really that simple and it's fucking ludicrous that I have to explain it to you.

>>61559139
of course I can. it's my RIGHT to do so. you are confusing state entity with private entity. common mistake of child diddlers.

>>61559139
>necrophelia
OP here. In this case, while I would hate to see pro-necrophilia would technically not cause harm in another human being unless someone is witnessing it. So if someone wanted to be pro-necrophile there wouldn't be an issue.

>zoophilia
Now it's got a physical victim. That's the difference.

>>61559068
>freedom of speech discussion
>unpopular viewpoints that actually depend on freedom of speech get brought up
Popular viewpoints aren't the ones that need freedom of speech. OP showed himself to be just another person who doesn't actually support free speech despite claiming to.

>>61556403
>More and more websites increasingly adding restrictions on what you can and cannot write.
>Be a php coder and decide to make a website with no money or donations that allows people to continue writing whatever they want.

>Cannot Post:
>Advocacy of child pornography.
>Advocacy of murder
>Advocacy of harming people
>Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person.

Really Makes You Think !

>>61559101
not exactly. the idea behind ideological movements is to fix wrongs. the LGBT movement wanted what was rightfully theirs, for example.

and like it or not, there are wrongs being committed against pedophiles. I know this sentence sounds absurd and shouldn't exist, but it's true.

so whether it indirectly harms someone is irrelevant, yes. feminism argues that white protags or sexist designs indirectly harm women, and thus lots of things are being censored. same applies here.

>>61559235
so make a valid point defending pedophiles. That would be okay. Advocacy of child pornography would not be as it involves a physical victim.

>>61559158
you can, but you'd make a fool out of yourself. kinda like you're doing right now.

it's logically impossible to be full free speech and ban something.

>>61559192
you're still missing the point. advocating for something doesn't directly harm anyone.

what you're saying makes no sense. I can't physically harm someone by saying 'bang'.

>>61559273
wrong again. you have no right to impose your shit on others.

>>61559273
Not him, but how do you not understand the principles of supply and demand?

File: ygctw.gif (992KB, 250x169px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 250x169px

>>61559273
>I can't physically harm someone by saying 'bang'.
But you can bring emotional harm ;_;

>>61559258
child pornography is really just footage. footage of a crime, particularly. the 'porn' classification is arbitrary.

and the viewing of criminal footage should not be a criminal offense.

these are all valid points.

this has.. turned into a trash fire. I am sorry /g/.

>>61559210
>Really Makes You Think !
Kill You Self Back To >>>/pol/

>>61559319
footage... and in order to obtain said footage you need to have physical harm to create. You are physically harming a child for your desire.

>>61559322
What, pointing out OP's hypocrisy makes me a /pol/ poster, or is there some other dank meme I'm not seeing?

>>61556801
No they deserve to be GULAGED

>>61559296
>impose your shit
>your shit

logic isn't 'my shit', anon.

>>61559305
doesn't really matter when production (or rather, abuse) would still be illegal and offenders prosecuted.

the way I see it, it'd greatly help with actual abuse cases, more so than the abuse resulting from new rings to meet that demand.

>>61559346
I stated in the guidelines that you cannot advocate in the physical harm of others. The reason for this is to prevent people from mobbing or actually causing harm to one another just for shits sake. Freedom of speech is not covered if you are physically harming people for your advocation because "you" in essence are depriving the other individual of their freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

>>61556945
But drunken sluts made a concious decision while they were sober to drink alcohol

>>61559379
That has already been discussed here:
>>61557851
>>61557965
>>61558008

>>61556403
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are a fucking idiot.

>>61559340
So should most of the stuff on liveleak be illegal then? Should a good portion of guro shit be illegal as well?

>>61559340
you're not making any sense. yes, you have to commit a crime in order to record footage of said crime. and, sometimes, people are harmed in the making of it.

you're still viewing it as porn, not criminal footage. not to mention there's probably enough material as it is to suppress one's urges.

if porn was outlawed today I think we'd all be fine with the various yottabyte available.

