Rasputin_Vol
"Slava Ukraina"
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 72,056
- Likes
- 39,842
You are wrong with regards to #1 and not even sure what you are trying to say in #2.
I am fully aware that the 1A is designed to prevent the govt from limiting the rights of individuals. Also, individuals have the right to make individual decisions about who they want to serve or associate with.An amalgamation of random yahoos expressing their opinions on a social media app or comment section is different from a professional press corps. Drop a few F-bombs in here and try and make the case to Freak that he's silencing your journalistic rights to "free speech." Let me know how that works out for ya.
You're conflating the 1A with "people" thinking it protects all speech. It doesn't. The 1A (simply stated and with regards to speech) prevents the government from making laws that impede the press's ability to report or the citizen's ability to speak openly against the .gov, nothing more.
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.
I am fully aware that the 1A is designed to prevent the govt from limiting the rights of individuals. Also, individuals have the right to make individual decisions about who they want to serve or associate with.
This is a unique case.
I am going to make the argument that most of our media and social media companies are puppets or instruments or extensions of our govt... a merging of govt and corporate interests.
Also, these social media sites have agreements and terms and conditions. If these companies violate their own policies in favor of a certain very point, then they are now at the risk of breaking contract law, at the very least.
The media is not an extension of the government. Trump has you guys brainwashed in your beliefs and it allows him to attack any news story by merely saying fake news and not addressing a single fact.
As for the terms and conditions... it is akin to the 10 commandments. A bunch of tlou shall nots. Compliance doesn't guarantee you a platform anymore than not breaking the 10 commandments guarantees your eternal soul. It just a list of things you cannot do and usually includes a list of things for which you cannot blame the company.
Where things have the possibility to get dicey is the agreements that are created to share advertising revenue. However, the one I've seen provided the site the absolute ability to terminate your platform.
I am fully aware that the 1A is designed to prevent the govt from limiting the rights of individuals. Also, individuals have the right to make individual decisions about who they want to serve or associate with.
This is a unique case.
I am going to make the argument that most of our media and social media companies are puppets or instruments or extensions of our govt... a merging of govt and corporate interests.
Also, these social media sites have agreements and terms and conditions. If these companies violate their own policies in favor of a certain very point, then they are now at the risk of breaking contract law, at the very least.
After FLA News exclusively reported Tuesday that Republican State House candidate Melissa Howard didn’t have the college degree from Miami University in Ohio that she claimed to have earned, Mrs. Howard flew to Ohio Friday to prove our report wrong.
She posted a picture of a partial college transcript on her Facebook page and then later that day posted a picture of her sitting with her mother and holding a copy of a diploma. FLA News took her word and, despite evidence to the contrary, rescinded our story.
There is, however, one problem – the degree is a fake, Miami University General Counsel Robin Parker has confirmed to FLA News.
The media is not an extension of the government. Trump has you guys brainwashed in your beliefs and it allows him to attack any news story by merely saying fake news and not addressing a single fact.
So today, for the first time, my little toddler finally counted to ten. Everyone was celebrating, saying how proud they are in my kid, and then Ben Shapiro kicks open the door. "Oh you think it's impressive that they can count to ten? I can count to one million." and then proceeded, in my living room for the next two weeks, to count to one million. He then said "yep, another libtard destroyed" and then curbstomped my kid.
IMO, if conservative voices believe they are being censored, start your own social media platform and post away.
I am a moderate conservative, but I also believe a private company can do whatever they please. Those that don’t like what’s going on, get off those platforms. Quit twatting, get off Facebook, begin your own ISP and video streaming sight and get off YouTube. There are ways to fight back.
And I agree with that sentiment, but now here is the rub. Can a collection of companies get together/collude and agree to deny services to an individual? Can they come together and decide on what price they will sell their services for? Can they come together to control the supply of their goods in order to maintain price levels? Can a group of corporations come together and do any such agreement amongst themselves in a so-called free market?
Now you are using your thinking cap. Is speech a good or service? Can corporations collude amongst one another and limit someone's voice?I would guess that would fall somewhere under monopolization of those goods and services. I would believe the FCC would have a say in that. Does speech fall under that good and services platform? Does AJ have the opportunity to start his own platform or is he being barred from doing that?
Now you are using your thinking cap. Is speech a good or service? Can corporations collude amongst one another and limit someone's voice?
You need to ask yourself what was the purpose of the FCC putting limitations on ownership as you read thru some of this:I would guess that would fall somewhere under monopolization of those goods and services. I would believe the FCC would have a say in that. Does speech fall under that good and services platform? Does AJ have the opportunity to start his own platform or is he being barred from doing that?
No. Alex Jones in fact has his own website.I understand that argument. My question is are these people being prevented from starting their own platform to voice their thoughts?
NoIf someone’s banned from VN, does Freak prevent them from starting their own site to voice their opinions or are they able to start their own site without outside interference?
So what if you start your own site, Comcast and AT&T decide you’re violating their terms and they refuse you ISP service?I understand that argument. My question is are these people being prevented from starting their own platform to voice their thoughts?
If someone’s banned from VN, does Freak prevent them from starting their own site to voice their opinions or are they able to start their own site without outside interference?
So what if you start your own site, Comcast and AT&T decide you’re violating their terms and they refuse you ISP service?
I think it’s good things like this are happening, it’s waking people up to the fact that a handful of corporations can work together to effectively silence anyone they don’t agree with.