I should be able to advocate my ideology.

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Listen magnora7, you, as the administrator of a big internet forum are not supposed to let your personal biases come into play when managing content on your forum.

It's not a matter of personal bias. You are advocating for an ideology based in violence. If antifa started a sub where they advocated and coordinated violence they would get banned too.

If you are offended by a banner, you are a big snowflake. Therefore, I conclude this statement by saying that u/magnora7 is gay.

Really showing everyone what you're bringing to the table here. And the answer is: not much.

I am leaving the decisions in the hands of saidit users. Should I get banned or should I not get banned?

First off, your use of future tense just shows how delusional you are. You have already been banned. Additionally, your use of "leaving the decisions in the hands of" makes you sound like one of those sovereign citizens that believes they're only subject to the rules if they personally agree with them.

Finally, as has already been said, there are websites that accept your ideology (Voat, /pol/, Gab, etc). Presumably the reason you don't want to use them is that you know they're shitholes, but that's generally what happens when a website has no content moderation policy. That's just the reality you have to contend with if you want to advocate for an extremist ideology like Nazism.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Even in the United States a group that is inherently advocating for subversion of the state is subject to monitoring, especially if their primary avowed method to establish that subversion is through violence instead of persuasion or popular vote. If he thinks he's allowed to express a desire to violently overtake the duly elected representatives of the state as "free speech", and commit to declaring a plan of action to do so, he's going to swiftly find the federal courts don't agree with him on that score.

It really comes down to a matter of planning. Outlining a plan to force such an overtake is exactly that step too far and runs directly afoul of conspiracy related laws to boot. Hosting such content, with such outlined plans, and with such an inherent manifesto of violence, runs afoul of every nations laws including those of the United States. I would argue so does hosting ANTIFA content as it does the same thing.