New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
CharityHost attempts to censor documentation of his actions on Host.charity
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Screenshots and live links/archived links, of course
I'd love it if Andre/Andrew zipped up and packed up, but as long as he continues playing the victim and insisting upon his own innocence at the expense of real peoples' trust and money, I won't hesitate to document it.
This fuckin guy lol
Something something Streisand effect...
jokes
Lmao
Will he learn his lesson? No, he'll probably try to attack us again.
On him
I was wondering what exactly they cited because AFAIK there’s no US law that says hosting providers need to take down content that is defamatory.
Turns out Title 28 US Code 4101 is literally just the definition of defamation. They cited just the definition of defamation. They didn’t cite anything to suggest that OP actually broke any law.
charityhost, the king of false abuse reports 😤😤👑
If I had trouble keeping a day job and landed a dev ops job within the last year for a company that has federal and state contracts maybe I would start to consider how my personal actions could jeapardize my day job.
What is this a reference to
He did the minimum effort lol.
Don't you know? In Andrew/CharityHost's universe, any argument he makes is self-evident and any evidence he provides is self-substantiating.
He'll be sitting on a throne of them in no time!
Yeah, and he didn't even do the minimum effort well. Because the content of host.charity is based on factual evidence and thus, doesn't fit the definition of "defamation."
You have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. I still can't believe what I read, its like you live in a bubble and have missed the past decade of people getting raided over social media comments and other insane shit happening in Germany.
Freedom of speech and Germany don't go in the same sentence, unless you are talking about lack there of. It is the worst country to host anything remotely controversial.
I hate being political on these forums, but the only cases I am aware of where such things has happened is hate speech or those who incite violence. These things are not protected under freedom of speech - pretty much anywhere.
bro, what the fuck is hate speech. You cannot have free speech, while making "hate speech" illegal.
Hate speech is what your government doesn't want you to say, it is not freedom.
There were many more cases that go beyond "violence threats" and "hate speech", it shouldn't take you long to find if you actually want.
Just a week ago https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/free-speech-dispatch/i-hate-freedom-opinion-meme-leads-sentencing-german-court
Hate speech is clearly defined.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
lmao, this is perhaps the most German thing I have read all day. Enjoy getting buttfucked by your Government, its not like you can do anything about it. Trying to protest it will land you a comfy prison cell shared with rapists.
Try to elect the new one, oh wait, they will just get arrested before they take power.
Don't you dare say something bad about illegal immigrants, fascist, or your doors will be kicked down by Anti-Terrorists.
I am not even from Germany, and something tells me you are not too. I would love to know where you are from, I have a guess but I hate to assume.
But freedom of speech has never been absolute.
Blasphemy laws are old as fuck, should religion be held to higher standards than individuals and groups of ethnic people?
Slander, defamation, obscenity, incitement and so on have almost never been protected under freedom of speech. You cannot purposely try to harm someone through speech and expect no consequences.
Have you ever read US constitution?
All ancient laws and I'm not even disputing them. But I would recommend you take a look what people are being persecuted for. As I said, you won't have issues finding material.
I do not want to shit up this thread, but disputing censorship in Germany is nuts.
Start a new thread and we can follow along there 🙂
Seconded. This isn't the place.
I have reorganized Host.charity, starting now with a TL;DR section per the suggestion of another user.
https://host.charity/
Lol CH = crazyhost eh?
Also this is why everyone should have a server with @MannDude like yours truly
Since when have Germany followed the US constitution?
I am quite familiar with what is happening around in Europe in regards to these cases - or so I would think. And as stated, all that I am familiar with are people being prosecuted for hate speech or incitement of violence - amongst other things. Again, people have been prosecuted for things that would break freedom of speech for centuries. I mean, even a non-disclosure agreement would technically infringe on freedom of speech, yet we fully accept that.
You can talk bad about immigrants all that you want, even politicians do that now and then. But there is a difference between having a negative view on certain groups of people and outright calling for their extinction. Germany is probably a bit more sensitive to this given their history.
And compared to the "father" of freedom of speech, I'd say any case in Europe currently pales in comparison to what we are seeing in the USA at the moment.
CrashoutHost
No, an NDA does not technically infringe on freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the consequences of breaking a private commercial agreement. Freedom of speech is about the government preventing you from speaking.
If you join Apple, sign an NDA, and the next day blab all over the press about the next iPhone, the government has no role in that. You can't be prosecuted criminally for that.
There is no law against breaking an NDA. Sure, Apple will undoubtedly sue you into oblivion, but that's not the government acting against you. It's just the consequences you agreed to.
Now, there are cases where the government prevents you from speaking that are accepted. CSM is an example, as would be espionage. I believe some privacy laws (healt info, etc.) carry criminal penalties. But not an NDA.