CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29277
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:38 am
 


Title: First Amendment doesn�t apply on YouTube; judges reject PragerU lawsuit
Category: Tech
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2020-02-27 06:12:22
Canadian


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1552

Warnings: (60%)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:38 am
 


Quote:
YouTube is a private forum and ....
.... in Xanadu, public school kids log into their publicly-funded Chromebooks every day!

Mass surveillance, 2D brain washing, CGI dependency and educamation for the win!!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21567
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:45 am
 


It's simple, PragurU. First, we nationalize YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.... then you'll have a case!


Last edited by Public_Domain on Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36742
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:51 am
 


I don't know why conservatives believe business should be left alone, unless they are blocking conservative views. Then they are public utilities, and must support any opinion regardless of their own.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29845
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:17 am
 


Wouldn't turning the internet into a public utility be, like, socialism? :lol:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36742
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:19 am
 


Next thing you know, they are going to censor you by letting you sell books critical of the ruling government.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29845
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:28 am
 


That's not the kind of world I want to live in! Why didn't we listen when Orwell warned us this was coming! :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18738
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:30 am
 


But it's for your own good. You don't know what is good or bad till the Government tells you. 8) 8) 8)


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36742
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:43 am
 


Great. Now we all get mandatory euthanasia.

See what your right to free speech did!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29845
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:57 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
...we all get mandatory euthanasia...



hot diggitty! where can I go to volunteer for this pilot program? 8)


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65262
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:04 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
I don't know why conservatives believe business should be left alone, unless they are blocking conservative views. Then they are public utilities, and must support any opinion regardless of their own.


Not me. I'm much the opposite on this. I believe everyone is entitled to equality with the law (government). But if a business chooses to discriminate for constructive or even offensive reasons then IMHO that's their business.

That said, if you want a men-only social club then so be it.

Ladies only? Same thing.

Want to have a trail run and not worry about some asshole in a wheelchair suing you because you want a trail run and not a street run?

No blacks? No whites? No Jews? No (insert group here)? Then that's your business and if the public boycotts your ass then that's your business too.

But it's none of the government's business to tell you who you must serve.

So now that conservatives don't have free speech on You Tube would everyone be okay with You Tube banning homosexuals and lesbians? :?:

Hey, what about a Christian bakery refusing to bake a gay themed cake for someone? Is that okay?

It's the same thing because I can assure you that this You Tube ruling will be used as a precedent in the cases against Christian bakers and florists.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21567
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:20 am
 


reminds me of that lenin statue in seattle that all the right-wingers want removed.
sadly for them, he's on private property... :lol:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36742
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:23 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
I don't know why conservatives believe business should be left alone, unless they are blocking conservative views. Then they are public utilities, and must support any opinion regardless of their own.


Not me. I'm much the opposite on this. I believe everyone is entitled to equality with the law (government). But if a business chooses to discriminate for constructive or even offensive reasons then IMHO that's their business.


That's because you are more enlightened than Prager U. They and many like them see the internet as their soap box without considering all the money it takes to keep the lights on.

BartSimpson wrote:
That said, if you want a men-only social club then so be it.

Ladies only? Same thing.

Want to have a trail run and not worry about some asshole in a wheelchair suing you because you want a trail run and not a street run?


I don't disagree.

BartSimpson wrote:
No blacks? No whites? No Jews? No (insert group here)? Then that's your business and if the public boycotts your ass then that's your business too.

But it's none of the government's business to tell you who you must serve.

So now that conservatives don't have free speech on You Tube would everyone be okay with You Tube banning homosexuals and lesbians? :?:


And that's where we come to a screeching halt. It is the governments business to make sure everyone is treated equally in the public space.

Youtube could ban minorities, if that is their preference, as it is apparently their right. It would however be a bad business move.

BartSimpson wrote:
Hey, what about a Christian bakery refusing to bake a gay themed cake for someone? Is that okay?

It's the same thing because I can assure you that this You Tube ruling will be used as a precedent in the cases against Christian bakers and florists.


Not going there.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65262
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:43 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
And that's where we come to a screeching halt. It is the governments business to make sure everyone is treated equally in the public space.


In public spaces, yes. Like schools, government buildings, parks, roads, etc.

But it how does the government justify expropriating control of a privately owned, privately funded property/business and then dictating who has access to it?

I'd rather let the public decide on this.

See, in some ways they already have.

Because if I'm in New York City and I want to go somewhere where I can be comfy in the company of upper class white people all I have to do is pay for the privilege.

Check out Le Bernadin.

https://nymag.com/restaurants/reviews/l ... n-2011-12/

Want to keep them swarthy types away while preening yourself as a progressive social liberal? Just pay for the privilege and you're good!

Quote:
The four-course prix fixe dinner at Le Bernardin costs $157, and the chef's tasting menu goes for $225. At lunch, the three-course meal is $88.


Or should the government force Le Bernadin to provide meals to low income poor people who will drive away the upper class clientele with their boorish behavior and dearth of sartorial splendor?

Why is this any different than telling a white owned BBQ shop in South Carolina that they have to serve people they don't want to serve?

Should they just jack up their prices to accomplish the same discrimination that Le Bernadin gets away with because it's a favorite with rich, white liberal Democrats?

How does that square with the mantra of...

Quote:
It is the governments business to make sure everyone is treated equally in the public space.


:?:

Seems to me the government is awfully selective about that equality of yours.

Myself, I'd rather them not get involved at all because doing so violates property rights and it also violates the First Amendment clause on Freedom of Association.

See, Freedom of Association is necessarily the freedom to discriminate.

Ironic thing is that the Democrats are so against this notion that their party is right now being hijacked by a non-Democrat named Bernie Sanders.

The GOP has no such problem because it aggressively asserts their freedom of association whenever it has been challenged.

Like I've long said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty...warts and all.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18738
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:49 am
 


[popcorn]


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.