[Pants-of-dog]

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.

[The Resister]

You are babbling.

My posts are not for those whose shoe size is greater than their IQ

[Drlee]

IF one private company can discriminate on any basis (regardless of what that basis is), then the rule should apply to ALL private companies.

Why?

You use the term discrimination. I reject that a pejorative term. Editing content to satisfy ones business model is not discrimination in the legal sense.

Your childish reasoning seems to be something like, "if the speed limit on Johns private road is 50 miles per hour then the speed limit on all private roads has to be 50 miles per hour.

I not that you have very little regard for private property rights. While your beloved (though amateurish) Declaration speaks of private property rights you come here to specifically denying the private property rights of the owners of private companies.

Typical.

[late]

My posts are not for those whose shoe size is greater than their IQ

You've divorced reality.

Which means you're stuck in a loop, and anything outside that loop gets ignored.

[The Resister]

Why?

You use the term discrimination. I reject that a pejorative term. Editing content to satisfy ones business model is not discrimination in the legal sense.

Your childish reasoning seems to be something like, "if the speed limit on Johns private road is 50 miles per hour then the speed limit on all private roads has to be 50 miles per hour.

I not that you have very little regard for private property rights. While your beloved (though amateurish) Declaration speaks of private property rights you come here to specifically denying the private property rights of the owners of private companies.

Typical.

My posts are intended for people that have an IQ higher than their shoe size. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies on your part call into question your IQ and your sincerity in having an honest and productive exchange.

When it comes to private property, IF the law allowed me to pick and choose my clientele, I could support YouTube's position. It doesn't. So, IF YouTube censors people and gets away with it, we call that a double standard. Would I discriminate as to who I hire, fire, or serve? That is irrelevant. The objective is to be impartial and consistent. You're against that.

[The Resister]

You've divorced reality.

Which means you're stuck in a loop, and anything outside that loop gets ignored.

I almost wish I were being ignored. That way I wouldn't have to keep repeating the same thing over and over to people trolling me. Today's lesson: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Drlee]

@late You've divorced reality.

Which means you're stuck in a loop, and anything outside that loop gets ignored.

True. When all one does is watch Fox News there is little chance to cling to reality.

I really appreciate the crack about IQ. I recommend this youngster attend a Mensa convention. One thing Mensa conference attendees know is that when they walk into the conference lounge it is highly unlikely that they are the smartest person in the room. That sets the tone for a whole lot of listening.

@The Resister When it comes to private property, IF the law allowed me to pick and choose my clientele, I could support YouTube's position. It doesn't. So, IF YouTube censors people and gets away with it, we call that a double standard. Would I discriminate as to who I hire, fire, or serve? That is irrelevant. The objective is to be impartial and consistent. You're against that.

This makes no sense at all. None.

Oh by the way. There is no requirement that anyone be impartial or consistent. A restaurant owner is free to choose his menu.

I almost wish I were being ignored.

You have 100% control over that. Feel free to exercise it.

[Stormsmith]

Re: I almost wish I were being ignored. That way I wouldn't have to keep repeating the same thing over and over to people trolling me. Today's lesson: What's good for the goose is good for the gander



Instead of posting on a debate forum, email yourself

[The Resister]

True. When all one does is watch Fox News there is little chance to cling to reality.

I really appreciate the crack about IQ. I recommend this youngster attend a Mensa convention. One thing Mensa conference attendees know is that when they walk into the conference lounge it is highly unlikely that they are the smartest person in the room. That sets the tone for a whole lot of listening.



This makes no sense at all. None.

Oh by the way. There is no requirement that anyone be impartial or consistent. A restaurant owner is free to choose his menu.



You have 100% control over that. Feel free to exercise it.

Not a fan of Faux News so I don't watch it.

My analogies don't make sense to you because you don't understand the application. I can explain it to you; I just cannot understand it for you. The whole discussion is discussion fodder for law students, lawyers, and judges that argue the fine points of regularly.

American jurisprudence is built on what is known as stare decisis. That's a fancy Latin term for let the decision stand. So we build this whole body of what is known as case law. In case law, the courts try to reach a decision regarding a principle of law. That is called a precedent. So, the courts set this precedent and let's say I ban Muslims from my business. The courts tell me it's wrong. I have to accept them. I have to provide services to them. That principle should apply to all businesses. The point in having precedents is to make sure that the laws are applied consistently so that everybody gets the same result. YouTube provides a service. They are getting away with picking and choosing clientele. So, my position is simple:

YouTube, according to the existing law should have to provide access to their platform because they are not better than any other private entity. The counter-argument here is that the only time you cannot discriminate is when it's regarding race (which isn't true, BTW), so my question is - even if your counter-argument had any merit, what makes race any different than discriminating against the alt-right?

