(09-16-2019 01:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

I think you are hugely overstating the reach of Section 230 there.

I'm really not. Perhaps regarding this case of supposed copyright infringement where no evidence of copyright infringement was given, but I'm not applying it in this case.

I merely recommended Tom lose the talking point generally, because not only does it stomp on the American tradition of freeze peach, but it also isn't a sound, legal argument. I don't know how, but it will inevitably come back around to bite him and his "side" eventually, and it's telling that in the moment he thinks the censorship gives his side a political advantage, he is interested in seizing it to stomp on others' rights.

I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101.

What you are stating is quite a bit different, legally speaking. You are correct that Sect. 230 shields a "provider or user of an interactive computer service [from being] treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It is a legal protection given by the Congress for 'pass through' liability for *third party* speech liability.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents an interactive provider from being held liable even if it exercises the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material put out and 'published'. The provider may also delete entire posts. They may also ban entire swaths of content related or viewpoint related material.

There is zero requirement to the holder of the 230 protections to 'keep from infringing speech'; the only thing they can do that will unravel Sect. 230 protections is to be the information content provider of the objectionable material.

However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing.

And the "American tradition of freeze peach" only applies to government action, if yo uset up camp on my doorstep I can kick your ass out of my property based on your speech, and if I am an internet forum operator, I can likewise ban *anyone's* butt for just about anything said.

As I said, I think you are mixing and matching concepts in your post.

(09-16-2019 01:54 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You did mention it.... you asked how many mass shootings like El Paso were committed by lefties. I listed some off there. Forgot Dayton though.

And, had you bothered to read the El Paso manifesto, you would have noted the very large amount of Green / socialist / anti-capitalist ideals put forth by the El Paso shooter himself. Funny that you wouls ask about 'like El Paso' when, when one actually looks at the underlying facts, El Paso can probably be included there as well based on that manifesto.

Pretty ironic, isnt it?

I think Mach mentioned it not RWT.

Fair enough. My bad.

(09-16-2019 02:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

I think you are hugely overstating the reach of Section 230 there.

I'm really not. Perhaps regarding this case of supposed copyright infringement where no evidence of copyright infringement was given, but I'm not applying it in this case.

I merely recommended Tom lose the talking point generally, because not only does it stomp on the American tradition of freeze peach, but it also isn't a sound, legal argument. I don't know how, but it will inevitably come back around to bite him and his "side" eventually, and it's telling that in the moment he thinks the censorship gives his side a political advantage, he is interested in seizing it to stomp on others' rights.

I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101.

What you are stating is quite a bit different, legally speaking. You are correct that Sect. 230 shields a "provider or user of an interactive computer service [from being] treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It is a legal protection given by the Congress for 'pass through' liability for *third party* speech liability.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents an interactive provider from being held liable even if it exercises the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material put out and 'published'. The provider may also delete entire posts. They may also ban entire swaths of content related or viewpoint related material.

There is zero requirement to the holder of the 230 protections to 'keep from infringing speech'; the only thing they can do that will unravel Sect. 230 protections is to be the information content provider of the objectionable material.

However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing.

And the "American tradition of freeze peach" only applies to government action, if yo uset up camp on my doorstep I can kick your ass out of my property based on your speech, and if I am an internet forum operator, I can likewise ban *anyone's* butt for just about anything said.

As I said, I think you are mixing and matching concepts in your post.

So can AT&T cut off your cell phone? Private company. Build your own towers.

(09-16-2019 02:09 PM)gdunn Wrote:  This is their way... If someone was to start something similar to YouTube and give it a shot at being non partisan and run it right, it could put YouTube out and then the reeee would be real.

Only problems is that anyone that even looks like it's going to happen for, g... Google/Facebook/Yahoo/Microsoft, etc. flexes their internet muscle and has PayPal cancel accounts... has frickin' BANK OF AMERICA cancel accounts to anyone that tries to step in and fill that void. Just ask Gab.Ai people about that one.

(Or some are just so poorly backed/planned that they never get off the ground to start with... see "RightNation.TV" (Or whatever it was called, it was aiming to be a more conservative YouTube, but it really lost any backing it had and was poorly put together.)

