Are Youtube and facebook required to host facial abuse videos or hookuphotshot?
Are they required to host rape and gore videos? I mean those are covered by the first amendment, so everyone should have to host them right?
If they don't have to host hardcore pornography, why do they have to host the ravings of a racist lunatic like alex jones if they don't want to?
Literally commit suicide
oh yeah SLIDE
because a website like Facebook and Youtube have become a common ground for everyone
>because a website like Facebook and Youtube have become a common ground for everyone
They have not become common ground for everyone.
If they were common ground for everyone they would host hardcore pornography.
why is this confusing to you?
>Literally commit suicide
not an argument
Was that the girl who got ID in real life - like her dad was a goldman sachs banker who married a chink and then their mutt kid went and did the worst porn she could find?
seems it's not only the supreme gentlemen who are fucked up from being half asian half white...
Holy shit you’re exactly right
Private business, own rules, do your own research etc etc.
>Was that the girl who got ID in real life - like her dad was a goldman sachs banker who married a chink and then their mutt kid went and did the worst porn she could find?
yes
spankbang.com
That's not political. These sites banned him to benefit themselves in the midterms.
yes, they should be required to host anything that is not illegal
im all for the rights of private companies, far more than most people are in fact
but most of these places have gained legal protection under the argument that "we are just a public forum for user generated content, we are not responsible for the things that users upload"
you can't just be a public forum when you want to be and private when you don't
it doesn't work like that
They don't have to host Alex Jones. But just because they have the right to do what they want with their private property, it doesn't make their actions necessarily right.
You can defend someone's right to property while disagreeing with what they do with it. That's something the Trumptard chimps on this site just don't understand, due to their political and philosophical ignorance. They're unable to think outside the lines set for them by Alex Jones and Fox News, and are in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance due to their many conflicting and often nonsensical beliefs.
>yes, they should be required to host anything that is not illegal
lol
you think the government should require you to host videos of teenage girls being abused and summed on if you start a streaming video service
AHAHA
freedom!
>anything that is not illegal
try harder brainlet
Bake the fucking cake, bigot!
videos of teen girls being abused till they cry and get bummed on by multiple 40 year old male drug addicts are not illegal
Political speech enjoys extra protection. It should be illegal to ban political speech from a platform that enjoys monopoly power.
Porn should be illegal because it's not protected speech
Retarded double digit IQ lolbertarians
>Porn should be illegal because it's not protected speech
it literally is protected speech you retard
>bummed
cummed on
No wonder you pay kosher tax
>No wonder you pay kosher tax
not an argument
Can't show it to kids. AJ on top of everything else is kid friendly according to the FCC which is what humans use as a metric for things regardless of what YouTube thinks or is held to
>half white
you mean half jew?
Only very recently. Again there is a clear distinction between political speech which is on a special high protection status and everything else.
feels good being the nobody
How is porn free speech and comparable to political speech
>Only very recently.
Oh, I didn't know that "very recently" made it not protected speech
you idiot
>How is porn free speech and comparable to political speech
ask the supreme court, it literally is
fuck off jew
pornography is not protected under the first amendment
As I pointed out you pay kosher tax which is legal too, so you enjoy being a cuck whose sensibilities are defined by the government
Not an argument
you can't show porn to kids, retard. what part of "legal content for everyone" don't you understand?
It literally is look it up genius
There are tons of videos that are age protected on YouTube, you are retarded
Only recently was porn protected under the 1st Amendment. It was a Supreme Court ruling that struck down public decency laws. Go look it up.
Already explained the special status and protection political speech is afforded by law and court decisions. Comparing the "right" to publish smut to political speech is pure Amerimutt lolbertarian good goy nonsense.
I don't know why they couldn't. They'd be able to make an adults only section pretty easily.
That’s actually a good point.
They should have to host that content.
>it literally is protected speech you retard
wrong
en.wikipedia.org
> I mean those are covered by the first amendment
WRONG.
Prove how it is
>That’s actually a good point.
Only a fucking leaf could be this dumb
>this is protected speech, a legal definition
>bahaha you cuck, stop using legal defitions as arguments
You may not like it, but this is peak right wing right debating here
No it is not. Porn is not the same as political speech which is afforded special status and protection under the law.
i refine my statement. it would be okay for a social media site claiming to be a "public forum" to delete individual videos, but not to ban entire accounts for content that is perfectly legal
just like the store of the bakers
the bakery is a public area because they let people waltz in and buy stuff. it is privately owned, but treated to a degree like a public space. they cannot refuse to let people in who behave completely legally based on things like race or political affiliation
but they are not required to bake a cake for anybody for any reason
in the same way, social media sites would be required to allow all users who behave legally. but they are not required to host every video and can discriminate as much as they want with them. but again, they cant ban legal users. its still a partially public space
i didnt think this way before because i was failing to consider bandwidth and data storage as limited resources owned by these companies
This is a false equivalency, political speech is not obscenity.