Apparently given your rationale, that alt-right ought to make their cause a strictly race based issue. Then they couldn't be banned. Problem solved.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not a fan of Faux News so I don't watch it.

My analogies don't make sense to you because you don't understand the application. I can explain it to you; I just cannot understand it for you. The whole discussion is discussion fodder for law students, lawyers, and judges that argue the fine points of regularly.

Not really. I remember discussing this in secondary school.

American jurisprudence is built on what is known as stare decisis. That's a fancy Latin term for let the decision stand. So we build this whole body of what is known as case law. In case law, the courts try to reach a decision regarding a principle of law. That is called a precedent. So, the courts set this precedent and let's say I ban Muslims from my business. The courts tell me it's wrong. I have to accept them. I have to provide services to them. That principle should apply to all businesses. The point in having precedents is to make sure that the laws are applied consistently so that everybody gets the same result. YouTube provides a service. They are getting away with picking and choosing clientele. So, my position is simple:

YouTube, according to the existing law should have to provide access to their platform because they are not better than any other private entity. The counter-argument here is that the only time you cannot discriminate is when it's regarding race (which isn't true, BTW), so my question is - even if your counter-argument had any merit, what makes race any different than discriminating against the alt-right?

Apparently given your rationale, that alt-right ought to make their cause a strictly race based issue. Then they couldn't be banned. Problem solved.

You are confusing two separate things:

1. Whether or not legal precedents apply to all private businesses equally, and
2. Who can businesses refuse service to.

Number one is irrelevant. Youtube is not special. Any business in the USA can refuse to serve the alt-right.

Number two is the only relevant issue. Why can businesses kick the alt-right out but not Muslims or blacks? Do you know?

[Unthinking Majority]

IF one private company can discriminate on any basis (regardless of what that basis is), then the rule should apply to ALL private companies.

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.

As far as I know, Youtube hasn't banned "the alt-right". I've still seen lots of controversial alt-right stuff on Youtube. What Youtube has done is banned certain people, that people say are "the alt-right", for breaking their terms of service. Alex Jones wasn't banned for being a member of some group or having controversial political opinions, he was banned for targeting a significant amount of harassment at someone.

Other people have been banned from Youtube for hateful/racist speech. That is a ban on behaviour, rules of terms of service, these aren't bans on people who belong to vague groups like "the alt-right". Youtube has no obligation to allow all viewpoints. The Bill of Rights ensures free speech rights from being curtailed by government, not by private companies.

The problem with having a private company being allowed to discriminate against someone for any reason is that it leads to things like putting black people at the back of the bus, banning blacks from movie theaters, having them drink from different water fountains, banning gay people from wherever.

[Drlee]

@Unthinking Majority

As far as I know, Youtube hasn't banned "the alt-right". I've still seen lots of controversial alt-right stuff on Youtube. What Youtube has done is banned certain people, that people say are "the alt-right", for breaking their terms of service. Alex Jones wasn't banned for being a member of some group or having controversial political opinions, he was banned for targeting a significant amount of harassment at someone.

This is an excellent point and at the heart of the issue. Steve Banon and Richard Spencer are both still there as are others. The Alt-Right viewpoint is still there but calls for violence, outright racism and other violation of the TOS are, correctly, gone.

@The Resister

The counter-argument here is that the only time you cannot discriminate is when it's regarding race (which isn't true, BTW), so my question is - even if your counter-argument had any merit, what makes race any different than discriminating against the alt-right?

Apparently given your rationale, that alt-right ought to make their cause a strictly race based issue. Then they couldn't be banned. Problem solved.

Of course, the difference is the law. You said it yourself.

BUT. And this is a big HOWEVER. YouTube has a clear protectable business interest in maintaining the attractiveness of their cite to the general audience they court. If they post racist stuff hundreds of millions of viewers would leave. I would NEVER, for example, visit Stormfront nor would a great many of my conservative friends. Incitement to violence is no different. This alone is a very good reason to ban certain videos and when the offenses are frequent and egregious a person or entity. Pofo has TOS that bans certain speech and rightfully so. The only difference between here and YouTube is size and scope.

But. I am a conservative with social libertarian leanings. I respect private property rights and want them protected. And that means that owners can do with their property pretty much what they want. Once YouTube moved to prevent others from forming their own company and forwarding their own agenda...then we will have an issue.

This is a big reach but I am going to float an idea. The SCOTUS in the Citizens United decision ruled, in effect that a corporation could spend as much as they want on political advertising and that laws prohibiting that are unconstitutional. So suppose that YouTube decided that it wanted, for political reasons, to ban alt-Right programming. Why is it different for them to use their platform (which is money after all is said and done) to forward a political agenda and perfectly OK for them to give a billion dollars to sway a political campaign. Bandwidth is just money. As I write this I am doing so because the owner of this site has decided that it is OK for me to spend a little of his money forwarding my political opinion.

