Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.

Your principles shift as much as the sands they are built on.

Corporations have free speech rights as well.

Part of free speech is the right not to pass on views you find objectionable.

Even if YouTube was restricting conservative views (and it seems unlikely) it would be within their right to do so.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If there was never any intent to legislate the issue, why was a Senate hearing ever held?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.

Ignorance then. You saw it wrongly.

Yeah, me not accepting your ad hominem opinion as gospel truth is TOTALLY a matter of ignorance. *eyeroll...*

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've decided to not get into an off topic discussion about myself. It's ridiculous. Maybe try that.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Corporations have free speech rights as well.

Part of free speech is the right not to pass on views you find objectionable.

Even if YouTube was restricting conservative views (and it seems unlikely) it would be within their right to do so.

Of course it is within Google's rights to do so. They can do whatever they want with their business. The issue is whether it is right or wrong to do so.

a reply to: intrepid

Yeah. Good point. Time to derail that conversation train.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.

Ignorance then. You saw it wrongly.

Yeah, me not accepting your ad hominem opinion as gospel truth is TOTALLY a matter of ignorance. *eyeroll...*

Did you or did you not confuse the first amendment with the principle it was meant to enshrine?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's be honest, both you and Slap have confused the 1st...

Just so we're clear what does the First Amendment outline vis a vis interactions between non-state actors?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Just so we're clear what does the First Amendment outline vis a vis interactions between non-state actors?

Nothing. The constitution applies to the state.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course not. I already told you that I'm a realist. Totally free speech is impossible, so instead I defer to the 1st.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Nothing. The constitution applies to the state.

So how can anyone replying to you be confusing the First Amendment, or it's principles, when it doesn't apply to a corporation or private citizen?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Corporations have free speech rights as well.

Part of free speech is the right not to pass on views you find objectionable.

Even if YouTube was restricting conservative views (and it seems unlikely) it would be within their right to do so.

Of course it is within Google's rights to do so. They can do whatever they want with their business. The issue is whether it is right or wrong to do so.

I think company's are entitled to take ethical and political standpoints over what content they publish.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So how can anyone replying to you be confusing the First Amendment, or it's principles, when it doesn't apply to a corporation or private citizen?

Principles apply to everyone.

i have no problem at all admitting freely that when you are in my home, you do not have the privilege of freedom of speech. You instead are given an expectation of politeness, and are expected to abide by it or leave.

I see no issue with affording other people similar, as is mine and their right. While free expression is nice, i don't have to listen to crap i don't like nor do I feel that someone should feel required to host opinions they don't like. If i want to enjoy rights, i need to make sure we enjoy all of them. 5th Amendment rights give me my property rights....and I have no intention of letting your perceived 1st amendment rights to trample them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Principles apply to everyone.

Your principles are irrelevant, one, because the Constitution applies to the government and two, because you aren't an American.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I think company's are entitled to take ethical and political standpoints over what content they publish.

Then we are in agreement. If only google would make those ethical and political standpoints known, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your principles are irrelevant, one, because the Constitution applies to the government and two, because you aren't an American.

Another example of confusing the first amendment with free speech. One, freedom of speech is not limited to your border, and two, it is not limited to the government.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


In this case it is. I don't care about your free speech, or frankly anyone else's, unless you happen to live in 'Murcia and our rat bastard government is somehow impinging on them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In this case it is. I don't care about your free speech, or frankly anyone else's, unless you happen to live in 'Murcia and our rat bastard government is somehow impinging on them.

That's the point I'm trying to make. You do not care about free speech. At least you're honest.

Perhaps the true purpose of the lawsuit was to prove in court that YouTube and Google does in fact censor conservative views that they don't agree with. Nobody expected them to change, but now it's irrefutable.