Thread 941869675

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON THE USA INTERNET IS DEAD. THERE IS MORE FREEDOM FOR USERS ONLINE IN RUSSIA!

t. fuck censorship and weird "groups" censoring others not allowing them to freely express themselves. the supressiion is unreal and the end of the usa freedom of internet.

want true internet freedom? move to russia and use russian internet services. end of story
>vid may or may not related

>it's true
What's the point of living in 'muh free society' when Russian online users and services have more freedom than you?

Has the USA lost the concept of 'freedom of expression' especially online?

Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction. These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

>>941869675 (OP)
“NOOO. YOU CANT CUM ON A PICTURE OF THIS PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WASNT EVEN BORN IN THE USA AND FUNDAMENTALLY WONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESSION"

>the absolute state of freedom in the U.S.A.

'these people', pic rel, have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they choose using many methods and the available disposable funds and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large groups


Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

>>941869675 (OP)
Valid thread
>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED


> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.

Bro finally figured out their goal

>>941869730
That’s crazy lol. Foreign actors are determining what is and what isnt freedom of expression in the U.S.A.
When they aren’t even American or born in the U.S.A.

Or even grew up here?
How are these foreigners able and allowed to speak on what USA citizens should and how and can be allowed to freely express themselves online via the first ammendment?

When will Florida seize 4chan.org and X.com?
>4chan stolen nudes
>4chan nudify/ai fake/deepfake threads
>both have porn
>both allow pics of kids
>both based in USA

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50

Valid thread

>pic related
this would get you prison time if this was a pokimane in 2025

>>941869856
>Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.
It's an old method and it's been used on tribute sites for years. they're trying to arrest/imprison/de-home the admin for some unknown reasons


>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

>>941869765
>> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.
>>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.
>Bro finally figured out their goal
kek

>>941869711
Kek

>>941869711
>“NOOO. YOU CANT CUM ON A PICTURE OF THIS PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WASNT EVEN BORN IN THE USA AND FUNDAMENTALLY WONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESSION"
>>the absolute state of freedom in the U.S.A.

>>941869929
>>pic related
>this would get you prison time if this was a pokimane in 2025
true
and harassed by [...] goons

Is the end to freedom of expression online for men in the United States?

>yes, and you can thank a potential hostile foreign actor

The absolute state of freedom in the U.S.A.

>>941869982
"They are prioritizing the surface-level offense of the parody over the clearly stated context and intent of the platform."
"It’s a failure to understand genre and platform context. They are treating a work of satire like a news bulletin."
"They are too busy looking for something to criticize that they ignore the explicit rules of the sandbox they are playing in."
"They are fulfilling the prophecy: They are the fools the disclaimer warned us about."

>>941869730
Public figure's feelings take priority over your personal 1st amendment freedoms and right to parody images or fair use context content transformation in the USA in 2025.
>Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

They probably just have more money and connections and lawyers than you could ever dream of affording.

>>941869929
Why is this so sadly true in the USA with the ‘first ammendment’?

I’m nearly certain that users in Russia would have no problems posting something like this with a public figure image in 2025

>In the USA it gets you prison time

>>941869730
Rt

They probably have more money and connections and lawyers than you could ever dream of having or affording.

Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

These people and their orgs/groups have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they want using multiple different methods utilizing their the gross amount of available disposable funds, connections, and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large groups/orgs

>TL;DR

USA freedom of expression online is dead.
Russian internet services AND Russia users have WAY MORE INTERNET FREEDOM.

>USA lost the internet wars.
But wait “muh YouTube Facebook and TikTok”
>implying your whole population wants to use mainstream woke bullshit websites.

It’s so sad our freedom of expression is so blatantly censored at the benefit of foreign and potentially hostile nations.

>video may or may not be fucking related.

>>941869675 (OP)
is thats your brother? thats gay fap with brothers

Wait..
So that’s what all those posts were from 2021-2024.

>>941869689
Wow
I always wondered who was behind the Trïbütë censorship

>and it’s not even a fucking USA citizen

The absolute state of men’s freedom of expression online in the USA.
>kek

>>941869675 (OP)
At your trial be sure to take NO plea deals and specifically push for a jury trial that you know will set new section 230 case law into effect

>actually the true end of free internet in USA
>dudes homeless and doesn’t care about prison time for decades

The absolute state of the USA free internet.

