[Tricks]

stratos stratos:

We should be rejoicing the courts have clearly said that youtube is not a source for news. So going to YouTube as your means of information is can no longer be considered a legitimate source.

It never has been.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But it how does the government justify expropriating control of a privately owned, privately funded property/business and then dictating who has access to it?

IIRC, the courts have already ruled that if the public has access to an establishment, then you cannot discriminate based on skin or sexual orientation. If you are running a private establishment, ie: a membership or locked door, then you can cater to who you want.

Youtube requires accounts to publish things, so to me it would be publicly viewable, but privately controlled.

I'm not sure even that is comparable. People may have public access to an establishment, but if they violate the rules of the establishment, they can be banned from the premises. I.E. if I steal from a store, they're within their right to not allow me entry to the store any longer.

$1:

And from what I can tell, he does not say that if you are Black or Democrat that you can't eat there. And by law, he can't.

No, he's implying Black people can't afford it.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So if You Tube can refuse someone over a First Amendment issue then why can't a restaurant refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve?

Because they're refusing someone who violates their rules. The same way a restaurant can. Lots of places will refuse to serve you if you aren't dressed appropriately or if you're hammered. Being black or gay is not a valid reason to refuse service, on youtube or a restaurant. If youtube were to remove someone from their platform for being Black, they would be hit with the same discrimination lawsuits that restaurants have been.

The thing you're conveniently forgetting is that being a conservative isn't a protected group. Being Black (or white, or brown or any colour) is.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yeah, sorry. We do not have bullshit 'hate speech' laws in our country because if we did then whoever has the power to define hate speech will do so.

I never wrote you did. I wrote that the Freedom to love, or dress, or be who you are is considered more important than someone elses' right to free speech. "Free Speech" is not an absolute.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Freedom of Speech is meaningless absent the right to offend.

It when another person is denied their rights that Speech becomes less important.

Yep, there are whole books filled with case law of courts now allowing businesses or people to treat two different identifiable groups of people differently. Whether that's for employment or for selling of property and goods. Effectively limiting their 1st Amendment right in the favour of the others 14th (15th?) amendment right.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But it how does the government justify expropriating control of a privately owned, privately funded property/business and then dictating who has access to it?

IIRC, the courts have already ruled that if the public has access to an establishment, then you cannot discriminate based on skin or sexual orientation. If you are running a private establishment, ie: a membership or locked door, then you can cater to who you want.

Youtube requires accounts to publish things, so to me it would be publicly viewable, but privately controlled.

I'm not sure even that is comparable. People may have public access to an establishment, but if they violate the rules of the establishment, they can be banned from the premises. I.E. if I steal from a store, they're within their right to not allow me entry to the store any longer.

If you create a private club, say a Gentlemens' club, and restrict membership to men only, that is legal because you are not accessible to the public. They know what they are signing up for, so you are not violating anyone's rights. Same with Youtube. They have a terms of service, and if people bothered to read it, I'm sure it says your account can be revoked at any time. So people know what they are signing up for.

Tricks Tricks:

$1:

And from what I can tell, he does not say that if you are Black or Democrat that you can't eat there. And by law, he can't.

No, he's implying Black people can't afford it.

I know. Bart is like that. He makes the same racist assumptions that many of his countrymen do. Only I don't think he realizes he's doing it, like when he was shocked Irdis Alba was being considered for the new Bond he was shocked because Bond is "British". But Alba, born in the UK, somehow wasn't.

I don't think Bart is in any way racist, I just think he makes assumptions that are; like Blacks can't afford to eat at a fine New York restaurant. (or that Blacks are only Democrat) The only way he's going to see that bias in himself is through demonstration.

But his choice of a fine dining establishment owned and operated by a gay French Pescetarian might be a good demonstration as to privilege in the US.