(09-16-2019 01:56 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:27 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From RSBN:

UPDATE: We have received confirmation from @YouTube that there was an apparent issue on our 24 hour live stream where copyrighted audio or video unintentionally went out over the air for a few moments without our knowledge.

No copyright claim was made on the video itself, but their system detected the content and that automatically triggered the removal of our live stream and the suspension of our streaming capabilities.

We are extremely careful about and respect copyright law here at RSBN, so in order to avoid this issue in the future, we have decided to permanently remove our 24 hour live stream in the future if we regain our ability to live stream.

via their twitter feed.

Perhaps you might want to walk back the VLWC that you put out there?

Now comes the part where there was sufficient backlash, so they try to gaslight us into believing that despite receiving no copyright strike, their automated system (there's that plausible deniability) banned RSBN for copywrite.

If they were really struck for copyright, not only would the claimed content been in RSBN's dashboard, but they also would have been given a 90-day ban and they're already talking about being back up on Youtube as soon as today.

YouTube is full of _bull_ on this claim about copyright forcing the "channel closure". Especially when they had -zero- strikes on the account previously.

1) Video gets pulled.
2) Channel gets a warning message and a copyright notification
3) THEN the channel gets pulled if it is isn't corrected.

The worst that would have happened (if youtube followed their rules) .. The video is blocked for copyright infringement at the request of {copyright owner}...

RSBN can play nice with youtube to prevent any further rifts, but they know they were getting the shaft by YouTube, and the backlash forced YouTube to say "ooops.. It was a mistake *wink* *wink*, you're back now.

You actually misstate what happened. And that misstatement is crucial.

1) Their *LIVE CONTINUOUS FEED* supposedly puts out copyrighted material.
2) Their *LIVE CONTINUOUS FEED* gets pulled.

The rest of the their library, and the rest of their account is absolutely untouched. Including all videos.

YouTubes typical response is to yank an infringing source -- in this case the source was the live stream portion of the account.

And no, YouTube is *not* required to wait for a request from a copyright holder under a DMCA notice provision. Especially the *thing* that was the channel with any infringing stuff was a live stream -----

If you think this is wrong, I suggest you go do a live stream of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' on YouTube -- I will bet you dollars to donuts that stream is yanked before it is half over.

Now, if there were zero issues of copyright problems in the live stream (and this should be known because it should be buffered), do you really think a channel whose claim to fame is LIVE Trump rallies would play that down? Sorry, that doesnt make sense to me in the slightest --- if there were a non-issue at the core of this I would think that a Trump leaning source would go *out* of its way to advertise how it had been *wronged* and could *PROVE* it.

I mean, that line is red meat and potatoes for the Trumpistas in this country, much like any line about the horrors of immigration policy is blue meat for the liberals today.

(09-16-2019 02:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

I think you are hugely overstating the reach of Section 230 there.

I'm really not. Perhaps regarding this case of supposed copyright infringement where no evidence of copyright infringement was given, but I'm not applying it in this case.

I merely recommended Tom lose the talking point generally, because not only does it stomp on the American tradition of freeze peach, but it also isn't a sound, legal argument. I don't know how, but it will inevitably come back around to bite him and his "side" eventually, and it's telling that in the moment he thinks the censorship gives his side a political advantage, he is interested in seizing it to stomp on others' rights.

I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101.

What you are stating is quite a bit different, legally speaking. You are correct that Sect. 230 shields a "provider or user of an interactive computer service [from being] treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It is a legal protection given by the Congress for 'pass through' liability for *third party* speech liability.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents an interactive provider from being held liable even if it exercises the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material put out and 'published'. The provider may also delete entire posts. They may also ban entire swaths of content related or viewpoint related material.

There is zero requirement to the holder of the 230 protections to 'keep from infringing speech'; the only thing they can do that will unravel Sect. 230 protections is to be the information content provider of the objectionable material.

However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing.

And the "American tradition of freeze peach" only applies to government action, if yo uset up camp on my doorstep I can kick your ass out of my property based on your speech, and if I am an internet forum operator, I can likewise ban *anyone's* butt for just about anything said.

As I said, I think you are mixing and matching concepts in your post.

