>Consider Sup Forums to be one of the final bastions of what it means to have 'freedom of speech' in internet. >More and more websites increasingly adding restrictions on what you can and cannot write. >Be a php coder and decide to make a website with no money or donations that allows people to continue writing whatever they want. >Post it on various plug sites and people take it very negatively >Still trying to find people willing to write.
Tell me what you guys think. You guys got some code projects? Do you guys do hand code? I know I love hand code. What can I do to legitimately improve the site?
before worrying about the code you should consider the sort of people it takes to administrate something like that.
not only the heat from the media (and law enforcement agencies) but also the ethical dilemma when publishing something like pro-pedophile articles.
Camden Morris
right now there is so little traffic I am able to manage it alone. over time i plan on releasing an admin panel where others can manage with me too. though Content would only be deleted If it infringes on the basic human rights others would have as well. I thought about this a lot and put most of what I think on the rules section
Michael Rogers
>human rights
I hope you don't mean the UN or even legal definition of it, because if so, your website is already fucked from within.
that's what I meant. it takes someone absurdly objective to allow something that disgusts them.
Caleb Collins
Disclaimer What are my rights as a reader? You have the right to stay 100% anonymous in your reading. 1stAmender.com is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. The reader may assume that the writer of the article is solely responsible for the content that is displayed. It is your right to decide whether something is a reportable offense. The moderators are the people. It is your responsibility to report "victim-based" crime. (A person using drugs is a non-victim based crime. Advocacy of child pornography is a victim-based crime.) It is your responsibility to assume writers stay on topic in their content. (e.g. an article featuring NSFW material must be about that NSFW material) It is your responsibility to ensure that rumors are clearly stated as a rumor as the article 'type'. It is your responsibility to ensure that opinions are clearly stated as an opinion as the article 'type'. It is your responsibility to report plagiarism. No account is needed to report, rate, or read articles. It is your responsibility to ensure that articles are content-rich and not spam (e.g. irrelevant and/or inappropriate messages not suitable as a news article) If you choose to donate to a writer's article, you assume loss of anonymity due to third party accounts through PayPal What are my rights as a writer? You can write with anonymity in mind. 1stAmender.com will protect your identity. You cannot post content that advocates a victim-based crime. (e.g. child pornography, murder, theft. However reporting on these subjects is okay. You just cannot condone crimes with a victim.)
Cannot Post: Advocacy of child pornography. Advocacy of murder Advocacy of harming people Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person. Items subject to copyright / patent claims. Content that is clearly spam. (e.g. irrelevant and/or inappropriate messages not suitable as a news article)
Liam Clark
You Can Post: NSFW (Not Safe For Work) content provided there is no victim Racism, provided it does not advocate physical harm of others. Hateful speech. Provided it does not advocate with the intent of physical harm of an organization/person. Drug advocating. Anti-copyright / anti-patent advocating. General news / subjects outside of the status quo, provided it does not physically harm anyone. An article ABOUT child pornography, murder, harming of people, physical harm of people, however cannot advocate that behavior.
1stAmender.com is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. A writer may assume that they take on all responsibility for any content posted. Anonymity is key as a writer. You may reveal yourself at your own discretion in your own articles for credit. A writer may post rumors as long as it is clearly stated as a rumor as the 'type' of article. A writer may post opinions provided it is clearly stated as an opinion as the 'type' of article. You cannot plagiarize. 1stAmender.com is a site that condones free individual thought. You must post sources if you are to quote someone. When you accept donations, you assume responsibility of paying individual taxes/regulations. You also assume responsibility that your anonymity is lost when you accept funds. A writer's articles are subject to removal if they break these rules. 1stAmender.com will protect your rights to freedom of speech. Hateful or not, provided you do not write articles condoning crimes containing a victim.
Logan Long
while I applaud you for your work I have to say, I think you're in the wrong century for freedom of speech
Jaxson Cruz
>Cannot Post: >Advocacy of child pornography
see, you fucked up already.
Jeremiah Bennett
No, he's in the right. Kiddyfuckers are the cancerous bronies of the free speech world.
Christopher Walker
that infringes on individual freedoms and therefore is not okay.
Chase Jackson
and they deserve free speech just like everyone else.
you can't make a website hellbent on free speech and deny that with a straight face. that's hypocrisy at its best.
Josiah Stewart
>no https >loads nonfreejavascript from fagbook/etc
fix that shit.
Nicholas Flores
Yes there is a facebook share link. Though I don't see it performing any data mining after checking it. I do plan on getting https to secure it better. Right now though no PII is requested when signing up or writing. You can write whatever you want. Though just so you know... I do plan on getting it but SSL is expensive to maintain.