>>941869675 (OP)
Valid thread
>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED


> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.

Bro finally figured out their goal

>>941871245
True

>>941871183
>>dudes homeless and doesn’t care about prison time for decades
Valid.

>>941870553
>>941869765
>> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

Daily reminder that freedom of expression in the USA on the internet is dead.

Clearly labeled Parody content and transformative content isn't allowed in the USA if it involves a specific person from specific groups.

Allowing users to express themselves "on their domain or corner" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person, in real life, or on 'main stream' platforms.

>>941869982
>>941870282
If all else fails just call the other person a "pedo".

Even 'Elon Musk' knows this.

>>941872589
even better if you have 'goons' or 'methods' to make the statement appear true and factual.

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50

>>941872663
>Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.
the original video accent
>kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfNXsbpSsU

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.
>I wonder if we can do the same in real life and land someone in prison
>or just destroy their livelyhood, ability to work, and make them isolated, homeless, and crazy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Legal disclaimer: this entire thread is parody or satire

>>941869929
Valid Take.

Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

'these people', pic rel, have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they choose using many methods and the available disposable funds and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large orgs/groups


Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

>>941873218
'these people', pic rel, have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they choose using many methods and the available disposable funds and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large orgs/groups


Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

Clearly labeled Parody content and transformative content isn't allowed in the USA if it involves a specific person from specific groups.

>these type of people have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they choose using many methods and the available disposable funds and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large orgs/groups

Allowing users to express themselves "on their domain or corner" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person, in real life, or on 'main stream' platforms.

when is 4chan.org going to be seized?
>kek

>>941862993
>stolen nudes
>>941870728
>real nudify/deepfakes

>Foreign actors feelings are determining what is and what isn't freedom of expression in the U.S.A.

The absolute state of freedom in the United States in year 2025.

>>941873573
>>Foreign actors feelings are determining what is and what isn't freedom of expression in the U.S.A.
>The absolute state of freedom in the United States in year 2025.

Daily reminder that freedom of expression in the USA on the internet is dead.

Clearly labeled Parody content and transformative content isn't allowed in the USA if it involves a specific person from specific groups.

>The 4 years of blatant takedown attacks clearly weren't enough for some people to show the platform was clearly being maliciously targeted.

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50

is there a new alt website up already or?

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50

>this face is the end of true freedom of expression online for men

enjoy your new russian overlords

Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

>>941869819
>That’s crazy lol. Foreign actors are determining what is and what isnt freedom of expression in the U.S.A. based upon how their 'talent's "feel"'

>>941872589
Kek
> If all else fails just call the other person a "pedo".

>Even 'Elon Musk' knows this
and Drake the musician

In 2025 peoples feelings determine the extend of your “freedom of expression” online.

That’s fuckin crazy.
USA freedom is gone bros.
There is more freedom on Russian internet services.

>>941869675 (OP)
In 2025 Russia you go to jail for posting a joke in 2009

>>941869675 (OP)
>Isn’t that admin like homeless, lost everything, and in debt like over 100k+ , and family “killed”?
>How the fuck is Florida and the us govt. still harassing that dude?
>This isn’t protecting freedom of speech or trying for justice.
>It’s malicious harassment where they want life ending results.
>The new discord method is a literal direct copy of the attack done to that tribute platform for an entire 4-5 years.
>To see they’re still siezing entire global domains in Oct 2025 is really something else.
>Fuck censorship and fuck these evil people harassing and infringing on other people’s first amendment .
>Live free or die

under a trump admin
kek

>>941869675 (OP)
Valid thread
>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED


> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.

Bro finally figured out their goal

>>941869675 (OP)
>TFW a tribute site gets seized before Motherless Com

KEK

Allowing users to express themselves "on their domain or corner" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person, in real life, or on 'main stream' platforms.

>>941876367
>> If all else fails just call the other person a "pedo".
>>Even 'Elon Musk' knows this
true

>>941869711
>“NOOO. YOU CANT CUM ON A PICTURE OF THIS PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WASNT EVEN BORN IN THE USA AND FUNDAMENTALLY WONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESSION"

Valid.
This destroyed so much. And the usa govt. is compliant in the collusion.

