Enemy of the People

#301
#301
Squints said:
How is he suppressing free speech when it’s his PRIVATE page? Does the government have proprietary rights to his Twitter handle, @realDonaldTrump?

Oh, but that’s different..... except it’s not!

Pay close attention the the all-caps above.
Click to expand...

It is a tad bit different when you are a public official. If he was using his PRIVATE page to promote his businesses that would be one thing but he is using to advance his PUBLIC agenda.
 
#302
#302
Grand Vol said:
Oh really? So, anti-white hate speech is predicated on "protected class" status?

Their reasoning was lame and you know it. You want to be argumentative, I get it, but you know as well as I do that suppressing speech from one side while tacitly supporting the other side through non-interference is not a winning combo in a courtroom. All a lawyer has to do is ask three simple questions.

"Do you have official standards for cases of censorship?"

"Are those standards applied fairly across the board?"

"Why didn't you apply them in these particular cases?" and show the judge/jury the specific cases where said standards weren't applied.

The thing about it is, YouTube and others depend on such videos for a revenue stream. Furthermore, they pay posters for such content. Hence, while technically not an employee, they are reducing a revenue stream to a particular person because of their political or ideological beliefs while continuing the practice with ones they agree with or as a minimum, don't interfere with.
Click to expand...

I don’t have a problem with these platforms banning anyone for whatever reason they want, it’s private business. My problem with CWV is when he threw up that they might be sued due to a nut job acting out because of something he saw on them.
 
#304
#304
Grand Vol said:
Oh really? So, anti-white hate speech is predicated on "protected class" status?

Their reasoning was lame and you know it. You want to be argumentative, I get it, but you know as well as I do that suppressing speech from one side while tacitly supporting the other side through non-interference is not a winning combo in a courtroom. All a lawyer has to do is ask three simple questions.

"Do you have official standards for cases of censorship?"

"Are those standards applied fairly across the board?"

"Why didn't you apply them in these particular cases?" and show the judge/jury the specific cases where said standards weren't applied.

The thing about it is, YouTube and others depend on such videos for a revenue stream. Furthermore, they pay posters for such content. Hence, while technically not an employee, they are reducing a revenue stream to a particular person because of their political or ideological beliefs while continuing the practice with ones they agree with or as a minimum, don't interfere with.
Click to expand...

The "but someone else" defense. Genius.
 
#305
#305
Grand Vol said:
Oh really? So, anti-white hate speech is predicated on "protected class" status?

Their reasoning was lame and you know it. You want to be argumentative, I get it, but you know as well as I do that suppressing speech from one side while tacitly supporting the other side through non-interference is not a winning combo in a courtroom. All a lawyer has to do is ask three simple questions.

"Do you have official standards for cases of censorship?"

"Are those standards applied fairly across the board?"

"Why didn't you apply them in these particular cases?" and show the judge/jury the specific cases where said standards weren't applied.

The thing about it is, YouTube and others depend on such videos for a revenue stream. Furthermore, they pay posters for such content. Hence, while technically not an employee, they are reducing a revenue stream to a particular person because of their political or ideological beliefs while continuing the practice with ones they agree with or as a minimum, don't interfere with.
Click to expand...

Again, they made a business decision. I don't believe there is any winning legal strategy for Alex Jones to get his station back.

The Farrakhan argument is weak. It is akin to saying that we shouldn't prosecute one criminal because the police haven't caught every other criminal. Personally, I'd say ban him too.
 
#307
#307
ClearwaterVol said:
It is a tad bit different when you are a public official. If he was using his PRIVATE page to promote his businesses that would be one thing but he is using to advance his PUBLIC agenda.
Click to expand...

I’m glad you went down that road. Where is the line drawn between a person’s political position, their message, and the classification (i.e. public, private, etc.) of a social media page? I think I remember reading in the Constitution about digital hardware and social media, and their allowed/restricted uses by elected officials.

Is it a wall, never to be approached, much less scaled, or is it one of those “red lines,” etched in the sand of the Syrian/Iraqi desert?
 
