>>7489728

This would be an example of what the executive order would classify as hate speech.

fortunately the 1st ammendment supercedes the quest for super censorship authority.

Not only that if we can't hear their voices saying that they hate us, how will we know who they are that do this kind of thing?

did the executive order also set up a way, along with IPV6 , to know , for sure, who posted this?

it's brillient to put them in a honey pot where they think that they are actually anonymous.

>>7489833

cool for you, that you had that thought.

would you vouch for the poster at a trial for 'inciting hatred on an 8 channel?'

would you go to a court and on the public record swear that you were sure it was sarcasm?

>>7489934

didn't I say 'fortunately the 1st amendment holds sway'.

your assessment of my posts and my opinions on the matter are bogus.