So can AT&T cut off your cell phone? Private company. Build your own towers.

Are you now equating having a cell phone with a right to free speech? Or is there now an absolute 'right to having a cellphone' embedded in the penumbras of the Constitution?

Sorry, you are still mixing and matching concepts.

But hell, I'll bite. But finish your hypo. What is the underlying cause for cutting off a cell phone here? You put out something but left the last half off.

But the key statement of mine is this: "I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101." Bringing up section 230 doesnt defeat that simple, basic statement.

If you want to show me some statutory law that expands the right of free speech under the 1st Amendment where solely private actors with zero governmental purpose are infringers, or any caselaw that does that, I am all ears.

(09-16-2019 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think you are hugely overstating the reach of Section 230 there.

I'm really not. Perhaps regarding this case of supposed copyright infringement where no evidence of copyright infringement was given, but I'm not applying it in this case.

I merely recommended Tom lose the talking point generally, because not only does it stomp on the American tradition of freeze peach, but it also isn't a sound, legal argument. I don't know how, but it will inevitably come back around to bite him and his "side" eventually, and it's telling that in the moment he thinks the censorship gives his side a political advantage, he is interested in seizing it to stomp on others' rights.

I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101.

What you are stating is quite a bit different, legally speaking. You are correct that Sect. 230 shields a "provider or user of an interactive computer service [from being] treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It is a legal protection given by the Congress for 'pass through' liability for *third party* speech liability.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents an interactive provider from being held liable even if it exercises the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material put out and 'published'. The provider may also delete entire posts. They may also ban entire swaths of content related or viewpoint related material.

There is zero requirement to the holder of the 230 protections to 'keep from infringing speech'; the only thing they can do that will unravel Sect. 230 protections is to be the information content provider of the objectionable material.

However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing.

And the "American tradition of freeze peach" only applies to government action, if yo uset up camp on my doorstep I can kick your ass out of my property based on your speech, and if I am an internet forum operator, I can likewise ban *anyone's* butt for just about anything said.

As I said, I think you are mixing and matching concepts in your post.

So can AT&T cut off your cell phone? Private company. Build your own towers.

Are you now equating having a cell phone with a right to free speech? Or is there now an absolute 'right to having a cellphone' embedded in the penumbras of the Constitution?

Sorry, you are still mixing and matching concepts.

But hell, I'll bite. But finish your hypo. What is the underlying cause for cutting off a cell phone here? You put out something but left the last half off.

I'm not equating anything. The premise of this argument is that private companies can do whatever they want. Tom said it. You said it.

The underlying cause for them cutting your cell phone off is that they don't like your dumb face. LOL, that's a joke, but what difference does it make? They're a private company, they can do whatever they want!

Amazing how you slam on the brakes whenever your argument is put under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Some of you are so drunk on the idea of willing the power of Silicon Valley against your political opponents, that you can't even think straight.

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...everyone is out to get the poor white male conservative. Some day, he just MAY catch a break!

I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

(09-16-2019 02:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I'm really not. Perhaps regarding this case of supposed copyright infringement where no evidence of copyright infringement was given, but I'm not applying it in this case.

I merely recommended Tom lose the talking point generally, because not only does it stomp on the American tradition of freeze peach, but it also isn't a sound, legal argument. I don't know how, but it will inevitably come back around to bite him and his "side" eventually, and it's telling that in the moment he thinks the censorship gives his side a political advantage, he is interested in seizing it to stomp on others' rights.

I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101.

What you are stating is quite a bit different, legally speaking. You are correct that Sect. 230 shields a "provider or user of an interactive computer service [from being] treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It is a legal protection given by the Congress for 'pass through' liability for *third party* speech liability.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents an interactive provider from being held liable even if it exercises the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material put out and 'published'. The provider may also delete entire posts. They may also ban entire swaths of content related or viewpoint related material.

There is zero requirement to the holder of the 230 protections to 'keep from infringing speech'; the only thing they can do that will unravel Sect. 230 protections is to be the information content provider of the objectionable material.

However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing.

And the "American tradition of freeze peach" only applies to government action, if yo uset up camp on my doorstep I can kick your ass out of my property based on your speech, and if I am an internet forum operator, I can likewise ban *anyone's* butt for just about anything said.