#308
#308
ClearwaterVol said:
Again, they made a business decision. I don't believe there is any winning legal strategy for Alex Jones to get his station back.

The Farrakhan argument is weak. It is akin to saying that we shouldn't prosecute one criminal because the police haven't caught every other criminal. Personally, I'd say ban him too.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect , they are banning him because of breaking community rules based on what he says . If you are not consistent in your policing it shows a bias
 
#309
#309
hog88 said:
I don’t have a problem with these platforms banning anyone for whatever reason they want, it’s private business. My problem with CWV is when he threw up that they might be sued due to a nut job acting out because of something he saw on them.
Click to expand...

I have an issue when it isn't fairly applied across the board. There are antitrust issues here that CWV doesn't want to bring up.
 
#310
#310
Squints said:
I’m glad you went down that road. Where is the line drawn between a person’s political position, their message, and the classification (i.e. public, private, etc.) of a social media page? I think I remember reading in the Constitution about digital hardware and social media, and their allowed/restricted uses by elected officials.

Is it a wall, never to be approached, much less scaled, or is it one of those “red lines,” etched in the sand of the Syrian/Iraqi desert?
Click to expand...

When they are seeking election to a governmental position.
 
#311
#311
Mick said:
The "but someone else" defense. Genius.
Click to expand...

You know, if you aren't intelligent enough to be in this conversation, better to be thought the fool and make a post where everyone knows it.

That sort of thing is brought up all the time in the courtroom.
 
#312
#312
0nelilreb said:
You are incorrect , they are banning him because of breaking community rules based on what he says . If you are not consistent in your policing it shows a bias
Click to expand...

It certainly does and it is not illegal to be biased. I would prefer them to be even handed.


Grand Vol said:
I have an issue when it isn't fairly applied across the board. There are antitrust issues here that CWV doesn't want to bring up.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing the antitrust issues that you continue to reference. Explain it to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#313
#313
Grand Vol said:
I have an issue when it isn't fairly applied across the board. There are antitrust issues here that CWV doesn't want to bring up.
Click to expand...

I’m not concerned with the fairness issue, they should be able to do what they feel is best for their business or heck even if they simply don’t like his message.

They also shouldn’t fear a lawsuit over the guys content either.
 
#315
#315
Platform or publisher?

Facebook for years has argued and have been saying publicly that its not a media company but rather argued that its decision about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher" in court.

On one hand, their trying to argue that they are making editorial judgments. But then turn around and claim they are protected under [section 230] because they are not publishers.
 
#317
#317
ClearwaterVol said:
As long as it isn't a bias discriminating against a protected class...
Click to expand...

We both know the reason they are doing this against AJ he’s disliked enough , says enough crazy sh*t , aliens and tinfoil hat theory’s , that they think they can get away with it . This is not the only one they will do this to if it stands . I say they because it was a collective effort by all the major platforms . Them getting together and all banning him at once should scare the crap out of people .
 
#318
#318
ClearwaterVol said:
I am not seeing the antitrust issues that you continue to reference. Explain it to me.
Click to expand...

The fact Google holds pretty much a monopoly on such a market in regards to online videos? Inhibiting business based on political or personal beliefs? Think about what the government did to Microsoft back in the day in regards to Netscape. Sure, you have other video platforms like Vimeo and whatnot, but nothing to the size and scope of YouTube.

Ma Bell ring a bell? Sure, there were other telephone companies, but none with that kind of control or power over the market. You don't believe Google is the same these days in regards to internet capabilities? They are the Ma Bell of the 21st Century.

Yes, Google is primed for an antitrust lawsuit based on the sheer scope and size of their empire. Furthermore, it's only going to take a two bit night law school grad to prove that in court if they deny service based on personal or political belief unfairly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and 0nelilreb
#319
#319
Grand Vol said:
The fact Google holds pretty much a monopoly on such a market in regards to online videos? Inhibiting business based on political or personal beliefs? Think about what the government did to Microsoft back in the day in regards to Netscape. Sure, you have other video platforms like Vimeo and whatnot, but nothing to the size and scope of YouTube.

