Enemy of the People

#326
#326
ClearwaterVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't even act like you lawyers won't bring in everyone they possibly can into a lawsuit. One of our sibling companies was sued and the lawsuit included the parent company.

Sure, a person could individually sue YouTube. Now, which legal team is going to come to court?
 
#327
#327
Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that has delusions of grandeur that wants to argue law with a lawyer. That's on you Chief.
 
#328
#328
Grand Vol said:
Don't even act like you lawyers won't bring in everyone they possibly can into a lawsuit. One of our sibling companies was sued and the lawsuit included the parent company.

Sure, a person could individually sue YouTube. Now, which legal team is going to come to court?
Click to expand...

Here is the problem GV... AJ has no basis in which to sue You Tube. Such a lawsuit would be subject to a Motion to Dismiss. Unless there is evidence of collusion between You Tube and Google, there is no basis to sue Google for You Tube's act of banning AJ.

As a matter of general principle, I agree that often times lawyers try to get the parent company involved, but that is typically when the subsidiary doesn't have assets sufficient to cover the liability. In this case, you have two multi-billion dollar companies. They have separate boards, executives and management. Google is not liable for the acts of You Tube absent evidence of collusion.

Which legal team? It is extremely likely the two corporations would have separate counsel and the case would be monitored by the counsel for Alphabet.
 
#329
#329
ClearwaterVol said:
Here is the problem GV... AJ has no basis in which to sue You Tube. Such a lawsuit would be subject to a Motion to Dismiss. Unless there is evidence of collusion between You Tube and Google, there is no basis to sue Google for You Tube's act of banning AJ.

As a matter of general principle, I agree that often times lawyers try to get the parent company involved, but that is typically when the subsidiary doesn't have assets sufficient to cover the liability. In this case, you have two multi-billion dollar companies. They have separate boards, executives and management. Google is not liable for the acts of You Tube absent evidence of collusion.

Which legal team? It is extremely likely the two corporations would have separate counsel and the case would be monitored by the counsel for Alphabet.
Click to expand...

When has that ever stopped one of your kind. There is always the first.

But I agree he should have no case here.
 
#330
#330
ClearwaterVol said:
Here is the problem GV... AJ has no basis in which to sue You Tube. Such a lawsuit would be subject to a Motion to Dismiss. Unless there is evidence of collusion between You Tube and Google, there is no basis to sue Google for You Tube's act of banning AJ.

As a matter of general principle, I agree that often times lawyers try to get the parent company involved, but that is typically when the subsidiary doesn't have assets sufficient to cover the liability. In this case, you have two multi-billion dollar companies. They have separate boards, executives and management. Google is not liable for the acts of You Tube absent evidence of collusion.

Which legal team? It is extremely likely the two corporations would have separate counsel and the case would be monitored by the counsel for Alphabet.
Click to expand...

Would loss of income not count as a basis to sue Youtube?
 
#331
#331
Mick said:
I'm not the one that has delusions of grandeur that wants to argue law with a lawyer. That's on you Chief.
Click to expand...

Done it before and even CWV will admit he's come off second best from time to time with me.

You may go now.
 
#332
#332
SLICKYINC said:
Would loss of income not count as a basis to sue Youtube?
Click to expand...

That would be an issue of damages not liability. He still needs a cause of action. He doesn't have any right to be on You Tube for simply banning him. My feelings are that his best course of action would be to sue all the entities that banned him on the same day and allege antitrust violations and collusion, but he needs to have evidence to support that theory. He would also need massive amounts of cash to maintain that lawsuit. One of the big plaintiff firms might take it on a contingency, but it would probably have to be one of the firms that takes the lead in mass tort litigation. This would be a battle royale.
 
#334
#334
ClearwaterVol said:
That would be an issue of damages not liability. He still needs a cause of action. He doesn't have any right to be on You Tube for simply banning him. My feelings are that his best course of action would be to sue all the entities that banned him on the same day and allege antitrust violations and collusion, but he needs to have evidence to support that theory. He would also need massive amounts of cash to maintain that lawsuit. One of the big plaintiff firms might take it on a contingency, but it would probably have to be one of the firms that takes the lead in mass tort litigation. This would be a battle royale.
Click to expand...

