In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The Bradenburg “test” is still the principle used today to legally judge advocacy of violence. Imminent and produce being the key words here.
Per the rules which have been horrendously written. Rule 2: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
As there is no context provided for what constitutes “violence” I’m going to start reporting every comment since words can fall under violence. As people here regularly play games, any mention of any game that contains violence, real or imaginary, must be removed as the display of violence is promoting of it. Any media that has glorified or promoted violence will also not be permitted as to reference to them would also promote violence.
I would highly encourage DoM or AoV to rewrite rule 2 and 16. As it would only take a few people tired of the subjective subjugation to start spamming reports.
The level of imminence that the law requires is not possible online. As in physically impossible.
If DrJester says he's on his way to come to your house and kill you and he posts your address that would not be considered an imminent threat under the law.
Obviously, if he did that, I'd remove the comment, ban him from the sub, and report him to the admins because it is in fact a call for violence against a user.
When you specifically call for killing a politician: yes, I will remove those (besides the fact that it's obvious glowposting). If you agree with the sentiment that yes we should kill that politician, I'm going to treat it much the same.
Also, if you call for an entire race of people to be exterminated, I'm going to remove that as well under rule 2.
Which means that you are not utilizing rule 2 per its definition.
Yes I am.
Then any post about violence would be removed under promotion, any glorification of historical violence or fictional violence would also be removed. You clearly do not remove posts for violent speech per those definitions.
Your bad-faith interpretation of the rule is wrong, and you know it.
If posts can't meet a legal immenence requirement to be considered violent (which I agree, they can't) then why remove them?
There's lots of reasons.
Firstly, there is the likelihood of horrific discord as the sub falls into absolute fucking chaos as people threaten to kill one another as bad actors do everything in their power to start a flame war.
Secondly, there is the likelihood of glowposting for the purposes of attracting law enforcement attention. This could partly be to allow for further legal attacks on the .win network generally, but it could also be for the purposes of subverting the forum for the purposes of government sponsored radicalization and recruitment.
Third, there is the likelihood that bad actors (Leftists) come here to balkanize the forum and set it's users against itself both to weaken the forum's influence, and to poison the experience of posting here for everyone involved.
Forth, there is the likelihood of more bad actors genuinely recruiting for their particular ideological zealots by ratcheting up tension in the forum and trying to recruit the people who are convinced that they are under attack by that faction's chosen enemy.
Fifth, when you push all of these together the forum breaks down into a shithole of people who push no content, only outrage, attack and threaten users, and destroy the whole thing altogether by:
Six, causing any sane person to leave because they realize they should not expose themselves to a social environment where they are told "I should fucking kill you" for the 8th time that day.
There are specific groups of people who are happy to destroy this forum because it meets with their specific agendas to do so, or are simply uninterested in preserving it since it doesn't take priority to their agendas which will lead to the inevitable destruction of the forum.