Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

I've included text alongside the picture so i could have an easier time sharing it.

what that shitty mod did here is considered libel in plenty countries; he's clearly acting on bad faith, claiming that someone would be a supporter of a crime, without a reason to claim so.

but hey, it's for "a greater cause", right? you can't let people to actually analyse what swartz said, his opinions shall be taboo! laws be damned, ethics be damned, just make sure to cover your tracks afterwards. /s

i don't even agree with swartz' views on pornography. pornography lacks a discourse; it's supposed to arouse the viewer/reader/whatever, and nothing else. it is not speech.

I've included text alongside the picture so i could have an easier time sharing it. what that shitty mod did here is considered libel in plenty countries; he's clearly acting on bad faith, claiming that someone would be a supporter of a crime, without a reason to claim so. but hey, it's for "a greater cause", right? you can't let people to actually analyse what swartz said, his opinions shall be taboo! laws be damned, ethics be damned, just make sure to cover your tracks afterwards. /s i don't even agree with swartz' views on pornography. pornography lacks a discourse; it's supposed to arouse the viewer/reader/whatever, and nothing else. it is not speech.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (9).
[–] [Sticky] • 0 pt 2y

Welcome to Poal, faggot.

I strongly suggest you to take a look at Poal’s ToS(especially the part regarding pedophilia).

[–] • 0 pt 2y

I've read it. I don't think that it applies here, neither in spirit nor in letter.

In letter, none of the points listed by the rule apply:

  • There's no depiction of a child in the post.
  • There's no sexually oriented discussion involving a child in the post. It's a discussion about a discussion about someone's views on child pornography; the later is only incidental here, the main issue is how eager Reddit moderators are to engage in libel, and then cover their tracks by deletion and bans.
  • The post does not promote, normalise, or apologise paedophilia in any form. On the contrary; as myself said Swartz' reasoning was faulty, and honestly I think that paedophiles should rot in a cage.
  • There's no picture, video, or depiction or any kind of discussion related to bestiality.

In spirit it doesn't fit either. Odds are that Poal has those rules to 1) avoid legal trouble, and 2) to avoid becoming a haven for those sick fucks. Neither is a concern in this discussion.

Side note: part of the reason why I'm pissed at this shit is that the mod was blatantly calling me a supporter of CP. That's a level below calling someone else's mum's a whore.