Enemy of the People

#352
#352
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...

It is no different than those VN members that have cried when their posts get deleted or certain posters get banned. Frank owns this site and Frank can do as Frank pleases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and ClearwaterVol
#354
#354
hog88 said:
It's best for you to let others do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

It's best to defer to the people that have more knowledge than you. That is a true sign of intelligence. The day I listen to know it all a-holes, I have been binge watching Infowars.
 
#356
#356
ClearwaterVol said:
No, they don't.
Click to expand...

Now, that would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

Goose, gander, my argument. You cannot single out one person for their personal or political beliefs without being at risk of a lawsuit when there are others that are as bad or worse than the offender in question.
 
#357
#357
Grand Vol said:
Now, that would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

Goose, gander, my argument. You cannot single out one person for their personal or political beliefs without being at risk of a lawsuit when there are others that are as bad or worse than the offender in question.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be the case but we all know who is responsible for why it is.....
 
#360
#360
Grand Vol said:
Now, that would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it?

Goose, gander, my argument. You cannot single out one person for their personal or political beliefs without being at risk of a lawsuit when there are others that are as bad or worse than the offender in question.
Click to expand...

I know your argument and you can always file a case, but the case would be really vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.

What right has You Tube impinged upon with regards to AJ?
 
#362
#362
ClearwaterVol said:
I know your argument and you can always file a case, but the case would be really vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.

What right has You Tube impinged upon with regards to AJ?
Click to expand...

YouTube. One word. Tell your phone to stop autocorrecting.

Again, unfair business practices of denying service to one when others are just as guilty. Does baking a cake (though the SCOTUS settled that one) ring a bell?
 
#364
#364
Grand Vol said:
YouTube. One word. Tell your phone to stop autocorrecting.

Again, unfair business practices of denying service to one when others are just as guilty. Does baking a cake (though the SCOTUS settled that one) ring a bell?
Click to expand...

That is not a right. You're just complaining that you don't like the way they do business. You need to show me a right that AJ has that YouTube has improperly impinged upon.

The cake case was different because the case involved allegedly improper discrimination. A person who is a member of a protected class has the right to be free from discrimination based upon that class.
 
#366
#366
Grand Vol said:
Is YouTube a public company?
Click to expand...

No, but its parent Alphabet is. The market cap for YT is ~$75b, you don't think that decisions made for YT don't affect Alphabet's bottom line?

Money talks, bullsh|t walks. Always follow the money, always.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#367
#367
GV - I take on employment cases and I have to reject more 90% of the cases that are brought to me. A standard consultation usually involves someone who tells me that they are forced to work in a "hostile work environment." I question them and it usually boils down to this... their boss picks on them because he is an a$$hole. He treats them different than other employees because he is an a$$hole. I usually listen to their stories and then tell them that there is no law against being an a$$hole.

Same thing here. Did AJ get treated unfairly? Maybe, but that doesn't give him a cause of action.
 
#368
#368
ClearwaterVol said:
That is not a right. You're just complaining that you don't like the way they do business. You need to show me a right that AJ has that YouTube has improperly impinged upon.
Click to expand...

Dear Lord, you aren't getting caught up in the "right" thing as well are you?

Let's put it into another term. If I am saying things a company doesn't like and they fire me for it, they are within their legal bounds to do so. Now, if I bring a lawsuit providing proof others were saying the same nasty things, or even worse, than I was, do I have a civil case?

Yes, I do and you know it. I might not win, but surely that gets its day in court. Because a judge isn't going to summarily dismiss such a thing as "sour grapes" or the good old "well, that's different." I'd dare say a judge would like to know what standards are in place and furthermore, if they are applied evenly across the board. If it turns out I was singled out for termination because they didn't like what I was saying, but turned a blind eye to other comments just as egregious as mine made in public, I have a case.

Now, slightly different paradigm here as AJ isn't technically an employee of YT. But...

He is getting paid for the number of clicks he produces on YT. Which makes him a de facto employee (if one could bring that argument) of YouTube. Hence, they have to show they are equal (in a civil case) in their application of justice. it certainly is a gray area in the law since he technically isn't an employee, but is being paid by that company for works he provides. I'd almost bet it gets heard on that basis alone to find the definition of "employee" and whether it applies to YouTube or not since they are paying folks.
 
#369
#369
Septic said:
No, but its parent Alphabet is. The market cap for YT is ~$75b, you don't think that decisions made for YT don't affect Alphabet's bottom line?

Money talks, bullsh|t walks. Always follow the money, always.
Click to expand...

Wait a sec, sparkles. According to CWV, the parent company won't (can't) be involved here.
 
#370
#370
ClearwaterVol said:
That is not a right. You're just complaining that you don't like the way they do business. You need to show me a right that AJ has that YouTube has improperly impinged upon.

The cake case was different because the case involved allegedly improper discrimination. A person who is a member of a protected class has the right to be free from discrimination based upon that class.
Click to expand...

How does the notion of "protected class" not violate equal protection laws?
 
#371
#371
Grand Vol said:
Dear Lord, you aren't getting caught up in the "right" thing as well are you?

Let's put it into another term. If I am saying things a company doesn't like and they fire me for it, they are within their legal bounds to do so. Now, if I bring a lawsuit providing proof others were saying the same nasty things, or even worse, than I was, do I have a civil case?

Yes, I do and you know it. I might not win, but surely that gets its day in court. Because a judge isn't going to summarily dismiss such a thing as "sour grapes" or the good old "well, that's different." I'd dare say a judge would like to know what standards are in place and furthermore, if they are applied evenly across the board. If it turns out I was singled out for termination because they didn't like what I was saying, but turned a blind eye to other comments just as egregious as mine made in public, I have a case.

Now, slightly different paradigm here as AJ isn't technically an employee of YT. But...

He is getting paid for the number of clicks he produces on YT. Which makes him a de facto employee (if one could bring that argument) of YouTube. Hence, they have to show they are equal (in a civil case) in their application of justice. it certainly is a gray area in the law since he technically isn't an employee, but is being paid by that company for works he provides. I'd almost bet it gets heard on that basis alone to find the definition of "employee" and whether it applies to YouTube or not since they are paying folks.
Click to expand...

I am caught up with the "right" thing because it is the minimum threshold to get into court.

No, you don't have a case unless you live in a state that protects workers. Oklahoma is a right to work state, so I would just about guarantee you would be SOL.

And yes, Federal judges love to toss cases.
 
#374
#374
Grand Vol said:
Wait a sec, sparkles. According to CWV, the parent company won't (can't) be involved here.
Click to expand...

Great, whatever. That doesn't change my position that corporations duty is to their shareholders.
 
#375
#375
ClearwaterVol said:
Because the anti-discrimination laws are in place to guarantee that all citizens have the same protections under the law.
Click to expand...

So, does AJ have a case to sue Facebook since he was shown the door but Farrakhan is still free to spew his hate? Or is a militant, black, Muslim-American considered a "protected class"?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top