Right, and wrong. Obscenity is a type of speech that can be regulated, including fighting words, defamation, CP, blackmail, perjury, incitement to violence and crime, and credible threats. If you want to argue that what Jones did was defamation, that's a different thing entirely.
>porn =/= politics
Public broadcast of porn violates most public decency laws and is also regulated via adult ratings. Porn has its own platforms anyway
If I say something happened and then you say oh it was only recently that is not an argument against thing happening you moron
Well you’re literally an idiot, porn is not obscenity you are completely wrong
Op Picture is Asian Tigers crush
>I mean those are covered by the first amendment, so everyone should have to host them right?
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Point out which part implies rape videos on a private platform are covered by the 1st amendment
Obscenity should not be protected speech, and was never intended to be by the Founders. It literally only became protected because of Jewish subversion of the courts.
>theoccidentalobserver.net
It literally is there was a Supreme Court case where it was rulled protected speech look at the fuck up you moron
Yes it is you are simply wrong look it up
>porn is not obscenity you are completely wrong
incorrect
faceberg :
it should say on the tin , "we only allow libtards"
that would be honest , why don't they do it and they lie ?
because they're kikes that's why , basil
...
Pornography is literally not obscenity
If it was it would be illegal you dumb ass
Hans rules are made by people stop letting the government decide your sensibilities, if you're truly a left winger you should realize slavery was legal at one point
There is actually all sorts of fucked up shit on youtube. heaps of pedo stuff that doesn't get taken down. I guess alex jones was higher priority than legitimate pedophiles
You fucking idiot. Obscenity is illegal, porn is not illegal. Pornography is not legally obscenity you goddamn moron
Again porn does not have the special status and protection of Political speech. This status has been established through several Supreme Court decisions and it is assumed that any kind of restriction on political speech is illegal. Stop derailing the thread turbonigger.
citation of decision otherwise go fuck yourself
No it isn't. Which is why every porn magazine mailed in the US in the last 30 years has an open letter to the postmaster in it. Dear postmaster, this publication contains no actual obscene material. Obscene speech lacks the protections. Womp womp.
If only you could look up what you were talking about and see how wrong you are but that would be too much trouble wouldn’t it
yankChan, I implore you, keep these pro-porn ghetto niggas off the computers, they're embarrassing you
No it’s a giant secret it would take you all of three seconds to Google it I can’t let you see it I’m going to keep it secret for myself idiot
Are you literally retarded? Obscenity is not protected pornography is not obscenity. Pornography is protected what about this is confusing to you what is your IQ?
N I G G E R
I
G
G
E
R
From the perspective of the social media firms so far involved in removing infowars content, it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
All of them have stated that he broke their terms of service, suspiciously all within a very short frame of time and for different reasons.
If infowars wants to make this a first amendment issue then they need to take legal action.
This comment makes no sense
youre a brainlet, I dont want a wikipedia page summary
I have access to lexisnexis, give me a citation or fuck off and die, stop wasting our time
>pornography is not obscenity.
LEL what is it then, excactly ?
(((Tech oligarchs))) should be regulated by the FCC and be forced to host political speech the same way public broadcasters are forced to carry messages by political candidates because they serve a public utility function
And Infowhores staff are still on here flooding this board trying to shill up more support for their shitty snake oil salesman boss.
>Pornography is not legally obscenity you goddamn moron
Only because no one is willing to take the time to prosecute it.
gotteeem
show me in the constitution where pornography is protected
>This comment makes no sense
I'm sorry, I cannot translate into ape for you
Facebook is far more public than a bakery. The government uses it to communicate to the citizenry, and to get feedback from the citizenry. Just like Trump was disallowed from banning people, so too must Facebook not ban people for their words. Facebook has taken on a role as facilitator of communications. They also receive payment from the government for information, and so aren't just a business.
I see how hypocritical the left is. Each situation, they either flip or flop, depending on their interests.
It is already established law that restaurants have to serve niggers, even if they don't want to.
oh look its the "i dont know what the first amendment is" thread number 500+
getting kicked off twitter sucks but its not illegal.