Now I happen to know that though the owner and I are politically conservative, there are many times when we disagree on specifics. Why can he not legitimately decide not to spend his money on forwarding my political opinions? As a conservative with a strong wish to honor private property I say he can. It appears that you say he should be prohibited from doing that. At the end of the day though, for him it might be a combination of his innate sense of fairness (which we see constantly) and the knowledge that good debate requires opposing opinions.

So there are two specific points to which I would like to hear you respond.

[The Resister]

Not really. I remember discussing this in secondary school.



You are confusing two separate things:

1. Whether or not legal precedents apply to all private businesses equally, and
2. Who can businesses refuse service to.

Number one is irrelevant. Youtube is not special. Any business in the USA can refuse to serve the alt-right.

Number two is the only relevant issue. Why can businesses kick the alt-right out but not Muslims or blacks? Do you know?

You may discussed this stuff in secondary school, but you didn't discuss it in law school. You are wrong. If a party to any action makes a correlation between their situation and an existing principle of law, it should be discussed from a legal POV. In reality, there is no difference. A private business provides a service or product to the public. They should be able to equally discriminate OR they should all have to provide the product or service equally. It isn't rocket science.

What we have in America today is the process of disenfranchising part of the citizenry - which is what fragmented the Republican Party and has given Donald Trump a captive audience. It is not a system of equal justice. THAT is why the alt-right and Trump exist. YouTube can "legally" do what they did, but the law is wrong. When you oppress one segment of society, there will be push back. I will be putting my name on that charter as it provides an equal playing field for all with no special privileges for anyone while limiting the government. Now do we move forward?

[late]

When you oppress one segment of society, there will be push back.

Ahh, of course, the racists are the victims here.

[The Resister]

Ahh, of course, the racists are the victims here.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation Who in the name of good common sense called ANYBODY a victim? When in the Hell does a simple question about equal justice before the law amount to the creation of a victim class?

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation If you want to call me a racist, then what I would say in response would get me banned. Suffice it to say, those who troll my posts are probably more concerned with controlling their turf than participating an a conversation that requires thinking before responding.

[Drlee]

A private business provides a service or product to the public. They should be able to equally discriminate OR they should all have to provide the product or service equally. It isn't rocket science.

It may not be rocket science but it is certainly not the law. The most certainly can.

Now you posted a reference to your Rights of Man document twice. It honors private property. Why do you wish to ignore the private property rights of business owners?

Marketing is all about targeting. Suppose I own a bar. So I want my bar to cater to upscale patrons. So I impose a dress code. Call it a "TOS". In comes some guy who is disheveled and in violation of my dress code. I ask him to leave because he is likely to damage my business. Should I be allowed to do this? If so, then what is the difference between my TOS and YouTube's TOS? They both serve the same purpose.

I will be putting my name on that charter as it provides an equal playing field for all with no special privileges for anyone while limiting the government.

It actually does neither. It "does" nothing. You are just joining a club of like minded people. In this case people who advocate intimidating the lawful government through the threat of arms.

At the end of the day though your "charter" may give you a warm fuzzy, and the armed blowhards with whom you will associate make you feel powerful, what you are really saying is that you do not have a message that can carry the day with the people who vote.

Trump lost because he couldn't sell what he was trying to sell. Same thing with your nonsensical manifesto. People won't buy it because they do not need it.

The cruelest irony is that you seem to be selling a solution in search of a problem. The majority of Americans simply do not believe there is a problem. That is what you need to sell. Running around with you second amendment weekend soldiers will not carry the day with them.

What absolute stupidity! Who in the name of good common sense called ANYBODY a victim? When in the Hell does a simple question about equal justice before the law amount to the creation of a victim class?

If nobody is being victimized then I have to ask...What the fuck are you going on about? As I just said. You propose a solution in search of a problem.

Stop the IQ shit please. It is not necessary to deliberately insult anyone. And trust me. Your posts are not at all hard to understand. I have heard this shit since 8th grade.

[skinster]

I remain opposed to the banning of the alt-right and the left that is also being censored, pages removed, etc.

This is dangerous and if things carry on in this manner, all we'll have left is neoliberalism on sale, with the banishing of the other right and of course, the left alongside, as has been happening.

[Godstud]

@skinster They are banning people who have said particularly nasty things, and not simply "alt-right" people, as @Drlee pointed out. All this hubub is pretty much unwarranted.

[skinster]

They've been banning leftist activists, journalists, orgs etc. for some time, something that's got into overdrive the last few weeks.

To assume this is just going against the other rightwing is to be totally ignorant to the ongoing censorship that's happening to the left.

[late]

If nobody is being victimized then I have to ask...What the fuck are you going on about? As I just said. You propose a solution in search of a problem.

Self awareness is not the lads strong suit.