Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Was Youtube Right to Ban Bismarck?

YES
19
50%
NO
19
50%
#15096871
On the debate of offensive speech in public. In 1971 the California Supreme Court ruled that offensive speech in public, in this case a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft", was legal, and the law barring it was illegal. It's interesting how the left had been fighting the rightwing censors for the rights to offensive speech since Elvis starting shaking his hips, through to rap and heavy metal lyrics in the 80's, violent video games in the 90's etc...and now the left have become the offended censors and the rightwing is fighting for offensive speech rights:

Melville Nimmer, lawyer: "What this young man did, was to walk through a courthouse corridor in Los Angeles County on his way to a courtroom where he had some business...While walking through that corridor, he was wearing a jacket upon which were inscribed the words Fuck the Draft. Also were inscribed the words Stop War and several peace symbols. When he entered the courtroom he took off his jacket and held it folded. When he left the courtroom, he was arrested for disturbing the peace: specifically, engaging in tumultuous and offensive conduct."

Chief Justice Warren Burger: "In this respect it's no different, is it, from what it would be if he'd been picked up out on the street in front of the building or in any other public place?"

Melville Nimmer: "Exactly, Mr. Chief Justice...I think it's important at the outset to point out to the Court that there was no violence, no component of violence, present. It is stated in the settled statement signed by the trial judge that the appellant did not engage in violence, did not threaten violence, that no one observing him engaged in violence or threatened violence. So the violence component is completely out.

And I suggest that that is terribly significant for the broader significance of this case. Pointing out, as it does, as it can do, depending upon this Court's decision, the very vital distinction between dissent -- which may be offensive to people; some people may not like it -- but non-violent dissent and violent dissent: a distinction that, all too often, members of the younger generation tend to forget. They tend to equate violent dissent and dissent that may be regarded as objectionable or offensive. It is terribly important, we submit, Your Honors, that this Court may clear that distinction -- that dissent, by its very nature, involves the right to be offensive. Non-offensive dissent is almost a contradiction in terms, because if it's not offensive it means you agree with it. But on the other hand, violent dissent is something quite different. And the facts of this case point out precisely that distinction."


#15097195
There are significant differences between saying “F the draft” and racist speech.

The former has been used to curb government overreach and protect individual liberties.

Racist speech, on the other hand, has supported government overreach and attacked individual liberties.
#15128172
I don't really know what to think about YouTube is doing, but it should be noted that all of Walt Bismarck's videos are archived and are easily searchable on google if you want to watch these videos. It's not like they disappeared off the internet.
#15128195
I, too, think corporations should be the arbiters of free speech.

Also still lolling at Verv being the second reply in this thread in this thread. And his post basically saying,

"As a fellow racist, I will speak on behalf of racists."

Lmao
#15128240
I, too, think corporations should be the arbiters of free speech.


I agree.

Because our God given free market will keep them telling the truth. You know. Like the tobacco companies would have if we hadn't regulated the shit out of them and forced them to lie.
#15129044
Random American wrote:I don't really know what to think about YouTube is doing, but it should be noted that all of Walt Bismarck's videos are archived and are easily searchable on google if you want to watch these videos. It's not like they disappeared off the internet.

I'm amending my statement here. I'm not alt-right, but I do find Youtube's power to censor concerning as they're pretty much a monopoly. Big tech obviously isn't a benevolent force.
#15129047
I'm amending my statement here. I'm not alt-right, but I do find Youtube's power to censor concerning as they're pretty much a monopoly. Big tech obviously isn't a benevolent force.


When you don't like something always insert the word "big" in front of it. Big oil, big tobacco, etc.

The fact is that YouTube is not a monopoly. But suppose I grant, for the sake of argument, that it is. So what? What does that have to do with censorship? If you do not like what they are doing then address that. Make them show everything. But, you see, you don't want to see everything. Miss Tween Nudist is legal but I damn sure don't want to force YouTube to post it. People do not usually advocate for free speech until it is their ox that is being gored. The solution to a monopoly is to break it up. The solution to free speech is to force people to support some things they find unsupportable.

So you tell them they have to allow political speech. Is it political speech just because a politician says it? Is telling people to use a drug to treat covid that is not effective? I say it is not. Is it political speech to allow someone to post videos of children in cages? No. It is news. Then maybe it becomes political. Or maybe not.

The point is that we should respect private property rights. If YouTube wants to ban Democrats, let them. Let me know how that works out for them revenue wise.

Would I ban the "Alt-Right"? Depends. First someone has to tell me what it is.
#15129060
Drlee wrote:The point is that we should respect private property rights.

I see no reason why I should in this case. It's a massive corporation that should probably be broken up.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26

So what's *your* take on it?

Election 2020

Looks like Democratic Voters are going early again[…]

Parts Of the Art of Leadership

Leadership Starts with You: What Goals and Plan[…]

Syrian war thread

In an important new interview with The Grayzone‘s[…]