Based and Redpilled
Alex Jones is a clown but this move has ramifications beyond his water filter infomercials. If they can take down a civcuck like Jones for ""hate speech""" they can take down anyone.
Pretty good angle. You just took a baseball bat to the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
You're right, it's YouTube's right to decide what type of content they want to host of their servers.
People will still have a right to complain and have the opinion that YouTube's reasoning for banning Alex Jones is shady though, and I think you could also argue that the sheer size of YouTube and it's usage mean that it has certain responsibilities that other sites might now have. Similar to how the EU legislated that Google isn't allowed to manipulate it's search rankings to place sponsored or their own links at the top without explicitly stating that the links are promoted.
>but its not illegal
It should be illegal to be excluded from a public platform strictly for political speech. Free speech laws should be updated to reflect the new reality of social media and the Internet
>If they can take down a civcuck like Jones for ""hate speech""" they can take down anyone
This.
What they're inadvertently about to unleash is gonna make civ-cucks blush. We're coming back
>they can take down anyone
they can, and they dont even need an excuse.
twatter and jewtube are private companies and they can ban anyone they want at any time they feel like with without even needing an excuse.
Jews control all media.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You stupid GOYS
The Supreme Court has never interpreted freedom of speech to include obscenity, which is generally considered to fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Get told, dumb fuck.
YouTube is a monopoly. Competition technically exists, but none will ever be able to rival YouTube in terms of content and amount of users by a long shot. The only time a legitimate competitor could have started was about a decade ago when YouTube was still in infancy.
As such, laws regarding censorship on YouTube's platform could reasonably reflect similar laws for ISPs. Inb4 "hurr durr, YouTube's not a monopoly, people can use other sites". The same goes for ISPs. A person can theoretically get service elsewhere, but it is much more difficult.
While YouTube can legally censor videos as a private company, the situation is more complicated if YouTube is seen as its own entire media platform (like the internet). In such a case, prevention of political censorship could be rationalized and legal for the government to enforce. I'm not on board with that yet, but it isn't entirely unreasonable.
Whatever the case, YouTube's censorship of wrongthink should concern everyone.
That's the same argument that was used to ban niggers from restaurants.
Lunch counters are private companies and they can ban any race they want at any time they feel like with without even needing an excuse.
Your statement is invalid, unless you agree it's ok to ban niggers.
She is my waifu and I would unironically marry her.
>teen girls
You're implying underage. These are not "teens" in these pornographic videos. They're more than likely in their early twenties. Also, reported for off-topic.
Based
Crowder might be next.
>show me in the constitution where pornography is protected
fucking moron
You can't because it isn't.
United States v. Roth, 1956, 237 F.2d 796
Roth had been convicted in a district court of distributing material alleged to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy and of an indecent character", and had been imprisoned for five years; on appeal, he claimed that the statute he had been convicted under violated the First Amendment.
The judge in this case, Judge Frank, was responsive to social science evidence. (Eight years earlier, in a trademark case, Triangle Publications v. Rohrlich, 167 F.2d 969, he had conducted his own impromptu survey of "adolescent girls and their mothers and sisters" to establish whether there was likelihood of consumer confusion between a magazine and a girdle called "Seventeen" and "Miss Seventeen.") He was of the opinion that Congress could legitimately limit the sale of publications if there was "moderately substantial reliable data" showing that reading or seeing those publications "conduces to seriously harmful sexual conduct on the part of normal adult human beings".
However, in his opinion there was no such data. Judge Frank did not cite a particular study but an overview of contemporary psychological literature that suggested no research evidence either to prove or disprove the assumption that "reading about sexual matters or about violence and brutality leads to anti-social actions." It is notable that violent material and sexual material were not separated out for the purposes of this literature review, which distorts its relevance to the specific issue of whether exposure to obscenity increases delinquency.
while not baking a cake for gays will soon enough be illegal
just shows (((who))) is in power
>LEL what is it then, excactly ?
videos of people having sexual intercouse, having sex is what keeps the human species from going extinct. Everyone has sex, your mom has sex, that is why you exist. A camera being in the room while people engage in the behavior that keeps humanity from going extinct is not obscenity.
Obscenity is illegal, pornography is not illegal. Pornography is not obscene. Explain to me what about this fact is confusing to you and I will try to use small words and explain further
I remember on here someone had a load of screencaps of a decent white man putting vids on jewtube of his daughter's piano recital etc and how proud he was of her and then her instagram account shoing her with tyrone - anyone got them?
I always wondered why they couldn't just put laxative in there. Or fentanyl.