David Wood
>that infringes on individual freedoms so do calls for murder
Jacob Foster
on /what/ individual freedoms? because, as far as I can tell, one is looking at pictures of a crime. it's no different than gore threads on Sup Forums.
you could argue it's infringing on the child's right to privacy but what about videos and pictures than don't show their faces?
you can't use the law (much less the UN) as guidelines. you can't be the last bastion of free speech and still abide by rules that seek to limit it.
Grayson Ortiz
Child pornography does infringe on rights because the child is not able to come to a sound decision with an underdeveloped brain. Because of this: No amount of advocating child pornography is allowed.
Julian Anderson
Still censoring free speech. Your site it shit, fuck off
Thomas Hill
Looking at gore isn't a crime
Connor Davis
I explained to you my basic reasoning and I feel it is a reasonable thing to uphold. Nothing I stated is outside of normal cognitive thinking.
Grayson Baker
Ah yes, we should go back tot he 20th century, to the prudish "please don't release that book Orwell" UK, the East communist block, the fascist Czech or Spain, the communist Cuba, or America where you might get called a Commie and blacklisted and no sex or swearwords allowed, maybe communist China, or the middle east when fundamentalists took over.
Gavin Brooks
neither are drunken sluts but their videos are littered all across the internet.
also, what is an 'undeveloped' brain? are you even familiar with the human psyche or are you just parroting whatever your attorney told you to? 18 and not a minute less am I right?
you should quit while you haven't spent much on it. your outlet is no different than fucking Gawker.
Tyler Peterson
what makes you think I was talking about the 20th century?
Cooper Wilson
Sure but it's not when you are claiming to be a free speech site and slap a bunch of bullshit down no matter how much hand wavy reasoning you give. Either be full free speech with the only restrictions being legal ones or rebrand to what you really are, just shitty pet project with nothing original or good about it
Daniel Wright
Jeez we have an actual pedo trying to defend pedophilia
Joshua Cox
exactly. so why is c"p" any different?
>and I feel it is a reasonable thing to uphold
it's not. I mean, sure it is. but it clashes with your ideology. just like every other news outlet out there.
so your website is kinda useless.
Cameron Morgan
Actually it's like 16-17 in most US states, about half are 16. Some places like in Mexico are 12, really varies.
Brody Martin
So, I'm free to come to your site and post negative things about Trump and other liberal propaganda?
Hunter Bell
Okay. I feel like I am arguing with devil's advocate here so I will try to approach this with a very open mind that in fact what I know to be wrong and what you feel should be right.
>Drunken sluts It is quite often when 'being under the influence' can negate a contract depending on how bad it can be. This is apparent in contract law and it is generally understood to be fully cognitive when signing for a contract. If a woman feels it is up to them to decide what to do with their body it is their choice.
>Underdeveloped at 18. Honestly I think an underdeveloped brain is more along the lines of 25 and under. There are still cognitive processes that still develop even into your 30 years old. But with that being said to keep it as simple as possible... 18 is fine.
>No different than gawker Explain I really have no realistic concept of Gawker but if I can answer your question I will.
Justin Cruz
There is not a century in which your speech would have been as free and most of all protected as it is now.
Levi Thomas
design is atrocious goddamn
Jose Turner
>can't refute something >resort to name-calling
EVERY TIME
and I'm not talking about pedophilia exclusively. this is why we, as a society, can't move forward.
because of sentimental fucks like you.
Alexander Butler
>infringes on individual freedoms
this is one step from "we need to monitor internet to not allow terrorists to use it in their quest to infringe on individual freedoms"
note that I'm not a libtard but this shit is extremely hard to balance right and better minds than you have tried
Kevin Barnes
>There is not a century in which your speech would have been as free and most of all protected as it is now. except any time before mass media when as long as you weren't shittalking the king or God you could do whatever the fuck you wanted
Hunter Bennett
Yes. And so are nationalists. The point is to allow an even ground for everyone to say what they want.
Benjamin Williams
Free speech has always been restricted. The left wants to ban all speech they find offensive and the right wants to ban all speech they find degenerate. Nobody actually wants completely unregulated free speech no strings attached.
Easton Martin
It's as if pedophilia is condoned on this website. The lack of moderation on some board is a different story.
Jaxson Smith
Boards*
Julian Powell
>The King >The nobles >God >The Clergy >the military >Anything written in the bible --------------------------------------- >whatever the fuck you wanted Tell that to Socrate, Jesus, Seneca, Lavoisier, Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Spinoza, the Huguenots, and many others.