It's fucking sad.

>>941869675 (OP)
Rt

>>941877109
>>TFW a tribute site gets seized before Motherless Com

>>941872663
Or you could not use a platform controlled by a third party that dictates all content posted?

You give all your rights to a corpo and act surprised when they act against your interests. Do better.

Valid thread
>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED


> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.

Bro finally figured out their goal

Imagine getting so angry someone posted your pictures to a tribute site you try a huge, weird, hateful, years long campaign against the administrator, instead of the people actually posting your content.

Not only this, these people weirdly went after the "tribute" community as a whole, over the entire internet.

The goons these people used are criminals.

The USA and Floridian GOVT. are still harassing a homeless man that they themselves, along with this group, cause that permanent homelessness.


All cause someone did something to your fucking picture YOU uploaded on the internet.

/b/ros, the first amendment on the USA internet is dead.

Thank female "feelings".

Do I have your attention, or are you playing hard to get?
.....

Cumming on a picture isn't expression, you wretched gooner cripple.

>>the absolute state of freedom in the U.S.A.
>fair use parody or transformative content makes someone "feel" the wrong way

you are now a life long criminal, a "pedo", and homeless and broke for the rest of your life.


>USA FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

>>941879249
>Cumming on a picture isn't expression, you wretched gooner cripple.
True.
It's transformative fair use that does not require consent.

Freedom of expression.

>>941879249
>Cumming on a picture isn't expression, you wretched gooner cripple.
It's transformative fair use that does not require consent.

>>941879257
shouldn't you be taking a UKR drone to the face faggot? fucking vatniggers

>pic related
this would get you prison time if this was a pokimane in 2025

>>941879425
The use of bodily fluids and shocking imagery to comment on a subject has a long history in controversial art (e.g., Andres Serrano's Piss Christ). The tribute can be framed as a form of "outsider art" or "performance art," where the act itself is a commentary on the image's power. Criminalizing it would be a form of viewpoint discrimination against an unpopular artistic medium.

The tribute is a form of crude parody or satire. It critiques the very nature of celebrity worship and digital imagery by taking the act of "admiration" to its most literal, biological conclusion. It mocks the sanitized, commercialized nature of the subject's public persona by contrasting it with a raw, private reaction.

>>941869675 (OP)
The act of creating a tribute is not merely a physical act but a form of symbolic speech. It is a non-verbal, visceral expression of the profound impact the subject’s image has on the creator. Criminalizing this act is tantamount to criminalizing an emotional and psychological expression, which is protected by the First Amendment.

>>941869675 (OP)
The final image does not legally depict the person in a sexual scenario. It depicts a physical object—a screen, a piece of paper—that has been defiled. The law requires the person themselves to be depicted in a sexual manner, and this standard is not met when the act is clearly performed on an inanimate object.

The subject of the photo is not nude, sexually posed, or engaged in any sexual conduct. The sexually explicit material (the semen) is entirely separate from and external to the subject. The law is intended to prevent the depiction of a person as sexually explicit, not the depiction of a non-sexual person near something sexually explicit.

Many NCP statutes are written to prohibit images depicting "nudity" or "sexual conduct." A defense would argue that a fully clothed person's face on a screen does not meet the statute's specific definition of "sexual conduct," and that applying the law here is an over-extension of the legislature's intent.

The act is a "tribute," stemming from a motive of admiration, not malice. NCP laws were originally designed to combat "revenge porn," where the primary intent is to harass, humiliate, or cause distress. Applying these laws to an act of perceived admiration is a misapplication of a statute designed to punish a different kind of harm.

>>941869711
: The creator is not making a false statement of fact that the person participated in a sexual act. No reasonable viewer would believe the person consented or was physically present. Therefore, the act does not meet the standard for defamation or libel.

>>941869711
>>941869675 (OP)
Public figures, by their nature, have a diminished expectation of privacy. They voluntarily place their image into the public domain for consumption and reaction. While this act may be offensive, it falls within the wide latitude of public reaction that public figures must endure.

