Alex Jones and anything INFOwars, even private people that would replay: BANNED (amendment, town)

[usayit]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

A bully pulpit as big as YouTube makes them damn close to a public utility.

Which makes banning political speech that they don't like damn close to censorship.

Care to actually define what damn close is..

CD is one of the largest forums on the internet... Is CD damn close enough to be a utility that their TOS and private status be rescinded?

Damn close isn't enough.... And no.. I don't think they are damn close. A lot people do not think so.

[Old Town FFX]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

So what happened to the Left's attitude that if a company serves the public, they should be forced to serve all the public, whether or not they argree with their lifestyle or opinions?

Or are those types of civil rights flexible for you guys depending on who's being denied service?

He violated the TOS and was handled accordingly, what's so hard to grasp about that? Ever see signs that say No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service? Are they discriminating?

This isn't rocket science.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

It is censorship. Legal and permissible censorship that does not raise First Amendment concerns.

This isn't a first amendment issue...

1st amendment protects you from government censorship. You tube is private entity.

It would be a violation of their rights to force them to provide services against their wishes.

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by usayit

Care to actually define what damn close is..

CD is one of the largest forums on the internet... Is CD damn close enough to be a utility that their TOS and private status be rescinded?

Damn close isn't enough.... And no.. I don't think they are damn close. A lot people do not think so.

Lol.....CD political forum is nowhere near the platform of YouTube.

It's a literal drop in the internet ocean.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

So what happened to the Left's attitude that if a company serves the public, they should be forced to serve all the public, whether or not they argree with their lifestyle or opinions?

Or are those types of civil rights flexible for you guys depending on who's being denied service?

So what happened to the conservatives who said private businesses should be able to pick and choose who they serve?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, FatBob. The saw cuts both ways. The irony in your post is, you don't see that you're pointing the finger right back at yourself.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

So what happened to the Left's attitude that if a company serves the public, they should be forced to serve all the public, whether or not they argree with their lifestyle or opinions?

Or are those types of civil rights flexible for you guys depending on who's being denied service?

What about business (and Individual) rights is NOT a conservative view? Claiming that a private entity does not have the right to not extend services against their wishes, beliefs is actually a liberal stance..

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by usayit

This isn't a first amendment issue...

1st amendment protects you from government censorship. You tube is private entity.

It would be a violation of their rights to force them to provide services against their wishes.

Yes. That’s exactly what I said

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

It is censorship. Legal and permissible censorship that does not raise First Amendment concerns.

It doesn't have to be a first amendment violation in a legal sense to be wrong.

[Old Town FFX]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

It is censorship. Legal and permissible censorship that does not raise First Amendment concerns.

RELEVANT

[usayit]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

Yes. That’s exactly what I said

Haha. Yup.. So. Much harping on first amendment that I missed that not..Apologies.