stop posting bad things

go away, do not post unsavory content on this website

Bad posts get deleted, bad threads get moved to /anarchy/ every morning. Did we miss something? Report it on IRC or /test/.

>>2
nigger

>>3
Posts like this aren't "bad" per say and won't be deleted, because it is a meme not hate.

What's interesting is that https://dis.tinychan.org/read/anarchy/1542018741 got moved to /anarchy/ while https://dis.tinychan.org/read/lounge/1542018965 remains on the live board. The mods are antisemite trannies, in other words leftists? Who knew......

>>4

per say

Just burger things

Now, what fucking pussy urban sheltered nu-male would want censorship on an anonymous text board? Back to your safe space.

>>7
It's only censorship when valuable ideas inconsistent with your agenda are actively suppressed.
Like when Trump's minions suppressed scientists wanting to talk about well known fact that is anthropogenic global warming or demanded that medical experts refer to literally brainless embryos as if they were people.

When it's trad-pedo-fash shrieking about fall of empires, it's not censorship, but cleaning - like removing dick graffiti some tard sprayed on a building you own.

>>8

like removing dick graffiti some tard sprayed on a building you own.

Deplatforming people is censorship, whether you like it or not. The organized, pervasive campaign to maintain ideological purity of a platform will eventually turn over to use these tools on people you like(prob leftist radicals) and then you will scream "censorship" as well.

>>9

REEEEE removing CP is censorship, muh free speech grants me the right to force free people to host my traditional child rape photos and videos on the platforms they fund, manage, and keep accessible

>>5
I'm sure this thread didn't get moved. You know people can post on /anarchy/, right? It's not just /lounge/'s garbage can. Stop falseflagging.

>>10
There is a crucial difference:
1.CP is illegal.
2.Having different political opinions is legal.
You're trying to mix the two under the umbrella of "radical free-speech"(which isn't a traditionalist concept, ironically but an expression of modern liberal democracy).

>>12

Having different political opinions is legal

False. It's often illegal.

>>12

which isn't a traditionalist concept, ironically

How is that ironic? Nothing of value is a "traditionalist concept" and I would thank you to return to your jb peterson subreddit immediately.

>>10

REEEEE removing CP is censorship

Is it not?

muh free speech grants me the right to force free people to host my traditional child rape photos and videos on the platforms they fund, manage, and keep accessible

Free speech is a principle, principles do not give you any right. Laws do.

>>12

1.CP is illegal.

Removing it is still censorship. If a newspaper removes an article about secret CIA torture because it is illegal to talk about it it is still censorship.

CP is a victimless crime. Moreover, if you make CP illegal, then pedos, instead of watching CP, will go to raping real children.

>>16
Pedo detected

>>15
I don't know what you're talking about. The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. The right to free speech is quite substantially a law in the US. The Supreme Court protects political speech. There has been so much online coverage of CIA Black Sites and other secret CIA programs because that's political speech. And, online speech is protected to the point of being a little extreme.

Child pornography is obscenity. CP is illegal because its production endangers children. Writing some opinion piece doesn't harm anyone physically like penetrating a child after emotionally manipulating him for a few months, and potentially alienating them from their family. Being involved in CP creates emotional damage that the child will deal with for the rest of his life. CIA agents have the full protection of the US government; children don't, really. So even though some agents were put in danger by the political speech that revealed their identities, they have the resources to deal with it the pushback while children don't.

Censorship only covers political content. The Supreme Court is openly paranoid about "chilling effects" of censoring any kind of political speech. But removing child pornography? This is not censorship because the production of child pornography harms children whether it was created with the intention of being a political statement. You can murder people to make a political statement, but you will always go to jail.

>>18

The Constitution is the highest law in the United States

The 1st amendment is the part of the constitution that recognises the principle of free speech as a human right. It is not the principle of free speech itself that predates the founding of the United States of America.

