Add Shoutbox Moderator(s)

[3.455]

+1 if I'm one of them

 

Advertise your store/product for free

Always confirm on-site, Beware of impersonators

[20.291]

still waiting for this :(

hello i'm unbanned after 1 year 

[4.630]

This is a bump

( NEW DOMAIN: LEAKED.TOOLS )


cracked.io/Thread-UserScript-Draft-Tools-v2-Adds-Features-to-Creating-Threads

[863]

Freedom of speech is an often misunderstood concept on reddit. In its purest form, freedom of speech means that people should be allowed to express their opinions without any consequences whatsoever. However, that’s a right that is not recognized anywhere in the world because it leads to illogical results that burden the rights of others. For instance, if your girlfriend chooses to break up with you because she dislikes your ideological views, that is undoubtedly a negative consequence of expressing your free speech, but the notion that society would tolerate free speech forcing her to remain as your girlfriend is patently absurd. If you espouse racially insensitive remarks against a minority client of your companys and are subsequently fired, freedom of speech does not compel your employer to keep you employed. NBC’s Today Show and ABC’s Good Morning America are, similarly, not burdening the free speech rights of minority viewpoints by electing not to allow them to be interviewed on their shows, even if the decision not to, for instance, permit a white nationalist from explaining his/her views, clearly stems from a belief that such views are repugnant.
 
Rather, freedom of speech in the United States and elsewhere is a proscription on the use of government power to burden free speech rights. Examples listed earlier were examples of entirely private conduct being subject to free speech consideration, a result that has never obtained in US courts, nor is it likely to obtain irrespective of whether the Supreme Court is in the hands of liberals or conservatives. Therefore, freedom of speech generally bars the government from penalizing you with jail time or fines for the basic act of expressing your beliefs, and acts as a bar to the government from using its power to enforce a civil judgment.
Even then, freedom of speech is not absolute. In the US there are laws that technically limit freedom of speech and expression: Slander, libel, copyright, hate crimes, sedition and treachery for example. The First Amendment raises the bar tremendously as to the burden required to prove each of these actions, but it does not generally create irrebutable presumptions against them. This is why Anwar Al-Awlaki could not simply invoke the First Amendment as a shield for his activities supporting Al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, nor was it an absolute shield from liability for Rolling Stone in its shoddy reporting on campus rape in UVA after the jury had found actual malice.
 
In a more germane example, freedom of speech also does not mean that public policy encourages an unregulated morass on the internet. Thus, Congress specifically recognized the need for online platforms to self-regulate comments in passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996. §230 of the CDA exempts online platforms from the common law republication rule if websites choose to moderate comments on their platforms. As applied to reddit, this means that the decision to or not to moderate a comment does not lead to liability for the website for the thoughts expressed therein.
In the specific context of this website, so-called “free speech” advocates have taken free speech and its polar opposite of censorship to mean something that it does not. Regardless of what kn0thing and spez have stated in the past, the development of the site has led to the creation of discrete subreddit communities (as contrasted to the single “front page” that existed at the site’s inception) with different cultures and purposes, all of which the sitewide administrators have sought to lend support to. Thus, a subreddit dedicated to news (such as this one) is within its grant of authority to prohibit submitted “articles” from merely being pictures, or the self-written musings of users themselves. Other subreddits might permit ONLY submissions of that nature, and that’s perfectly fine. Unrestricted free speech would hold that such actions constitute censorship – common sense would hold that these are merely expressions of the specific purpose of the subreddits themselves.
Sitewide administrators also require that subreddit moderators enforce sitewide rules prohibiting certain behavior, as listed in the site’s content policy. Free speech is not an excuse to post illegal content, nor is it an excuse that will carry the day if you act in a way that harasses other users (a proscription not recognized by law). In fact, posting of illegal or defamatory content on the site can easily expose someone to criminal or civil liability, and reddit is under no obligation to protect your online identity from entities seeking to subpoena it for liability purposes.
 
Finally, free speech and “censorship” in the context of moderation on subs is also specifically recognized by the sitewide administrators. The content policy also includes a statement on reddit moderators:
Individual communities on Reddit may have their own rules in addition to ours and their own moderators to enforce them. Reddit provides tools to aid moderators, but does not prescribe their usage.
 
This enables community moderators to determine for themselves the appropriate rules for their communities on top of sitewide rules that all communities must enforce. That has led to a diversity of subreddits with varying tolerances for content. Some subreddits choose to enforce only the bare minimum, if even that. Others choose to enforce rules that would damn near take a rules lawyer to understand. On r/nottheonion, we take a middle approach, permitting a wide range of comments as they pertain to civil discourse, but excluding comments that would be uncivil, or offensive. Generally, if users discuss in a manner consistent with how they would discuss matters in the workplace or among a new group of friends, they'd never encounter an issue with moderation. If you believe this to be impermissible censorship, we can only disagree, because the vast majority of users will never be subject to a moderation action, but the site as a whole and the internet in general provide many opportunities for “free speech” that may be free of the reasonable limitations that we find to be necessary to ensure civility.
 
We wish you the best of luck in finding a forum or platform more amenable to your sensibilities, but decline to extend them here.

[4.630]

This is a bump

( NEW DOMAIN: LEAKED.TOOLS )


cracked.io/Thread-UserScript-Draft-Tools-v2-Adds-Features-to-Creating-Threads

[1.557]

I'd like to nominate @TabooAnime for shoutbox mod.

[1.374]

I didn't mean to click no :(

ALWAYS CONFIRM MY IDENTITY THROUGH PM

[1.608]

Has been suggested many times, i personally think there is no need for it, so did the admins few monthz back

-----