Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
And here you are defending them because your constitution applies only to the government.

Yup. And every time I do I tear up a little...

O say can you see, by the dawn's ear... *sobs*

I don't think I can finish.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
And here you are defending them because your constitution applies only to the government.

Yup. And every time I do I tear up a little...

O say can you see, by the dawn's ear... *sobs*

I don't think I can finish.

Yes you believe in the constitution, but when it comes to the principles it enshrines, you have nothing. Very principled of you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes you believe in the constitution, but when it comes to the principles it enshrines, you have nothing.

I believe in all of them, especially the one that allows you to shut down someone else's moronic free speech as a private citizen.

It came in handy when I had my business and I would yell, "Cut the political s*** talk out and get back to work before I fire your asses!"

Made me a mint.

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air! *tears up*

I just can't go on.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I believe in all of them, especially the one that allows you to shut down someone else's moronic free speech as a private citizen.

It came in handy when I had my business and I would yell, "Cut the political s*** talk out and get back to work before I fire your asses!"

Made me a mint.

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air! *tears up*

I just can't go on.

You say you believe in free speech one second, then provide an example of your censorship in the next. I suppose its a good thing you live under the laws of a free country, and not a tyrannical one, because your principles seem to be derived from authority.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You say you believe in free speech one second, then provide an example of your censorship in the next.

No, no, no my little confused foreign friend. I believe in free speech as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of Goddamn America to the Republic for Which it Stands. Everything else is some goofy Pollyannaish bullshnizzle.

Now, here's Kate:

God bless America, land that I love, stand....excuse me *sniffle* ...beside her and gui....I'm getting teary again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, no, no my little confused foreign friend. I believe in free speech as outline in the Constitution of the United States of Goddamn America. Everything else is some goofy Pollyannaish bullshnizzle.

Now, here's Kate:

God bless America, land that I love, stand....excuse me *sniffle* ...beside her and gui....I'm getting teary again.

It doesn't outline free speech. No where in the constitution does it say what free speech is, what it means, why it is protected, why it is important. But so long as the constitution says it is good, it must be.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But so long as the constitution says it is good, it must be.

Now you're learning! We'll make an American out of you yet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But so long as the constitution says it is good, it must be.

Now you're learning! We'll make an American out of you yet.

I love the united states and its freedoms. What I hate is when people take them for granted, or worse, are wholly ignorant of the reasons behind them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


We'll forgive you on that part once you pass your citizenship test.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But so long as the constitution says it is good, it must be.

Now you're learning! We'll make an American out of you yet.

I love the united states and its freedoms. What I hate is when people take them for granted, or worse, are wholly ignorant of the reasons behind them.

The reason we have the freedom of speech has to do with not being imprisoned when we criticize the government, as well as ensuring that the state church is not a requirement for all people (side note, unions seem to violate the first amendment in many instances).

That is the historical context behind that particular freedom that we have.

Im not sure it supports your argument, though.

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.

Way ahead of you.

The fair-weather friends of free speech

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But so long as the constitution says it is good, it must be.

Now you're learning! We'll make an American out of you yet.

I love the united states and its freedoms. What I hate is when people take them for granted, or worse, are wholly ignorant of the reasons behind them.

The reason we have the freedom of speech has to do with not being imprisoned when we criticize the government, as well as ensuring that the state church is not a requirement for all people (side note, unions seem to violate the first amendment in many instances).

That is the historical context behind that particular freedom that we have.

Im not sure it supports your argument, though.

The arguments given in favour of free speech predates the forming of your country by millennia.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

For the most part, I feel that arguments against the constitution and bill of rights that are based on it being "ancient history" are specious at best.

However, in this case, I'm not sure they foresaw private entities wielding more power than governments, coexisting in the same locale.

Now, the constitution clearly states who is limited by the documents, but as they say "a rose by any other name...."

I can absolutely see, in the relatively near future, private entities manipulating this paradigm to the fullest degree. I wouldn't be surprised to even see standing armies under the control of these same organizations. Of course, they wont be called an army.

Hypothetically, if a private organization was able to eliminate any and all sales of firearms within the nation, would the founding fathers be ok with this? I don't think they would be..

In the same vein, if a private organization was able to unilaterally, and effectively censor any dissenting opinion, would they be ok with that?

I don't think we are there yet, mind you, but I can absolutely see it as a real possibility and threat. I could even see a tyrannical government bypassing any such restrictions by using private entities as proxies.

I suppose its a discussion about the letter of law versus the spirit of the law, which fringes on philosophy. But, for We The People, I see little if any difference living under the thumb of a tyrannical government or under tyrannical corporate rule. The latter doesn't even need to maintain the illusion of adhering to the founding documents.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No thanks, I have some paint drying that requires my personal observation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No thanks, I have some paint drying that requires my personal observation.

Understandable. It's difficult to find time between supporting free speech on the one hand, and supporting censorship on the other.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Google's revenue outshines the GDP of many major countries. I can also see it going the way you describe. Corporate censorship is still censorship no matter which way we wish to construe it.

It's a simple choice between allowing people to speak and censorship. The latter is the beginning of tyranny, and it appears, at least according to this thread, that we have some tyrants among us.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Understandable. It's difficult to find time between supporting free speech on the one hand, and supporting censorship on the other.

Tell me about it. Now don't mind me, I'm gonna go read that brilliant construct of a one Mr. James Madison.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Tell me about it. Now don't mind me, I'm gonna go read that brilliant construct of a one Mr. James Madison.

Don't forget that little piece about slavery.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Don't forget that little piece about slavery.

I'll read 3/5ths of it.

Didn't. Google buy YT, or am I mistakenly thinking they did.