As I said, I think you are mixing and matching concepts in your post.

So can AT&T cut off your cell phone? Private company. Build your own towers.

Are you now equating having a cell phone with a right to free speech? Or is there now an absolute 'right to having a cellphone' embedded in the penumbras of the Constitution?

Sorry, you are still mixing and matching concepts.

But hell, I'll bite. But finish your hypo. What is the underlying cause for cutting off a cell phone here? You put out something but left the last half off.

I'm not equating anything. The premise of this argument is that private companies can do whatever they want. Tom said it. You said it.

The underlying cause for them cutting your cell phone off is that they don't like your dumb face. LOL, that's a joke, but what difference does it make? They're a private company, they can do whatever they want!

Amazing how you slam on the brakes whenever your argument is put under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Some of you are so drunk on the idea of willing the power of Silicon Valley against your political opponents, that you can't even think straight.

There are practically no restrictions on what a private company can do re: 'infringing speech'. Period. Where is the brake-slamming there?

But the key statement of mine is this: "I think the argument that only the government can infringe the right of free speech *is* quite a sound legal argument. That is Con Law 101." Bringing up section 230 doesnt defeat that simple, basic statement.

If you want to show me some statutory law that expands the right of free speech under the 1st Amendment where solely private actors with zero governmental purpose are infringers, or any caselaw that does that, I am all ears. Or not, and just throw some more random ideas out there in the wind.

As for the tech companies, I am actually against the course of what they seem to be doing. But the simple fing fact remains that your comments that private companies are subject to being infringers of anyone's 1st amendment right is just plain wrong. Fundamentally so. Even when you toss in the non-sequitor of Section 230.

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...everyone is out to get the poor white male conservative. Some day, he just MAY catch a break!

I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

How many more dozens of "mistakes"/"glitches" that break (vastly) disproportionately in the same direction have to happen before such a thing is "proven"?

Not Google (they blatantly lie and gas light and cover up their bias), but here's a major tech CEO admitting that his company's employees have a bias. He claims they don't act on it, but with how politically charged san francisco is, I think that claim is a joke. Does he need to go to Congress and repeat these words under oath?

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...everyone is out to get the poor white male conservative. Some day, he just MAY catch a break!

I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

(09-16-2019 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

Thanks...and I'm clearly not implying that private companies can do whatever the **** they like all the time. I'm on record here many times saying the exact opposite, especially when some here seem to think that businesses should be allowed to keep out blacks, women and those of a certain religion just because they choose to.

(09-16-2019 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

The difference is that Huffington Post is media, not a carrier. They aren't exempt from torts for what they publish. Also, they are not anywhere near a monopoly.

(09-16-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...everyone is out to get the poor white male conservative. Some day, he just MAY catch a break!

Heck of a lot more folks than the "poor white male conservative" out there that watch the Trump rallies, think 307, attendance at the rallies and TV ratings indicate that pretty clearly.

What a dumb comment to make, even by your standards.

(09-16-2019 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

The difference is that Huffington Post is media, not a carrier. They aren't exempt from torts for what they publish. Also, they are not anywhere near a monopoly.

Correct. Which is why YouTube can not do this in a biased way, because they are operating under the shield of a carrier. If they want to relinquish that shield, noone is stopping them, and they may ban whatever they like.

(09-16-2019 07:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The only reason I think this is good because it triggers the cons. I’m learning from my time in here. Time to fight fire with fire. Maybe when it starts coming back on you some of you will begin to understand.

Maybe when you grow the hell up you'll start to understand what an idiot you've been.

(09-16-2019 10:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...everyone is out to get the poor white male conservative. Some day, he just MAY catch a break!

I don't know who *he* is (RSBN is a network, not a single person, much less a white male), but that's a weird take. You should respect all American's rights, regardless of race or gender. Come on man, you're supposed to be the liberal here.

The liberals I grew up with don't recognize or even acknowledge today's so called liberals.

(09-16-2019 11:56 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:30 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The only reason I think this is good because it triggers the cons. I’m learning from my time in here. Time to fight fire with fire. Maybe when it starts coming back on you some of you will begin to understand.

