[thrwaway1234567]

There are things on the website aren't legal speech or are at least legally questionable. Harassment is illegal for one.

The owner is fine with revenge porn being posted, and this has gotten him blocked by some hosts. He's also said he won't ban users who commit illegal acts.

[ranger_danger]

> he won't ban users who commit illegal acts

I think this is more of a legal issue regarding selective enforcement and Section 230. He has a good lawyer and always wins his cases, maybe don't be so quick to claim he is being wreckless or breaking laws.

[thrwaway1234567]

I don't think he'd qualify for the good faith moderation mentioned in section 230.

He's only won cases against Melinda Scott.

[ranger_danger]

What cases has he lost then? Can you cite specific examples?

[thrwaway1234567]

He also hasn't lost any cases yet. Other than Melinda Scott, all the other lawsuits against him are ongoing.

[rpmisms]

Revenge porn isn't generally illegal to post. Posting pornography as revenge is the illegal bit, generally speaking. Also, harassment is illegal in some cases, but talking on a public forum generally doesn't qualify. If the parties talked about it publicly and then committed it, that's their problem.

I'm anti-harassment and not in favor of revenge porn. Not really relevant to this discussion, where my position is simply that the law is the law, the government's job is to enforce the law, and companies should be out to make money, not make pretend laws and enforce them via silent agreements.

[thrwaway1234567]

>Revenge porn isn't generally illegal to post. Posting pornography as revenge is the illegal bit, generally speaking.

IIRC, there are laws against sharing revenge porn in 48 states. They don't require you to be the person it was originally shared to: https://cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-distribution-of-i...

>Also, harassment is illegal in some cases, but talking on a public forum generally doesn't qualify. If the parties talked about it publicly and then committed it, that's their problem.

If the example of Null asking his users to harass someone doesn't count, then at what point can something be considered organized harassment?

Another example is the user "Not Based and Redpilled" hacking the game developer of Yandere Simulator. Other users were egging him on and giving suggestions on how to misuse the hacked account. Null was aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law, but didn't punish the hacker. In fact the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%

[rpmisms]

Subsection 3 in the Nevada law is pretty broad, likely protecting the farms fully.

> If the example of Null asking his users to harass someone doesn't count, then at what point can something be considered organized harassment?

If he asked them to, and those specific users committed illegal harassment in the manner he requested, that would be organized harassment.

[thrwaway1234567]

That page I linked lists all of the laws in the usa about revenge porn. Kiwifarms isn't based in nevada as far as I am aware, I believe it's west virginia or florida.

[rpmisms]

It is West Virginia. West Virginia's statute protects against illicit recordings in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not penalize someone who runs the platform where it is shared.

[thrwaway1234567]

>(b) No person may knowingly and intentionally disclose, cause to be disclosed or threaten to disclose, with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce, an image of another which shows the intimate parts of the depicted person or shows the depicted person engaged in sexually explicit conduct which was captured under circumstances where the person depicted had a reasonable expectation that the image would not be publicly disclosed.

From "W. Va. Code §61-8-28a: Nonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images; definitions; and penalties."

There is nothing in the law that says it only bans illicit recordings (like creepshot videos). If you share a video that someone took of themself, you can be be prosecuted under it.

But yes, there is this clause in the law:

>(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on the provider of an interactive computer service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §230(f)(2), an information service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(24), or telecommunications service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(53), for content provided by another person.