kuro5hin is gone

forever

*lubes up for some corpse fucking*

The Creator of Kuro5hin:
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rustyk5

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609308

Good riddance. The nigger was against free speech:

Foster closed off new user accounts because a photoshopped pornographic image of his wife had been posted.

free speech

The first amendment guarantees you neither platform nor freedom from consequences of speech.

>>5
Fuck you, yes it does. That's exactly what freedom of speech IS.

_{Freedom of consequences from the government, that is.}

Read a book, brother. Inciting speech is specifically NOT covered under the first amendment. Did you not have anyone to give you the example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as a child?

Platform is similarly not covered, specifically because avenues for speech (such as Hacker News) are a privilege provided by other individuals under their control (exercised by banning you as a nuisance). Internet forums are not courtrooms nor the floor of a legislative body. DO NOT conflate "gubberment interjection" and someone banning you from a forum because you're an asshole.

>>7
Read a book, sister. When someone says "free speech" in the context of a private forum or discussion, they usually know that privately banning certain speech isn't illegal, so correcting someone on this legal point is pedantry. The point is that the admin has the OPTION to allow free speech. If you believe in the value of uncensored discussion, then you won't ban people for what they say. Users like me will migrate to better less restrictive discussion platforms like progrider.org.

>>7,8
Get your prescription checked.

>>7

shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

Shouting "FIRE" is whistleblowing, which is free speech. Although some evil people will tell you that it is just smoke, there is no fire, and the heat is negligible and comes from bad ventilation, while the flames are actually part of the show.

checkemcheckemCHEKCEMMMMMEMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>>5
Incorrect. It only guarantees you a platform insofar as you cannot be deprived of your basic rights for exercising free speech. No one is OBLIGATED to offer you a platform - a university is not compelled to let you give a speech there, a movie theater is not compelled to show a film you made, etc - as forcing them to do so would infringe on THEIR rights. All "protected speech" means is that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict it. Criticism of the government is "protected speech", but that does NOT mean that websites are required to give you a platform to criticize the government. What it means is that the government cannot order websites shut down because they provide a platform for criticism of the government.

When we talk about a website or other private institution supporting "free speech", that really has nothing to do with the Constitutional concept, rather it's a policy of tolerating opinions that the owners of the website disagree with.

However, I'd be reluctant to classify a website as being against free speech simply because it bans people for posting pornographic photoshops of someone's wife. At that point it's not really expressing an opinion or view, it's essentially a personal attack that goes against all standards of human decency. At that point, banning it isn't censorship, it's maintaining the quality of posts in a community.

>>12
What if it's naked pictures of politicians?

>>13
Go to bed, Anthony Wiener.