>>61559381
watch out there OP, pedoscum think child porn leaves everyone happy.

>>61559379
shit is what the owner of the website defines as shit. and it's not impediment of free speech because he is not from the government. huh, how about that. your whole logic is a sly play of hands to trick some simple minds into agreeing with you.

>>61559416
Please. Quantify.

>>61559426
Does it deprive someone of their individual freedoms? Does it cause physical harm to someone? Yes. You should ban it as it does not advocate in overall individual freedom.

>PHP
Fucking dropped
Learn some proper language.

>>61559457
95% of dynamic websites use PHP including facebook, youtube, google, etc.

>>61559408
yes, and? my point still stands.

>>61559452
So basically you're a normalfag who wants tons of regulations on the internet. Fuck off back to facebook, or better yet consider suicide.

>>61559474
you are advocating the physical harm of other people Hitler.

File: PKM SMASH.gif (1MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 384x288px

>>61559494
If I share a video of someone being assaulted on liveleak, or post a GIF of it here?

>>61559494
he thinks that a right that is in place to protect citizens from the government means other private people need to accept everything he sees as free speech. common mistake.

>>61559467
Post source on google and youtube using php.

>>61559474
...and I want very little regulation on the internet. The only regulation that stands is something that would impede in the individual freedoms of another person. An SJW has no right to impede on other individual freedoms from 'non-pc' censorship because that in essence deprives someone of their freedoms.

Allowing someone to advocate child pornography deprives the child of their freedoms. That child cannot make the sound decision on their own as to whether or not they want to be a part of a film nor understand the ramifications of such a request.

>>61559469
What point?
>>61557965
>What's more, even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient.

>>61559446
>your whole logic is a sly play of hands
like what you're doing right now? because the line of thought goes as follows:

>OP creates a thread saying he wants an outlet for real freedom of speech
>except you can't post X, Y or Z
>logically he's an hypocrite full of shit

the governmental definition doesn't apply here, sweetie. yes, we all know he's in his right to deny whatever material he wants. but he also said that he wanted to do the opposite.

>>61559452
>Yes.
>You should ban it
>ban LiveLeak

holy shit, OP. for someone who says they treasure freedom of speech you sure don't seem to have a problem censoring stuff.

>>61559381
Yeah, and other sites that limit what you can write are also sure their limitations are as reasonable as yours. Your claim in OP that you are different is hypocrisy.

>>61559562
yes honey he can allow as much of free speech as he wants and you cant live without it because he doesnt allow your kind of shit.

>>61559551
>What point?
that the principle of supply and demand doesn't apply here because offenders would still be prosecuted.

>>61559494
>>61559533
you're saying to ban LiveLeak. you're saying to censor people from viewing criminal footage because it offends the victim's freedoms, which is wrong.

your website is corrupted from the beginning.

>>61559588
Still makes him a hypocrite considering what he wrote in OP.

File: 1455237289442.jpg (93KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 620x670px

>>61559533
>expressing support for a viewpoint that I don't agree with is equivalent to censoring viewpoints I support
It's like I'm arguing with actual children.

>>61559588
free speech is not a conditional term. you can't ban something and say you're 'pro full free speech'.

>Cannot Post:
>Advocacy of child pornography.
>Advocacy of murder
>Advocacy of harming people
>Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person.
>Items subject to copyright / patent claims.

Fucking liar. Like I understand clapistan is a shitty place but you couldve hosted in a better place if your afraid of laws.

>>61559603
>that the principle of supply and demand doesn't apply here because offenders would still be prosecuted.
Shouldn't something that causes real world and human harm be discouraged?

>>61559637
of course you can as private citizen. you have no obligation to allow anything on your property. it is your RIGHT to exactly do so.

>>61559620
not at all. you still confuse the difference between state and private entity.

>>61559669
discouraged, yes. not censored.

>>61559672
you don't seem to understand that OP did not make that distinction. he leads us to believe that his website was an outlet for 'full' freedom of speech, as in in state definition.

he was clearly lying.

