Enemy of the People

#376
#376
ClearwaterVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK is a right to work state. But I still have to fire for cause and be equal in our application of company standards fairly. I know this for a fact because we're undergoing this situation right now.
 
#377
#377
Grand Vol said:
Wait a sec, sparkles. According to CWV, the parent company won't (can't) be involved here.
Click to expand...

Parent company does not run the day to day operations of the subsidiary and provided that the corporate form has been observed the parent company is shielded from liability relating to the acts of the subsidiary. BUT the subsidiary is an asset of the parent and thus if it declines in value the parent company will also decline.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#378
#378
Grand Vol said:
OK is a right to work state. But I still have to fire for cause and be equal in our application of company standards fairly. I know this for a fact because we're undergoing this situation right now.
Click to expand...

Does the complaint involve allegations of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, sex or disability?

Just looked it up. Oklahoma is an at will employment state meaning you can be fired without cause.
 
#379
#379
MG1968 said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Yes, Farrakhan is a member of several protected classes, but that only protects him from discrimination. It doesn't have any relation to the AJ situation.
 
#380
#380
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...
I'd be interested to know how much money Alphabet/YT has lost by allowing Infowars to remain on their platform for all of those years.
 
#381
#381
ClearwaterVol said:
Does the complaint involve allegations of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, sex or disability?

Just looked it up. Oklahoma is an at will employment state meaning you can be fired without cause.
Click to expand...

Yes, but whether or not we pay for unemployment claims is what I was getting at. If we terminate "because I don't like you" they are entitled to unemployment benefits. If we refuse, they can take us to court.

That's the fine print you lawyers love to sneak in.
 
#384
#384
Grand Vol said:
Yes, but whether or not we pay for unemployment claims is what I was getting at. If we terminate "because I don't like you" they are entitled to unemployment benefits. If we refuse, they can take us to court.

That's the fine print you lawyers love to sneak in.
Click to expand...

There we go. You are correct that you must fire for cause in order to deny unemployment benefits.

AJ is not an employee of YouTube.

However, I just did a little research and found that when creators of content reach a certain level they can enter into a Partner Program with YouTube. There is an agreement that is entered into which might give AJ an angle to get at YouTube, but YouTube specifically reserves the right to terminate the channel at anytime. However, AJ might allege a breach of contract against YouTube along with a bad faith claim as it relates to the contract. That lawsuit must be filed in Santa Clara, California and AJ might be able to maintain action pursuant to California's Unfair Businesses Practices Act.

A written contract completely changes the landscape on this one. I am sure that You Tube consulted its attorneys before making this move though.
 
#385
#385
ClearwaterVol said:
There we go.
Click to expand...

You normally aren't condescending. Why start now...

ClearwaterVol said:
AJ is not an employee of YouTube.

However, I just did a little research and found that when creators of content reach a certain level they can enter into a Partner Program with YouTube. There is an agreement that is entered into which might give AJ an angle to get at YouTube, but YouTube specifically reserves the right to terminate the channel at anytime. However, AJ might allege a breach of contract against YouTube along with a bad faith claim as it relates to the contract. That lawsuit must be filed in Santa Clara, California and AJ might be able to maintain action pursuant to California's Unfair Businesses Practices Act.

A written contract completely changes the landscape on this one.
Click to expand...

Now you're seeing where I'm going with this one. To be an employee or not to be.
 
#386
#386
Grand Vol said:
You normally aren't condescending. Why start now...



Now you're seeing where I'm going with this one. To be an employee or not to be.
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to be condescending.

It really is not an employee/employer issue rather it is just a straight contract. I might not have seen the entire contract, but I expected a lot more "outs" for YT than what I saw.
 
#387
#387
ClearwaterVol said:
Wasn't trying to be condescending.

It really is not an employee/employer issue rather it is just a straight contract. I might not have seen the entire contract, but I expected a lot more "outs" for YT than what I saw.
Click to expand...

"Dangit! I hate it when GV is right!"
 
#388
#388
Grand Vol said:
"Dangit! I hate it when GV is right!"
Click to expand...

Not right on this one except to say that he might have a cause of action. Still needed a right to hang the lawsuit on and that is provided by the Partner Agreement. Without that, AJ has zip. Simple breach of contract he likely loses because he likely wouldn't be permitted to present evidence of hate speech that YT allowed and the contract allowed YT to terminate. However, the bad faith claim claim might have some teeth. I just read the Unfair Business Practices Act in California and I don't think it is applicable.
 
#389
#389
ClearwaterVol said:
Not right on this one except to say that he might have a cause of action. Still needed a right to hang the lawsuit on and that is provided by the Partner Agreement. Without that, AJ has zip. Simple breach of contract he likely loses because he likely wouldn't be permitted to present evidence of hate speech that YT allowed and the contract allowed YT to terminate. However, the bad faith claim claim might have some teeth. I just read the Unfair Business Practices Act in California and I don't think it is applicable.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to think if they "fired" him for cause, yet allow the same egregious behavior from others, that should be able to be presented.

You and I both know California has some kooky labor laws and I'd almost assume it could be allowed.
 
#390
#390
Grand Vol said:
I'd tend to think if they "fired" him for cause, yet allow the same egregious behavior from others, that should be able to be presented.

You and I both know California has some kooky labor laws and I'd almost assume it could be allowed.
Click to expand...

Employee is going to be a defined term and I don't think that youtubers will qualify.
 
#393
#393
Grand Vol said:
I think it could be a landmark case in that regard. It could be a very compelling case to hear on those grounds.
Click to expand...

They just don't qualify to be classified as employees. They are independent contractors. YT doesn't tell the YTers what to publish or when to publish. It is more akin to a freelance writer. They aren't employees of the paper or magazine, they are simply a subcontractor.
 
#395
#395
I just thought of another issue that might impact a suit by AJ. Are there any comparable channels on the far left that are actually monetized and subject to the same contract? If there are not, then AJ's case would be gutted because he would not be able to point to any other YTers that were treated differently. In order to make such a comparison, I would expect the court to require similar circumstances. I looked for a Louis Farrakhan YT channel, but the only one I saw only had 4,000 followers so it wasn't monetized and I am not even sure that it is his channel. AJ had 2.4M subscribers and was making some serious coin off his YT channel.
 
#396
#396
ClearwaterVol said:
I just thought of another issue that might impact a suit by AJ. Are there any comparable channels on the far left that are actually monetized and subject to the same contract? If there are not, then AJ's case would be gutted because he would not be able to point to any other YTers that were treated differently. In order to make such a comparison, I would expect the court to require similar circumstances. I looked for a Louis Farrakhan YT channel, but the only one I saw only had 4,000 followers so it wasn't monetized and I am not even sure that it is his channel. AJ had 2.4M subscribers and was making some serious coin off his YT channel.
Click to expand...
Young Turks maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496 and Rasputin_Vol
#397
#397
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...

Does rolling google and YouTube up under Alphabet help them avoid a monopoly problem ? I was wonder that but I’m not sure

Edit : that’s for anyone , I just happen to see septic’s post on alphabet
 
#400
#400
Rasputin_Vol said:
Ironic that the media champions the 1st Amendment yet has no problem limiting the voices of those they don't agree with.
Click to expand...

A) Social media is not the press.
B) The government isn't attempting to silence anyone. Free speech as it pertains to the 1st Amendment is not at all relevant to anything being discussed here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol and TennTom
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top