The cause is unfair practices and standards. We move back to the goose and gander defense in which YouTube doesn't have a defense.
 
#335
#335
Grand Vol said:
The cause is unfair practices and standards. We move back to the goose and gander defense in which YouTube doesn't have a defense.
Click to expand...

That is not a cause of action. You Tube has no duty to be fair in their practices or standards. They could put out a press release today stating that they are removing the You Tube channels of all individuals that have green eyes and there ain't damn thing legally that can be done about it.
 
#336
#336
ClearwaterVol said:
That is not a cause of action. You Tube has no duty to be fair in their practices or standards. They could put out a press release today stating that they are removing the You Tube channels of all individuals that have green eyes and there ain't damn thing legally that can be done about it.
Click to expand...

If we were in a car, I'd smack you with a fly swatter and warn you about wait until I get you home.

Just wait until I get back on a computer...
 
#339
#339
Grand Vol said:
If we were in a car, I'd smack you with a fly swatter and warn you about wait until I get you home.

Just wait until I get back on a computer...
Click to expand...

If you have kids, you've uttered the phrase, "Life ain't fair." It isn't and You Tube doesn't have a duty to be fair to Alex Jones or provide him a platform from which to spew his nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, CABVOL, hog88 and 1 other person
#340
#340
ClearwaterVol said:
If you have kids, you've uttered the phrase, "Life ain't fair." It isn't and You Tube doesn't have a duty to be fair to Alex Jones or provide him a platform from which to spew his nonsense.
Click to expand...
They can do that its their business, but they need to make sure they are being fair with all sides. Once you start banning anyone other than terrorists the decisions can be questioned. I have never heard this guy he might be a terrorist. If it is a left leaning conservative hating company they need to acknowledge it publicly, then they can do what they want and everyone can make an informed decision before joining.
 
#342
#342
IPleadInsanity said:
They can do that its their business, but they need to make sure they are being fair with all sides. Once you start banning anyone other than terrorists the decisions can be questioned. I have never heard this guy he might be a terrorist. If it is a left leaning conservative hating company they need to acknowledge it publicly, then they can do what they want and everyone can make an informed decision before joining.
Click to expand...

That might be an fair business model, but nobody wants to hang a sign proclaiming their bigotry for all to see.
 
#344
#344
lawgator1 said:
Not going to gum things up with another thread on media issues, so will just put this here.

Fox News has been absolutely obsessed this week with covering the disappearance of this young woman, a U of Iowa student, Mollie Tibbets. Other networks or outlets have stories on it, and it should be covered to hopefully find her. But, it has really stuck out to me that Fox has story after story about this and it is odd to me since disappearances unfortunately occur routinely. There is some reason that Fox is so focused on this. Anyone else seeing this?
Click to expand...

You really are the Howard Stern listener when it comes to Fox. Most people only listen or watch for 15 minutes because they enjoy it, the other people watch the entire program so they can find things to piss and moan about .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#347
#347
ClearwaterVol said:
His right to free speech. He is a pandering jack wagon.

And you're right the comments are an awesome display of intellect.
Click to expand...

Soooo many comments about his free speech being taken away by youtube and whatnot.

It still astonishes me how many people conflate the 1A with protecting ALL speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#348
#348
SLICKYINC said:
I think he's been reading VN. He stole my "canary in a coal mine" analogy.
Click to expand...

I saw that and remembered your post. I looked at the date to make sure you weren't ripping him off, it checks out this time but I'm watching you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#349
#349
Septic said:
I saw that and remembered your post. I looked at the date to make sure you weren't ripping him off, it checks out this time but I'm watching you.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should start my own online satire show and sell toiletries...

 
#350
#350
ClearwaterVol said:
If you have kids, you've uttered the phrase, "Life ain't fair." It isn't and You Tube doesn't have a duty to be fair to Alex Jones or provide him a platform from which to spew his nonsense.
Click to expand...

They do have a duty to be fair applying their censorship standards across the board.

You and I both know it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top