So much for "free speech"

submitted by [deleted] from self.Incels

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

You can post anything other than advocating violence (which includes glorifying mass shooters)... if this is too restrictive for you then saidit is not for you. Otherwise nothing is going to change

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not that I would want to, but that directly goes against the idea of free speech. Like the op said, if someone posted something praising Stalin or Mao or Hitler or American pilgrims and settlers you wouldn't care beacuse they are historical figures, yet each of them genocided tens of millions. And one random guy who is a meme somehow constitutes "advocating violence".

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Saidit has limits. It always has. You make cogent points, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and a post appearing to praise someone who is only known for their mass shooting, is not good.

[–]curryvirgin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Appearing to who, known to who, as judged by who? I suppose the only relevant answer to all of this can be, 'saidit global admins'. Is there fear of a host refusing service to saidit, etc., if the wrong impressions can be made by passersby of innocuous content?

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, the admins are responsible for site-wide decisions. How could it be any other way? We made the site, we draw the lines. We have been very consistent about the lines we draw.