Leo Carter
>Guy posts cool website >Sup Forums asks: Why no child porn >Guy reasonably explains why not >Sup Forums spergs out.
Isaiah Allen
They all criticized exactly the entities you listes
Nathaniel Edwards
>It is quite often when 'being under the influence' can negate a contract depending on how bad it can be. a woman 'under the influence' can't consent. but a quick Google search will net you hundreds of thousands of 'amateur' drunken sluts. on the clearnet nonetheless.
following your post chain one could assume that's the same as cp, except nothing is done about it and there's no stigma if you masturbate to it.
>Honestly I think an underdeveloped brain is more along the lines of 25 and under. and you're right. but you should look past that, otherwise we wouldn't function as a society. rather than brain development you should be overanalyzing sexual development and the concept of consent itself.
the mind of a child as old as 5 is, theoretically, sexually matured. of course this varies greatly and their bodies mature at a different rate, but there would be no lasting psychological damage other than behavioral/societal.
also, what is consent? legally, in some places someone as old as 12 can consent according to . but that invalidates 'regret' as a concept, at any age. which is absurd. 10 year olds are also sometimes more mature than a 30-something airhead.
>Explain I really have no realistic concept of Gawker Kotaku. what I meant is that your website is no different than literally every other 'freedom fighter' out there.
you can only post what's in line with 'socially acceptable'. that's not free speech.
Adrian Long
>a woman 'under the influence' can't consent. but a quick Google search will net you hundreds of thousands of 'amateur' drunken sluts. on the clearnet nonetheless. Viewing "rape", obviously the shit on the internet is staged, is not illegal. Viewing cp is
Gavin Sullivan
moot made it very clear that Sup Forums had rules and, despite its nature, wouldn't allow some content.
you came here proposing a place for freedom of speech, something we are all in dire need of. but then you yourself come up with restrictions, like everywhere else.
so it's fucking nothing.
Adam Williams
That's hyperbole but here's your (You).
Leo Lopez
no you fucking idiot. OP said that a child can't consent. well, neither can someone under influence.
that means that real, amateur/leaked videos in which the woman seems to be enjoying herself should be treated as cp.
rape has nothing to do with this.
Jaxson Edwards
Advocacy of child pornography is different from posting it.
John Evans
>SSL is expensive to maintain. StartSSL of what is treny right now.
Dylan Gutierrez
There are so many places to publish writings on the internet. Why would anyone publish there? The site is also ugly. If you can't make it pretty, at least make it functional but minimal. like danluu.com Also is this some kind of joke? When I open a story, see the source, I notice that the entire story is literally a copy paste from some other site.
John Powell
Not fucking really tho
Kevin Walker
it is. something like 60 years ago you could buy it on newsstands. then there was a massive push by feminists to criminalize it.
I won't even bother with the fact studies show that it cutbacks on actual abuse, outlawing media is fucking absurd.
Sebastian Russell
I'm not the one you were arguing with previously.
Ryan Brooks
>I won't even bother with the fact studies show that it cutbacks on actual abuse, outlawing media is fucking absurd. Oh, really? You won't bother with evidence for a ridiculous claim? And let me ask you something - how does it get made? In an ether, without any human beings and no suffering surely, but only in your mind.
Nolan Young
I won't even bother because you can easily google it you mong.
Alexander Long
>I won't bother providing a source for a ridiculous claim >Mong There it is, you did it. Pedophilia and child pornography don't harm anyone and should be encouraged. I can only hope you and many posters who actually agree with you are not serious.
but before you quote the correlation, word by word, it's important to observe the societal differences between a 1980 pedophile and a modern one. in short, back then the users were also the producers/abusers. they're a lot less bold now.
>how does it get made?
the same way it always did? you're confusing legalizing cp- or rather, the viewing of criminal footage- with abuse. producers would still be prosecuted. nothing would change.
Blake Sullivan
>Cannot Post: >Advocacy of child pornography. ...and you already have more limits on free speech than Reddit. leaving+and+taking+my+loli+with+me.jpg
Eli Garcia
>Viewing criminal footage And how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted? What changes do you propose? Not prosecuting criminals and people with psychiatric disorders? What's more, even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient.
Easton Ross
>facebook and twitter botnet integration DROPPED R O P P E D
Noah Rivera
>SSL is expensive to maintain. cloudflare provides free SSL certificates if you don't mind signing up for their botnet
Isaac Smith
>What's more, even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient. Just to add to this - what's the most sensible thing a rational person would do in this situation? Since you're advocating for a position which isn't peovable - the answer would be to wait for adequate research and not hold an unreasonable opinion until such research surfaces.
