- 06 Feb 2021 16:37
#15155199
Yes, I read that. It reads like it was written by a person with mental health problems who believes in conspiracies.
Why should this definition supersede the actual definition?
Okay. NO company in the USA is allowed to discriminate in the basis of race. All private companies must follow this.
And all companies have the right to refuse service for almost any other reason.
Blablabla.
You already said that you think companies should have the right to refuse service to people. So you support Youtube banning racists.
Your problem seems that you want private companies to also be able to refuse service to black people.
But there are differences between black people and the alt-right.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
The Resister wrote:Are you illiterate or do you lose track of where you are in your pretend argument? I have no personal definition of democracy. Again, this has already been posted on this thread. Check it out:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm
Yes, I read that. It reads like it was written by a person with mental health problems who believes in conspiracies.
Why should this definition supersede the actual definition?
I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you.
I'm going to say this to you one more time. If you don't understand it, have someone else explain it to you.
IF one private company can discriminate on any basis (regardless of what that basis is), then the rule should apply to ALL private companies.
Okay. NO company in the USA is allowed to discriminate in the basis of race. All private companies must follow this.
And all companies have the right to refuse service for almost any other reason.
Is that the case? The answer is NO. The law does not apply equally across the board. The question in the OP is "Was YouTube Right to Ban the Alt - Right?" The answer is a resounding NO. Did they have a "legal" right to do it? Yes. Having the legal right to do something does not make it right. We have plenty of laws on the books that are unjust. The law permitting YouTube to ban the Alt - Right is inconsistent with the principles of Liberty and Freedom unless all private business are afforded that same degree of latitude.
But, then issue is other businesses cannot discriminate. There is an inconsistency in the application of our laws relative to basic fairness.
Historically, when you lock out one segment of society and treat them differently, they will (to borrow a few words from the Declaration of Independence):
" all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
Being locked out and censored, the Alt - Right (like any other segment of society) will rebel. Whether it's serving someone a burger or providing someone space on YouTube, there is a fundamental principle involved here: Should a private business discriminate against any segment of society? It's a matter of opinion and one that you cannot prevail on since opinions are just that. IF we lived under the Constitution as originally written and intended,
this would be a no brainer, legally speaking. However, we do not live under the Constitution as originally written and intended so we rely on the statutory laws.
The OP's question asks an opinion. You seem to want to prove me wrong by having a dissenting opinion (though I voted with the majority in the poll). My opinion is not wrong because it is an opinion. So, son, don't embarrass yourself by misrepresenting my opinion with rhetorical questions that are 180 degrees opposite of what I just said.
IF I were a judge in a court of law, I would not allow YouTube to discriminate AND I would base my ruling on the limits government has placed on private property owners and private businesses. That would force an appeals court to address the issue of private property. Once the courts officially tell you that you have no property "rights," you might understand the basis of my personal opinion.
I am glad that the "right" is being told they are second class citizens. Sadly they have no goals, no objectives, and no leadership. They have no vision of a future and the old concept of supporting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended was abandoned a couple of decades ago. Once you stomp on them for a while, those who long for Freedom and Liberty will articulate a new vision for reclaiming Liberty OR we will become a third world cesspool and the chaos and the divisiveness will become moot. I support The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man as a starting point for those who would like to be for something rather than to be protesting and telling us what they are against with no vision for what a future America would look like if they were in charge.
Blablabla.
You already said that you think companies should have the right to refuse service to people. So you support Youtube banning racists.
Your problem seems that you want private companies to also be able to refuse service to black people.
But there are differences between black people and the alt-right.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...