It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's a good thing that no single person runs the country then right?




posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
So it is a little disconcerting when the principle of free speech is applied only to governments.


Not so. A private entity's right to censor is not covered anywhere in law. To apply it to private enterprise would be unconstitutional. They have that right.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That’s right. And free speech is the foundation of democracy



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
And free speech is the foundation of democracy


That would be ones ability to select ones leaders. The first true democracy, the Greeks, did not have free speech as we have today and certainly did not have absolute freedom of speech.





edit on 29-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁️ 💓 🧀 🍕



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




That would be ones ability to select ones leaders. The first true democracy, the Greeks, did not have free speech as we have today and certainly did not have absolute freedom of speech.


They were the pioneers of free speech and democracy, but no they did not have absolute freedom of speech nor true democracy.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




Not so. A private entity's right to censor is not covered anywhere in law. To apply it to private enterprise would be unconstitutional. They have that right.


It is not unconstitutional to apply free speech to anyone, private, government or otherwise.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid




Not so. A private entity's right to censor is not covered anywhere in law. To apply it to private enterprise would be unconstitutional. They have that right.


It is not unconstitutional to apply free speech to anyone, private, government or otherwise.


But it is to limit it. With the exception of the gov't.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




But it is to limit it. With the exception of the gov't.


I'm not sure how that is the case. If any entity censors another, they are infringing on free speech.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


And the Founders were cool with that.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


And the Founders were cool with that.


"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

- Jefferson

Doesn't sound like it.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You seem to have a problem differentiating between public and private. He very well may have had that "personal" stance but not apply it in public matters.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

- Jefferson

Doesn't sound like it.


Gonna have to show me that quote in the Constitution which his boy, Madison, wrote a good portion of. Will it be a awhile?

And if they weren't cool with it the thing never would have been signed and ratified. 'Founders' has an 'S' on the end which makes it plural.



edit on 29-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Gonna have to show me that quote in the Constitution which his boy, Madison, wrote a good portion of. Will it be a awhile?

And if they weren't cool with it the thing never would have been signed and ratified. 'Founders' has an 'S' on the end which makes it plural.


Oh, sorry.

"I'm cool with that."

- Madison

"I'm cool with that"

- Jefferson

But no, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act came into existence in 1996.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




You seem to have a problem differentiating between public and private. He very well may have had that "personal" stance but not apply it in public matters.


Yeah, I don't pick and choose to whom I apply my principles. If you are a censor you are a censor. It's as simple as that.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Oh, sorry.


You should be.

Last time I checked the Constitution got ratified without absolute free speech. I know you're bummed and all but maybe you can revolt against the government of the country in which you currently reside and implement your own Bill of Rights. The one we have over here in the United States of America seems to be working out just fine for the past 200+ years.

#
FoundingFathers



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Oh, sorry.


You should be.

Last time I checked the Constitution got ratified without absolute free speech. I know you're bummed and all but maybe you can revolt against the government of the country in which you currently reside and implement your own Bill of Rights. The one we have over here in the United States of America seems to be working out just fine for the past 200+ years.

#
FoundingFathers


Again, sorry, I'm not speaking about the first amendment, nor the constitution. I know you're confused, but some minor adjustments to your thought might help you get a better grasp on the subject. Corporate censorship is a thing. And yes I am worried you advocate for it.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Again, sorry, I'm not speaking about the first amendment, nor the constitution.


That's cute because that is what the case is about. If you want to conversate about your personal absolute free speech utopia maybe vomit up a mutli-paragraph Original Post on its alleged virtues. The thread is how YouTube was permitted to remove videos and how it's not un-Constitutional as per our OG bros Madison et. al. laid out.





edit on 29-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Again, sorry, I'm not speaking about the first amendment, nor the constitution.


That's cute because that is what the case is about. If you want to conversate about your personal absolute free speech utopia maybe vomit up a mutli-paragraph Original Post on its alleged virtues. The thread is how YouTube was permitted to remove videos and how it's not un-Constitutional as per our OG bros Madison et. al. laid out



That's cute because the case is about ideological discrimination. So how about you keep pointing out how American you are and referring to your founding fathers, because it really seems to help.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's cute because the case is about ideological discrimination.


Found to be legal because the Constitution, hold on to your tricorn hat, only applies to the United States Government.

And I'm an American who lives in America and loves our American Founding Fathers. Where you at brah?




edit on 29-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁️ 💓 🧀 🍕



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Found to be legal because the Constitution, hold on to your tricorn hat, only applies to the United States Government.

And I'm an American who live in America and loves our American Founding Fathers. Where you at brah?


That's true. They censored and discriminated. And here you are defending them because your constitution applies only to the government. Truth is, actions are not wrong because they are against the law, they are against the law because they are wrong.




top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join