Charles Perez
Yes it fucking is. It does not physically anyone to discuss anything except what can be directly used to harm someone.
Oliver Adams
Provable*
James Bennett
This, a site like OP's will probably need something like Cloudflare anyway.
Jonathan Martinez
>Using the same font as Garrys Mod
Jordan Hill
>And how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted? places like LiveLeak, WorldStar, BestGore, etc. render this point moot, really. there's also 20 years old stuff out there. in most cases the perpetrator has already been caught and the victim is in her mid 30s.
>What changes do you propose? legalizing the viewing of such footage to begin with?
>Not prosecuting criminals and people with psychiatric disorders? of course not. abusers should still be prosecuted.
>even the researchers agree that their findings are contradictory and insufficient. because their studies are mostly biased and don't account for the societal factor, like every other psychological study.
Brayden Lopez
focus on the practical use? there are a handful of countries who experimented with it and, in most cases, abuse was reduce. I'm trying to find a particular study but I don't remember much about it.
the whole thing was quite enlightening.
Alexander Cooper
I'm at a loss for words at this point, but I'll try. You agreed with me that abusers, child pornography producers and criminals in general should be prosecuted, but in the same breath there's "in most cases the perpetrator has already been caught and the victim is in her mid 30s", along with "legalizing the viewing of such footage to begin with"? Don't people who endure abuse want justice and don't the victims undergo psychiatric treatment after the incident? How is it moral to create a demand for illegal child pornography even if older perpetrators were caught and sentenced? I hope you also realize that pedophilia is classified as a psychiatric disorder and governments along with tech companies do everything in their power in most cases to stop the distribution and demand for it.
Carter Cook
Here's a very interesting example of my "in most cases" remark: youtu.be/esKnWAIgpLY
Ayden Harris
Holy fuck, that registration nag is fucking awful. That alone makes me not want to use the site.
For most people who are avidly reading the news and opeds online, the information density is very low. Move the "you may also like" to below the article and make it much smaller. Make the default font size on the actual article smaller. Decrease the size of the header image. Move the author information to the bottom.
You also have to consider that if you're going to have author's username's publicly listed, people are going to start shit with specific authors just because they know what their previous bent is. You're nowhere remotely close to as free there as you are here because no matter what you say here, odds are 99.999% that you won't be found out unless you specifically out yourself. Usernames encourage powertripping and flame wars.
All the content appears to be is people reposting articles from other sites. It's fine that your site is a mirror, but it would behoove you to move all such content into a different section.
Angel Stewart
>You agreed with me that abusers, child pornography producers and criminals in general should be prosecuted abusers/producers yes, not 'criminals in general'. that's a very broad categorization and the law isn't always right, let alone just.
>Don't people who endure abuse want justice and don't the victims undergo psychiatric treatment after the incident? this has nothing to do with viewing criminal footage. or media in general, really.
>How is it moral to create a demand for illegal child pornography[...] the morality of it is not up for discussion here and is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
>[...]even if older perpetrators were caught and sentenced? what I meant is that these cases are closed. have been closed for years. you said 'how do you imagine criminal and illegal footage getting to the public while the producers are prosecuted?', what I meant is that, in these cases, that does not apply.
>I hope you also realize that pedophilia is classified as a psychiatric disorder wrongly. it's an orientation no different than homosexuality. but of course, due to political and societal reason, this cannot be acknowledged.
>and governments along with tech companies do everything in their power in most cases to stop the distribution and demand for it. again, wrongly. for all the reasons I've listed time and again in this thread.
honestly, whenever this topic comes up the replies are always the same and in the vain of 'I can't even'- I'm at a loss for words, I can't only hope you're not serious, etc. no one is objective enough to discuss it, even though you could literally buy this shit in newsstands years ago.
Aaron Russell
Yes I am sorry I wanted to promote. Though if you register the nag goes away.
Adam Scott
Advocating for pedophilia will cause the website a lot of problems and will alienate the rest of the users on the website, thereby restricting their freedom.
Since this project is a concrete one rather than an idealistic one, OP shouldn't be bothered about unachievable ideals.
Cooper Flores
Exactly. This is what I mean... I can't be pro pedophilia because three reasons:
1. Infringes on the individual rights of the child 2. It is a victim-based crime. Not non-victim based. 3. It does alienate other users.
Christian Gonzalez
congrats, that's how modern feminism works. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Leo Rivera
Then don't pretend you're a bastion of free speech.
