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
27
51%
NO
26
49%
#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.
#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.
#15138661
It's not just youtube. Social media & BIG TECH are generally far left progressive. They've cracked down on everyone deemed too right-wing, not just the far right. They're going to ban Trump from all platforms as soon as he is no longer President.

Do I think it's bad? Of course. Its antidemocratic and against freedom of speech. These tech companies just surf on the legal grey zone stating that they are private enterprises who can do as they please.
#15138665
Drlee wrote: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.


The problem is that your argument is being used to silence free speech...And is obsolete and currently being contested by the legal community and states worldwide.

Net neutrality is an example where this is already contested.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality).
It can be argued that digital speech is just like physical speech, and a platform doesn't have the right to censor views they don't like.

I'll make an example to illustrate: What if the Chinese government buys shares of a social media platform, and decides to indirectly influence it to censor anything that the Chinese government deems unacceptable. Do you find that normal? No one who fights for freedom of speech would.

Yet it's the reality across the world. The digital sphere is where free speech is being most curtailed right now. Speak to jurists about it.
#15153497
Rebirth wrote:
Going by the poll results I can see there's a lot of love for tyranny on here.



As long as the Cult wants to violently overthrow the government and install a tyrannical dictator, we'll be glad to give you all the love you can handle.

And then some.
#15153498
Unthinking Majority wrote:Private companies can ban anyone they want on their platform, unless the country the company is operating from has laws on discrimination, where it may be illegal to ban someone simply on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, disability etc.

So Youtube can ban alt-right if they want, that's up to them.

Technically true, but now that they're in a dominant position they are in the position of controlling so much outcome. The way these tech giants controlled the American election, and so much more, only demonstrates the fact that you only have to keep a handful of people sweet to shut down all opposition, or shamelessly rig the narrative to only allow negative views.

This is what happened, has happened and will continue to happen. It isn't just private corporations either, the BBC is exactly the same, only that it operates on another level.
#15153560
Youtube (and Facebook and GAFA) don't really care about your opinions or mine.

They don't care how you answer this poll.

They are zero percent responsible for you, and have no concern for your welfare whatsoever.

So be very careful how much control you give them over your life.
#15153831
I hear the Left are supporting Bitchute being banned entirely in the UK now. The last thing I want is for a few Communist dominated forums to be all that remains, especially since they're all run by censorship bigots. I think it's time for decent people to unite against this and stop allowing these bigoted fascists to intimidate them into silence and conformism toward the insecure hypocrites.
#15153833
There's two questions that should be asked.

Should private companies be allowed to limit/allows speech on their platforms?
Was youtube right (regardless of the law) to ban the alt-right?

The first question is a property rights question. The second is more of a moral/ethics question.

Seems like a lot of conservatives these days, are all of a sudden against property rights.
#15153837
Rancid wrote:Should private companies be allowed to limit/allows speech on their platforms?
Was youtube right (regardless of the law) to ban the alt-right?

YouTube is part of Google/Alphabet. It's not private. It's publicly traded. It's definitely subject to extensive regulation.

Rancid wrote:The first question is a property rights question.

Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value. So doing things like banning Donald Trump from Twitter ultimately hurts shareholder value, as does banning conservatives from YouTube. If YouTube were privately held, this would not apply to them. However, they are publicly traded. So as a matter of law, they are obligated to maximize shareholder value.

Rancid wrote:Seems like a lot of conservatives these days, are all of a sudden against property rights.

No. Maximizing shareholder value is also about property rights. Taking steps that harm a publicly traded corporation's shareholder value is harmful to shareholders. It can result in shareholder lawsuits.
#15153839
blackjack21 wrote:

.However, they are publicly traded. So as a matter of law, they are obligated to maximize shareholder value.


No. Maximizing shareholder value is also about property rights. Taking steps that harm a publicly traded corporation's shareholder value is harmful to shareholders. It can result in shareholder lawsuits.



As always, the law attempts to balance competing rights and interests. Which Youtube was trying to do when it started banning traitors.

If this does go to court, how the appeals court looks at it will be interesting. As will be any parties that join the suit, like the ACLU.
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 34

I just get phone calls saying my social insurance […]

the US as a democracy are at least accountable to[…]

A question for our Marxists

It is not a commodity in the sense that it is not[…]

We have guys that know this stuff, let them do th[…]