Ma Bell ring a bell? Sure, there were other telephone companies, but none with that kind of control or power over the market. You don't believe Google is the same these days in regards to internet capabilities? They are the Ma Bell of the 21st Century.

Yes, Google is primed for an antitrust lawsuit based on the sheer scope and size of their empire. Furthermore, it's only going to take a two bit night law school grad to prove that in court if they deny service based on personal or political belief unfairly.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge Google has removed AJ from it search results has it? It holds no monopoly on video posting. AJ has a website.


But in general, yes Google is so dominant that it may be ripe for a Ma Bell type break up. That is unrelated to the AJ matter though.
 
#320
#320
ClearwaterVol said:
To my knowledge Google has removed AJ from it search results has it? It holds no monopoly on video posting. AJ has a website.


But in general, yes Google is so dominant that it may be ripe for a Ma Bell type break up. That is unrelated to the AJ matter though.
Click to expand...


Ummm google owns YouTube .. FYI
 
#321
#321
ClearwaterVol said:
To my knowledge Google has removed AJ from it search results has it?

But in general, yes Google is so dominant that it may be ripe for a Ma Bell type break up. That is unrelated to the AJ matter though.
Click to expand...

It is related. Google owns YouTube (thought you knew this) so by proxy, Google is going to be brought into the suit. Yes, a lawyer could argue they are stifling business for personal or political views because of the sheer size of their domain and doing it through proxy companies.

Now, I'm not going to go all RICO like the one poster, but it surely is suspicious all of them decided at the same time to ban him. Every major platform in fact.

Yes, if this goes to court, there are several avenues that could be argued over the wrongness of the actions of Google/YouTube, Facebook and other internet mediums.
 
#322
#322
Grand Vol said:
It is related. Google owns YouTube (thought you knew this) so by proxy, Google is going to be brought into the suit. Yes, a lawyer could argue they are stifling business for personal or political views because of the sheer size of their domain and doing it through proxy companies.

Now, I'm not going to go all RICO like the one poster, but it surely is suspicious all of them decided at the same time to ban him. Every major platform in fact.

Yes, if this goes to court, there are several avenues that could be argued over the wrongness of the actions of Google/YouTube, Facebook and other internet mediums.
Click to expand...

I agree that the timing is very suspicious and all of them might be subject to a collusion claim. How ironic would that be? Yes, I know Google owns You Tube, but that doesn't give a winning formula to AJ because there are literally thousands of sites where AJ can post up his whack job videos and as long as Google isn't suppressing search results because he is AJ then I don't see any antitrust violation here.
 
#323
#323
0nelilreb said:
Ummm google owns YouTube .. FYI
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are still separate companies. Absent evidence of collusion between Google and You Tube, Google would not be subject to a lawsuit based upon the acts of a separate company whether they own it or not.

The basic rule is that parent corporations will not be liable for acts of their subsidiaries. This default rule is the reason so many conglomerates are structured as a hierarchy of parent and subsidiary corporations. The Supreme Court of the United States emphasized this basic rule in United States v Best Foods: “It is a general principle of corporate law deeply ingrained in our economic and legal systems that a parent corporation (so-called because of control through ownership of another corporation’s stock) is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries.”
 
#324
#324
ClearwaterVol said:
I agree that the timing is very suspicious and all of them might be subject to a collusion claim. How ironic would that be? Yes, I know Google owns You Tube, but that doesn't give a winning formula to AJ because there are literally thousands of sites where AJ can post up his whack job videos and as long as Google isn't suppressing search results because he is AJ then I don't see any antitrust violation here.
Click to expand...

You ever try searching for videos on Google? What do you think pops up first? Vimeo? LiveLeak?

Don't go full-Mick here.
 
#325
#325
Grand Vol said:
You ever try searching for videos on Google? What do you think pops up first? Vimeo? LiveLeak?

Don't go full-Mick here.
Click to expand...

I'd say you are the one in Mick mode because you are ignoring the law regarding when a parent company is liable for the acts of a subsidiary. Getting at Google is the hard part.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top