"De minimis non curat lex" – the law does not concern itself with trifles. The act is a minor, private expression that causes no direct harm, and the use of the state's criminal justice resources to prosecute it is a disproportionate response.

>>941869675 (OP)
The law, if applied to tributes, is unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps in a vast amount of potentially expressive conduct in its attempt to regulate harmful behavior. It criminalizes a form of expression rather than narrowly targeting the specific harm of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

>>941869711
>“NOOO. YOU CANT CUM ON A PICTURE OF THIS PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WASNT EVEN BORN IN THE USA AND FUNDAMENTALLY WONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESSION"

A widely distributed, public image of a famous person is not a proxy for their private, individual identity; it is a public effigy. Like a flag, a political cartoon, or a historical statue, it is a cultural symbol, and the state has a sharply limited ability to regulate expressive conduct directed at such symbols.

>>941869711
>“NOOO. YOU CANT CUM ON A PICTURE OF THIS PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WASNT EVEN BORN IN THE USA AND FUNDAMENTALLY WONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESSION"
"voodoo doll" or "hostage photo" analogies fail because those acts are directed at a person to cause fear or harm. The defilement of a public effigy is directed at a symbol to express an idea. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected political speech; it is not a prosecutable threat against the politician's life. The tribute is the modern, digital equivalent of this ancient form of expressive conduct.

>>941880624
To criminalize the tribute is to grant public figures an unprecedented "image copyright" over all public reactions to their persona, effectively creating a blasphemy law for celebrity culture. The First Amendment protects this crude, offensive, but ultimately symbolic speech.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of private groups to associate and engage in expressive activities that define their identity and purpose. The "group of guys" is a voluntary, private association. The creation and sharing of tributes is the specific, unique form of expression that defines this group's subculture.

A user who posts a tribute image does not "distribute" it to anyone; they make it available for viewing.

An act performed on a massively replicated piece of public data (a JPEG file) does not constitute a violation against the "person" in the manner the statute intends. The act is a violation of a copy of data, not the underlying individual.

>>941880755
>public
>>941880848
>An act performed on a massively replicated piece of public data (a JPEG file) does not constitute a violation against the "person" in the manner the statute intends. The act is a violation of a copy of data, not the underlying individual.

KEK
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

>>941880624
>"voodoo doll" or "hostage photo" analogies fail because those acts are directed at a person to cause fear or harm. The defilement of a public effigy is directed at a symbol to express an idea. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected political speech; it is not a prosecutable threat against the politician's life. The tribute is the modern, digital equivalent of this ancient form of expressive conduct.
valid

>>941880294
The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary directed at a public figure.
The act takes a mass-produced, public image and fundamentally transforms it into a new work. This new work is not a factual statement about the person, but a symbolic commentary on the nature of celebrity, the objectification of public figures, and the intense, often disturbing relationship between an icon and their audience.
Under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, a public figure cannot recover for emotional distress caused by a parody, no matter how 'outrageous,' unless it contains a false statement of fact that a reasonable person would believe to be true. This tribute, by its very nature, is an obvious fabrication, not a believable assertion of fact.
Therefore, the act is not a violation of the individual, but rather a crude and provocative form of protected symbolic speech, akin to a political cartoon or other harsh satire that public figures are expected to endure in a free society.

>>941869675 (OP)
>move to russia
>drafted in to military
>get gay-raped by officer
>die in ukraine

What "Revenge Porn" (NCP) laws are for:
> Your ex posts REAL, PRIVATE nudes of you.
> The intent is to HUMILIATE and HARASS you.
> It violates your privacy.
What a Tribute is:
> A FAKE, photoshopped image.
> Uses a PUBLIC photo that's already everywhere.
> No reasonable person thinks it's REAL.
> It's not a "false statement of fact."

>>941869675 (OP)
The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>>941869675 (OP)
The correct starting point is indeed to classify this act not as a literal communication, but as expressive conduct or symbolic speech. The Supreme Court has long recognized that actions, not merely words, can convey a political or social message protected by the First Amendment.

>>941881415
>>941881382
Think of my tributes less like burning an effigy in protest, and more like building a statue to honor someone.

The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.


Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.


Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.


Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

>forum shopping in the USA is now a valid tactic
>if you are considering any sort of legal action, consider forum shopping

The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.


Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.

These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms.

The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>The 4 years of blatant takedown attacks clearly weren't enough for some people to show the platform was clearly being maliciously targeted.

Babe wake up a new Discord method just dropped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LnUk2Dk50

>>941881683
>The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.
>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.
>These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms.


The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>when will people actually stand up for the 1st amendment?

Are people like pic related a threat to USA citizen's first amendment right to freedom of expression online? Do their feelings come before the first amendment ?
>(second question)Yes. Their feelings most definitely come before your freedoms because they have money, lawyers, and connections.
> Haven’t you learned about the “wealth divide” in the USA? They say it’s the same for power.

Clearly labeled Parody content and transformative content isn't allowed in the USA if it involves a specific person from specific groups.

>these type of people have large sums of money to convince, "lobby", and otherwise skew public and law/legal opinion in the way that they choose using many methods and the available disposable funds and lawyers/goons that they have available to their large orgs/groups

Rt

The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

Freedom of expression is dead in the UK.
I have no idea what the retard, OP is talking about.

>>941882012
>Freedom of expression is dead in the UK.
>I have no idea what the retard, OP is talking about.
kek true
>the USA is seemingly certain to soon follow

>>941869689
>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction. These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms

True, and not everyone wants to use '4chan /b/ board' full of "shota"

And not everyone wants to use "the deep web"

>>941880663
>The Supreme Court has affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of private groups to associate and engage in expressive activities that define their identity and purpose. The "group of guys" is a voluntary, private association. The creation and sharing of tributes is the specific, unique form of expression that defines this group's subculture.
Valid thread
>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED


> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.

>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.

Bro finally figured out their goal

>FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON THE USA INTERNET IS DEAD.

thanks Pokimane and etc. related content creators.

>>941882097
>>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction. These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms
>True, and not everyone wants to use '4chan /b/ board' full of "shota"
>And not everyone wants to use "the deep web"

>>941882125
>>The Supreme Court has affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of private groups to associate and engage in expressive activities that define their identity and purpose. The "group of guys" is a voluntary, private association. The creation and sharing of tributes is the specific, unique form of expression that defines this group's subculture.
>Valid thread
>>CumOnPrintedPictures.COM
>Brand new site from scratch - SEIZED
>> they’re doing anything to demasculinization the population now a days … even stripping men of their fundamental freedoms of expression… and those freedoms are going to Russian owned ran and operated platforms.
>>The traffic to replacement sites like bunkr simpcity and coomer is kinda insane.
>Bro finally figured out their goal
kek

>The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.
>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.
>These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms.


The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>when will people actually stand up for the 1st amendment?

Rt

>>941882220
if that were pokimane or any "woke" female content creator the artist would be in jail or homeless

>kek

>>941882290
>or homeless
valid

>The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.
>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.
>These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms.


The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>when will people actually stand up for the 1st amendment?

>>941882290
dont forget harassed by many multiple goons in many places

>>941882290
dont forget harassed by goons

>>941882383
and forum shopped courts, weird hateful orgs, strange private investigator, and […]


That life in the USA trying to express your first amendment right on the internet.

>>941882383 #
and forum shopped courts, weird hateful twitch / content creator orgs workers and goons, strange private investigators, and […], […], etc.


That’s life in the USA trying to express your first amendment right on the internet.

Without $$$ and connections, no one is standing up for men’s freedom of expression any longer.

>>941882664
> Without $$$ and connections, no one is standing up for men’s freedom of expression any longer.

bud that’s the downfall of western values and society as a result of cancel culture and platform censorship

People think platform rules = the law of the land

Even ai is biased along with literal professional figures and even some people working in law/legal areas


The advent of censorship on social media and cancel culture is destroying Americans true freedom of expression and first amendment rights online.

ESPECIALLY MEN.

>…now I wonder who that could be beneficial to…

>why are we allowing non USA-born people like pokimane to determine via her vast wealth, connections, and power what USA men should be allowed to do on the internet

>>941882729
Kek

Toasting in Valid Bread

While woke goons will use posts here as factual, let’s remind everyone of the valid truths of this parody/satire thread in whole

>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
>Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

Rt

kek