>>61559704
did he anywhere claim he is from the government? if you imply something without evidence then you are the idiot here.

>>61559672
>not at all. you still confuse the difference between state and private entity.
The fuck did that come from? State? How is state related to this?

You are a hypocrite because you are accusing other sites of limiting what their users can write, while doing the same thing yourself.

>>61559718
are you autistic? I never implied he was. what I said is that OP implied his website allowed freedom of speech without conditions.

of course he's free to do as he pleases with his own website, but he was misleading about it.

>>61559719
...something very very basic. to not allow child pornography to be on the site. My site will get taken down for that and then nobody can post anything if that happens.

>>61559719
you are talking shit. you think op has to tolerate everything because else it wouldnt be free speech. but guess what he doesnt have to because he isnt the us government and has the right to allow and disallow what he seems right and it does not infringe free speech. and so is everyone else.

>>61559758
no. you just implied free speech = absolutely everything needs to be tolerated

>>61559767
advocating for child pornography or pedophilia in general is not the same as posting child pornography.

If you are going to post being pro-pedophilia.... I feel like the guy who is advocating for pedophilia deserves to make an article being pro and his/her own thoughts... I will go ahead and change the rule listed to state something along the lines of : "no child porn" in general... not really advocation of it... but actual child porn. Does that satisfy you sir? I feel like you have a point and that we can come to a satisfied medium here.

>>61559782
>no. you just implied free speech = absolutely everything needs to be tolerated

which is exactly what OP leads us to believe by condemning other websites for censoring content.

>>61559767
Yeah, and like I wrote previously, everyone who limits what their users can do believes their limitations are reasonable. That's not an excuse.

>>61559782
I'm not saying he can't. He can. But considering what he wrote in OP that makes him a hypocrite. He still can continue his basic functions as a human being as a hypocrite, it's not a death sentence.

>>61559457
>>61559531
fuck off javashitter

File: 1500839357692.png (309KB, 495x451px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 495x451px

Seems the world is very full of "read these terms so you can't sue me for the dumb shit you pull".

Whatever happened to personal honor? Why must the world cater to wrongdoers?

whats the point of 'free speech' if its just gonna end up as another alt-cuck circklejerk repressing actual discussion?

>>61559811
fair enough. you shouldn't be hosting cp anyhow.

>>61559811
Pedoscum always complains about lack of free speech but wouldn't dare or have the mental capacity to write an article. There's no reason to enable them, they'll never produce anything.

>>61559812
he cant censor. he is not the government

>>61559813
>b-but at least call him hypocrite so I can have my pyrrhic victory
"no"

>>61559855
maybe because it's a death sentence if it ever goes public?

I'm sure homosexuals were view under the same light a few decades ago.

>>61559868
you really are autistic aren't you? censor, limit, control. whatever word you want to use.

OP implied he wouldn't do it. that's clearly not true.

>>61559868
That was the only thing I came into the thread for. I'm not interested in neither his site nor pedophilia. It's a total victory.

File: writers.png (32KB, 942x420px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 942x420px

Done. I changed the rules and now reflects live on the site. The rule being a slight modification to state that it does not advocate being able to 'post' child pornography itself, and not necessarily advocation of pedophilia.

>>61559890
words have meaning, anon. even if you try to use them as interchangeable in some subversive jewish tactics.

>>61559811
>I will go ahead and change the rule listed to state something along the lines of : "no child porn" in general... not really advocation of it... but actual child porn. Does that satisfy you sir?
Why not just go with "no posting anything that violates the laws of whatever country the site is hosted in"?

>>61556973
Where do you think you are?

File: 44549669_p27.png (588KB, 835x840px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 835x840px

>>61556403
>try to read one article
>faggot window pops out
Keep trying.

>>61559392
>Implying sluts can make conscious decisions while they were sober

>>61559929
Becuase sometimes laws are in itself wrong. I believe being forced to pay taxes is wrong but that is just me.