I agree fighting fire with fire.

Remember Occupy Wall St?

Now Aftifa.

How should conservatives fight groups like those?

How many synagogues or mass shootings like El Paso have lefties committed. Get back to me after you researched it. Dylan Roof a leftie? How about Timothy McVeigh?

That's your answer to organized urban terrorist groups, one off lunatics the Cops are/were often completely and VERY familiar with? We have to go tit-for-tat with drugged up, mentally unstable nutcases shooting places up?

Errrr, Pulse, Sandy Hook, Parkland all threatening nuts someone knew were on the ledge of complete insanity, San Bernardino, Aaaaaand let's please not forget the leftie shooting up the Softball field filled with Congressmen, Staffers, and Cap Hill Cops, very fortunately.


Now, back to the discussion about what should be done about leftist teachers prancing around in black tights hitting people in the head with bike locks?

You OK with that, too?

(09-16-2019 03:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

The difference is that Huffington Post is media, not a carrier. They aren't exempt from torts for what they publish. Also, they are not anywhere near a monopoly.

Correct. Which is why YouTube can not do this in a biased way, because they are operating under the shield of a carrier. If they want to relinquish that shield, noone is stopping them, and they may ban whatever they like.

You would be absolutely correct that 230 doesnt extend to them for Huffington Post *content*; but 230 absolutely extends to them in the comments section. HuffPo can never claim 230 exemption for their own pieces. But they can, and do, claim 230 exemption for the comments section. All the time. In the context of online comments from third parties, they are undoubtedly an 'interactive computer service'. And with those same third parties in the comments section they can, and do, show the ability to ban, expel, and toss out those individuals as they deem fit. Trust me. I am one of them.

This CNSBBS has that same protection under 230.

You can be as unbiased as you wish in your banning, removal of posts, etc. as a carrier. There is still zero 1st amendment 'infringement'. And even a carrier doesnt automatically give up its protection under 230 for being biased.

Even the EFF, the evil arch-enemy of the tech giants, agrees that "Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be 'Neutral'"

Quote:Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

And, notwithstanding even what the EFF thinks, there is zero basis in the law for that stance as well.

(09-16-2019 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:32 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  He is the "poor white male conservative". And I respect all rights. But this is a private company making a private decision. There's really no rights being infringed up on that I see here unless you can make the case this was a biased decision...and good luck with that.

As for my reply, it was really just to tang. I should have quoted him. Apologies.

You honestly need to lose that talking point, because it is a loser.

So, my company can pay my employees $1/hour? I'm a private company, after all. No? Oh, because Congress passed a law saying I couldn't? You don't say.

Same for the tech companies. There are laws already in place mandating that they act as neutral public fora in exchange for legal immunity from the content posted.

The myth that they can do anything they want because they're "private" is exactly that.

That's why I included the underlined above dude. Chill.

Actually, even if you show a bias in their actions, there is no infringement of rights. That is black letter law.

Now with such bias they may actually breach their own Terms of Service, but that isnt a constitutional infingement, it is a breach of contract.

I mean, look at the Huffington Post -- they ban commenters day and night who dont conform to their point of view. Again, that is *their* perogative as a private 'individual' (and using the term 'individual' in the legal sense).

The idea that they cannot do that is, to be blunt, brain dead. YouTube, and Google, have those same protections from ever being an 'infringer of the 1st Amendment'.

Tom, I disagree with you 98% of the time. But in this instance regarding private companies and those private companies being infringers of a Constitutional right you are pretty much spot on.

Thanks...and I'm clearly not implying that private companies can do whatever the **** they like all the time. I'm on record here many times saying the exact opposite, especially when some here seem to think that businesses should be allowed to keep out blacks, women and those of a certain religion just because they choose to.

Your exceptions that are noted are true things that they cannot 'discriminate' against, based on Title VII and some portions of Title IX. Which are based on issues in the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments.

There are clearly lines that companies cannot discriminate upon: race, religion, ethnicity. To a lesser extent sex. But aside from that, in the Federal viewpoint, a company can absolutely choose to discriminate on any line it chooses --- including political viewpoint.

And, black letter law is that *only* the government, or government affiliated entity, can infringe upon a Constitutional right.