Jacob Cooper
Even you can acknowledge that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and you're still advocating for it. Just as how psychopaths can't be cured, neither can pedophiles. I think that any further discussion is futile.
Oliver Moore
it's ugly as shit, mate
Juan Allen
>Even you can acknowledge that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder re-read my post. I clearly say it's a sexual orientation. and psychopaths can be cured. it's just not worth the hassle.
but you're probably right, people are too emotional and lacking in psych knowledge to tackle the subject objectively.
Josiah Kelly
>No https Dropped
Samuel Clark
It is a proponent to freedom as someone elses freedom is just as important as your freedom. I don't think this is hard to understand.
Wyatt Cox
Make a website where you host opinions, debates etc of people from all sides and origins what free speech means for them. Thats more productive than some 4vhan clone i guesd
Leo Robinson
The problem is that you're going to shit you pants the next second someone fills up an abuse email against you
Plus there is no anonymity on your website, user, connection is not encrypted so ISPs can spy on who writes which article
Plus you have an FTP server and Plesk control panel looking straight into internet
Brush up your computer skills and come back later
Zachary Wilson
except (if you're OP) your definition of 'individual rights of a child' is skewed. and the 'it alienates other users' bit is just laughable.
what you said is basically just a cop out. you can pretend all you want but your website is yet another safe space.
>Advocacy of child pornography. >Advocacy of murder >Advocacy of harming people >Anything that can advocate the physical harm of a person.
Yeah but what if its satire?
Jonathan Reyes
I will get this.
Thats what this is.
How do you tell me "if it doesn't advocate child pornography then it isn't for me." What kind of argument is that? That's insane man. We're not talking about not using trigger words but actual advocacy of child pornography. I had no idea I would recieve this kind of backlash. Though I think you are just one guy and most of Sup Forums agrees with me.
And a child has an underdeveloped mind and cannot make sound decisions without a parent. How can you say that it's okay reasonably?
Cooper Martinez
You assume ideal forms can exist in real life. The way you imagine freedom can't exist in real life.
Samuel Young
and that's why OP came up with this, to fight that notion. except he himself is doing it.
proof of that particular claim, that people are too emotional, is that you yourself turned the conversation from 'c"P" is no different than criminal footage and thus shouldn't be outlawed', which was my original point, into the morality of pedophilia.
homosexuality was also a psychiatric disorder. Aspergers was purged because reasons. ADHD meds were pushed into every misbehaving kid in the '90s and now the same is happening with autism. how do you explain that? how could they be so massively wrong?
if you trust the DSM or the psych community you're a moron. I'm part of it and I know it's all about funding and titles.
Aiden Robinson
>if you are not advocating child diddling you are not free speech that's pretty desperate . I know for pedos like you this is very personal and if it's not good enough for you you can fuck right off
>How do you tell me "if it doesn't advocate child pornography then it isn't for me." >What kind of argument is that? you're putting words in my mouth. what I said is that you can't think of yourself as a freedom fighter, the last bastion of free speech on the internet while censoring X.
>And a child has an underdeveloped mind and cannot make sound decisions without a parent. we've already been through this here . at least I think I was responding to OP.
it can. just don't censor anything. whether that's a viable political strategy and the aftereffects of publishing controversial material is an entirely different matter.
Jayden Morgan
At this point not only are you arguing for the morality of pedophilia, you're also pointing out potential financial biases as if those are provable. Not to mention that you've crossed into the realm of conspiracy theories. Again, any further discussion is futile and I've sadly seen that I was right.
Cooper Murphy
only a state entity can censor, duh. a private entity not allowing your degenerate shit isnt censoring but a right
Kayden Garcia
more like >if you don't allow for people to advocate for child diddling you are not free speech
there's a difference. a very important one.
Ethan Watson
it's in any way a reductio ad absurdum to make some retarded point.
Brody Anderson
>conspiracy theories homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder. how do /you/ explain that without sounding as crazy as I am?
and I'm only discussing the merits of pedophilia because /you/ brought it up. my point is that criminal footage shouldn't be illegal. that's it.
Nathaniel Williams
Jesus Christ this thread has turned into a shit show. It happens every time.
Joshua Morris
not at all. it's a very realistic scenario that pedophiles need an outlet to publish their opinions.
you don't have to have pro-pedo articles to be free speech. that's how feminism and inclusiveness work. but you do have to allow for it to be full free speech.
besides, just advocating for it doesn't hurt anyone's freedoms, unlike what OP seems to think.
Asher Morales
you dont seem familiar with the overton window. if pedos need an outlet so they can make one.