>>61559958
o'okay.

>>61559926
yes, and we were also gifted with common sense to adjust and understand sentences that escape that established meaning.

except for autistic people, sadly enough.

>>61559918
>More and more websites increasingly adding restrictions on what you can and cannot write.
>Be a php coder and decide to make a website with no money or donations that allows people to continue writing whatever they want.

>cannot post advocacy of murder
>cannot post advocacy of harming people

>>61559918
it's better, but you still have a long way to go. specially with the usage of the word 'advocate'.

it's not clear whether one can advocate for child pornography. one should. one should also be able to advocate for the harm of other people, death sentence for example.

you should really just scrap that and judge articles on a case-by-case basis.

and why would you ever host cp? that's asinine. no need for that rule.

>>>/g/wdg/
They might like it and give you advice on how to improve.

File: file.png (41KB, 821x367px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 821x367px

>>61560068
Very well. lets see if I can tweak. I agree with you here.

>>61560022
yes ad hominems make your argument so much better

>>61560162
what are you going to do to prevent your community from not instantly turning into diarrea?

>>61560180
Well to tell you the truth I am expecting a mixed bag. I expect to see people very positive in their notions as well as very negative. I've had libertarians, socialists, pagans, christians post on my site and all having varied points and sometimes they've had some really really good points! Despite being on a side you may not agree with. This is why I made the site. I don't know that there is much of any site without having some sort of 'clique' type segregation of groups versus just making a melting pot.

>>61556403
The site looks dead, put more articles on the front page.
So many categories, do you even need them at this point?

>>61560257
I did have this initially. The problem ended up being that the homepage didn't load fast enough for mobile. So I just posted some categories and removed the algorithmically generated articles. The site needs more people writing to make it feel less dead. Either that or I create a randomization script and scrap my algorithm from showing relevant results to make it appear that articles are being loaded constantly.

>>61560257
Made the generic news article generation now use a 'rand' function for outputting articles. I suppose after the site gets bigger I will change it back.

Thanks for the advice guys...
Magic of modification of algorithm to be temporarily random.

anything else? this seemed to have died off.

bump for self interest

File: 1500716836407.jpg (20KB, 300x374px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x374px

tldr freedom online is dad

Go ahead OP, but nobody will care.

Anyone got that slide from the lisp restrospective which shows what we need (world peace, etc) vs what we want (dank memes, etc)

>>61556709
>Cannot Post:
>Advocacy of child pornography.
>Advocacy of murder
>Advocacy of harming people
>Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person
It's shit.

Someone outfile'd a shell and is ending this abortion of a site, your welcome sonny.
Free Speech is great.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>php

>>61556403
>free speech
>posting traps on blue boards get you banned
>calling people sonyggers on /v/ gets you banned for flame war
Nah this place sucks, but it's better than anywhere else
/b/ is all porn but /pol/ is fun

>>61556709
>Advocacy of murder
kys?

>>61561585
i removed that rule.

>>61556403
There is litterally a frog site that let you do this aslong as you don't.spam.

>>61561638
link?

File: Screenshot_20170726-004424.png (179KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 720x1280px

Man it's too big

>>61558967
There's not always physical harm. """I've heard""" about a video where the girl takes it all inside. And the guy's dong was really huge.

>>61559210
French posters are cute

>>61562490
hard refresh. I fixed this issue.

>>61556403
>freedom of speech

That was never really the point of 4chan

the whole "4chin is for freeze peach" thing is a myth spread by leditors who were used to their self moderated retard club

what you can post on 4chan is restricted in the same way most normie social media sites are, it's just that 4chan doesn't have as many mods as other sites do, probably because the mods aren't payed

>>61563110
the lack of restriction was always there for a very long time.

Thanks for the good advice. As for the design of the site... I don't know. I may tweak as I go onward but it is what it is right now.

>go to your site
>redirects me to 1stamender.com
one stamender
one whole stamender

>>61565992
lol havent you ever seen "1st" place before?