Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

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

No, I don't, not in some bizarre absolutist manner and neither did the Founding Fathers as evidenced by how they worded the First Amendment.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

It's more likely that they chose one of two methods of dealing with others legal rights.

1- "Oops, my bad."

2-



Now which do you think it was?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.

That wasn't proven though. It WAS proven that Google and Youtube will censor sites, but at no point was it established that the reasons are purely political in nature and that they are anti-conservative as well.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So if I came in to your house and started calling your wife vile things you would do nothing to stop me?

The first amendment was written to limit what the government could do to its citizens.

That was the spirit behind it. Those that claim otherwise look clueless IMHO.

Our forefathers had the newspapers and if someone had tried to sue the newspapers for not publishing their opinion I am certain they would label them as idiots.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, I don't, not in some bizarre absolutist manner and neither did the Founding Fathers as evidenced by how they worded the First Amendment.

Yes, I get it. But I have to wonder if you know the reasons why it is protected by the first amendment, and if you agree with those reasons.

I don't get the original beef to start with. This is the same thing you see before most shows:



So you have to click the 18+ button. Big frickin whoop.

a reply to: intrepid

So you have to click the 18+ button. Big frickin whoop.

Giving away your freedom incrementally is till giving away your freedom.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

So you have to click the 18+ button. Big frickin whoop.

Giving away your freedom incrementally is till giving away your freedom.

Quick math question for you. If you have a cookie and every 2 minutes you remove 1% of the cookie from the whole, will you ever have no cookie?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

So you have to click the 18+ button. Big frickin whoop.

Giving away your freedom incrementally is till giving away your freedom.

Our very constitution places age requirements on certain things. That's because it is not unreasonable to ask for people to be of a certain age to engage in certain activities.

That's not giving up your freedoms. That basic responsibility.

Funny though, I once read a similar argument to your's being made by those that think they should be able to marry children.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Quick math question for you. If you have a cookie and every 2 minutes you remove 1% of the cookie from the whole, will you ever have no cookie?

If the cookie is sliced into 100 pieces, and you subtract one piece every two minutes, you will eventually be left with no cookie.

a reply to: introvert

Our very constitution places age requirements on certain things. That's because it is not unreasonable to ask for people to be of a certain age to engage in certain activities.

That's not giving up your freedoms. That basic responsibility.

Funny though, I once read a similar argument to your's being made by those that think they should be able to marry children.

What?

Should I point out who in history advocated censorship? You're not in good company.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you think that alcohol companies should be free to sell to children.

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't get the original beef to start with. This is the same thing you see before most shows:

So you have to click the 18+ button. Big frickin whoop.

I always chuckle when I'm browsing the Steam store and I click on a game but it asks me for my age first before I can view that game's store page. I just pick a random year that I know is greater than 18 years and hit ok without even bother filling it out properly. I mean I'm 33, but everyone knows those disclaimers aren't stopping anyone.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you think that alcohol companies should be free to sell to children.

Do you speak only in questions?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Quick math question for you. If you have a cookie and every 2 minutes you remove 1% of the cookie from the whole, will you ever have no cookie?

If the cookie is sliced into 100 pieces, and you subtract one piece every two minutes, you will eventually be left with no cookie.

That isn't the question I asked. Here, let me help you out: 100 - 1% = 99; 99 - 1% = 98.01; 98.01 - 1% = 97.0299 ...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's not an answer.

Also, it wasn't a question. It was a statement. If placing an age restriction on a video is violating the content creator's free speech then placing an age restriction on the purchase of alcohol must be a violation of the manufacturer's free speech.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Our very constitution places age requirements on certain things. That's because it is not unreasonable to ask for people to be of a certain age to engage in certain activities.

That's not giving up your freedoms. That basic responsibility.

Funny though, I once read a similar argument to your's being made by those that think they should be able to marry children.

What?

Should I point out who in history advocated censorship? You're not in good company.

What does that have to do with what I said?

I pointed out that the constitution itself places age restrictions on certain activities. Were the founding fathers against freedom?

Also, there are laws in all states about the age children must be to engage in certain activities. Is that an encroachment on their freedoms, or an encroachment on the freedom of those that wish to, for example, marry a young child?

Considering your argument, it appears you need to be worried about the company you keep.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That isn't the question I asked.

The question was too stupid for my liking.

a reply to: introvert

What does that have to do with what I said?

I pointed out that the constitution itself places age restrictions on certain activities. Were the founding fathers against freedom?

Also, there are laws in all states about the age children must be to engage in certain activities. Is that an encroachment on their freedoms, or an encroachment on the freedom of those that wish to, for example, marry a young child?

Considering your argument, it appears you need to be worried about the company you keep.

Why do you keep bringing up the age of children and child marriage? Is this the first thing that comes to mind?