Child pornography is obscenity

Child pornography is provably free speech. But specifically for the USA, consider the following:

Zimmermann challenged these regulations in an imaginative way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,[16] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program (or conceivably enter it as a type-in program if OCR software was not available), creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment

and

After four years and one regulatory change, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional

Now, consider someone distributing CP by printing a book that contains the source code a program that prints a base64 representation of a CP jpeg. Are you sure that this is not protected under the First Amendment?

CP is illegal because its production endangers children

A sane law would illegalise only its production (and maybe also illegalise funding it) then. The distribution and having cp harms nobody.

Writing some opinion piece doesn't harm anyone physically like penetrating a child after emotionally manipulating him for a few months, and potentially alienating them from their family

Cool, so illegalise child rape, nobody is against that.

Censorship only covers political content

I disagree, censorship can cover basically anything.

This is not censorship because the production of child pornography harms children whether it was created with the intention of being a political statement

I find this illogical as only the production of CP harms children. I do personally disagree that removing something that harms someone is not censorship but even when not taking this into account removing CP is censorship because its distribution and display harms nobody.

Should longposting be banned?

>>19
Code and child pornography are completely different things with completely different functions. I applaud the Supreme Court's protections for basically all of our internet uses. Check out Dendrite v. Doe for anonymous protections. It's great!

Technically, censorship only refers to political speech. You're right, though, the term can be applied in a looser way, too.

Also, child rape is illegal, which makes complete sense. Allowing people to have child pornography encourages the production and demand for new child pornography, which harms children. Also, what about the kids in the photos? Don't you think they should have some say as to whether their images are viewed by virtually an infinite amount of strangers?

>>20
Long shitty posts, yes.
>>19
Free speech does predate the founding of the USA

>>221
Stop that, just stop posting right here. Stop. You're doing irreparable damage to the public perception of your character.

>>23
this

>>23,24

You're doing irreparable damage to the public perception of pedophilia, its free speech, you bigoted cis-male.

>>25
Edit me (24) out this post please. Edit me out.

>>26
Delete you lolicon collection first.

>>21

Code and child pornography are completely different things with completely different functions

You can encode all CP as code, even code that does something of value, so meh.

Allowing people to have child pornography encourages the production and demand for new child pornography

Does it? I would argue the reverse.

>>22

Free speech does predate the founding of the USA

This is exactly what I said..

Also, what about the kids in the photos? Don't you think they should have some say as to whether their images are viewed by virtually an infinite amount of strangers?

No

censorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Normal person:

I don't want to see disgusting imagery that is known to be harmful to those depicted and to viewers, therefore I support those companies, which use their right to free speech not to replicate said imagery

Moron:

REEEEE don't prevent your servers from replicating my traditional child rape porn with nazi hats on, you commie
Free speech means I have the right to force others to propagate my own far-right, pedo, nazi ideals
Preventing your privately-owned servers from replicating my attempts at normalization of child rape is censorship and will slippery slope into mandatory sex reassignment surgery for all white males

>>30

harmful to those depicted

No

and to viewers

This is why you are putting the viewers to jail for 10+ years if they are seen with possession of cp, right?

Free speech means I have the right to force others to propagate my own far-right, pedo, nazi ideals

Funny, far-right/nazism are the ones calling to ban pornography.

Preventing your privately-owned servers from replicating my attempts at normalization of child rape is censorship

It is by definition.

>>31

Funny, far-right/nazism are the ones calling to ban pornography.

Yeah, all those MGTOW incel MRAs whining about feminist LGBT commies taking away their forbidden fap are totally left wingers complaining about far right.

It is by definition.

OK, now you have to repeat "I have turned myself into a pickle" over and over.
If you do not do that, you are guilty of censorship and thus are a hypocrite.

>>32

whining about feminist LGBT commies taking away their forbidden fap

Never heard of that.
In any case, you always see these old right wing people whining about porn and games not being banned.

If you do not do that, you are guilty of censorship and thus are a hypocrite.

I presume that your point is that a privately owned site can't be guilty of censorship, which makes sense in the way that you put it. But we still have the government enforcing cp censorship.