Discussion:
Youtube announces it will delete content alleging election fraud!!!
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-10 14:13:47 UTC
Permalink
NO, Youtube, like Facebook has taken on the role of the public square
Will YOUTUBE delete content alleging sexual assaults? So nothing from a
Judicial hearing like the Kavanaugh hearing could be viewed or heard?

Alleged crimes are all the same, they're all alleged.

Isn't this also infringing/abridging our RIGHT to petition the
government for redress and the RIGHT to peaceably assemble in the PUBLIC
SQUARE?

Amendment I
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* .

Certainly we have a Constitutional RIGHT to address our GOVERNMENT about
a government election that has in our estimation been stolen. And BIG
TECH is forbidding us from engaging in it on a platform that is
protected by a GOVERNMENT LAW law so long as it doesn't edit or censor
or PUBLISH the content as it's own. But instead allows PUBLIC activity
on their PLATFORM.
You got a court decision that contradicts US Code?
The special law that gives them special indemnity is unconstitutional
since it removes FREE SPEECH by removing our ability to say what we want
and to redress our *grievances* and to post our petition on their TOWN
SQUARE. And that is done by allowing the BIG TECH companies to edit and
censor our free speech without our being able to seek due process to
secure our rights, in essence it gives the BIG TECH companies the RIGHT
to slander us and to silence us without being sued but we can't sue them
to get our RIGHT to free speech enforced.

And so the *Congress made an unconstitutional law that infringed on our
*RIGHT to free speech* in order to indemnify the BIG TECH companies
which allows BIG TECH to have a monopoly on free speech where they can
edit and censor our FREE SPEECH as a legal agent (created by law) on
behalf of the government. And that's *clearly unconstitutional* .

The law may be able to indemnify the BIG TECH companies if they don't
edit or censor but the moment they decided to edit and censor and become
PUBLISHERS and "correct" the content of others the BIG TECH companies
began enforcing limits on free speech. And that free speech was never
allowed to be edited and censored under CONSTITUTIONAL law, because it
would infringe on FREE SPEECH.


The short way to say it is that the #230 law that protects BIG TECH
can't limit our FREE SPEECH in the process, it has to be either/or,
because they are mutually exclusive when it comes to BIG TECH being a
PUBLISHER. They either limit our free speech as a PUBLISHER or they do
NOT have any protections by the #230 law. It's a matter of FREE SPEECH
ans a matter of peaceable assembly, with redress to the government.

Either BIG TECH can edit and censor and PUBLISH or BIG TECH can be
indemnified against law suits, but it can't have BOTH the POWER TO EDIT
AND CENSOR AND BE A PUBLISHER, and the indemnity that goes with it being
a government protected (GSE) Government sponsored entity.

The legal carve out could be called a violation of the "EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE" since it allows BIG TECH to have unequal RIGHTS. And the
Constitution is the supreme law, and it says we have equal protection of
the law.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-10 15:48:38 UTC
Permalink
In article
For 4 years democrats said trump stole the 2016 election and they
were never censored.
And the government isn't controlling iDJT's rants. Not ONAN or
rest of pro-fascism faction. No one has been arrested for
demanding martial law and reelections until iDJT wins.
dec 12 2020 YouTube said Wednesday it will start removing any
content
youtube is a private publisher exercising its editorial control
as allowed under the First Amendment.
So, tough shit.
According to republicans the market giveth, and the market taketh
away. All praise to the market. Unless it doesn't deliver what
republicans want so they go running off to the government to
regulate it. The only standard republican adhere to is hypocrisy,
and thereof they are proud.
uploaded to its platform that contains allegations of widespread
fraud or errors in the 2020 presidential election after Tuesday's
so-called safe
iDJT has had a month to give proof in courts of its allegations
and failed each time. As one politician once said we can't go
recounting for months: it has to come to an end.
In a blog post, YouTube
can suck lemons for all I care. They are free under First
Amendment. You don't like youtube? Invest in a competitor; it's
the republican way.
I agree, but i have to ask, would you be saying the same thing if the
election had gone the other direction, and it was Democrats alleging
fraud?
Then they lose the protection of law #230 that says we can't sue them.

Because the GOVERNMENT saying we can't sue but they can edit, censor and
publish... is a violation of the 1st Amendment in the Constitution.

Oh yes they also infringed on the Press by censoring the NEWS PAPER that
posted the HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY.

Which made them the PUBLISHER of the NEWS by deciding what was news and
whet wasn't

Then you move on to Peaceably Assemble, wheer we the people have a RIGHT
to be in a PUBLIC FORUM that has been given GOVERNMENT exclusion from
lawsuits for content if they aren't a PUBLISHER. But they clearly were
acting as a PUBLISHER. That would be in violation of the law.

They either are NO LONGER subject to those protections that the law
provided or they are guilty of a crime of violating that law.

Time for EVERYONE to sue the TECH GIANTS... for every instance of
censorship and acts of PUBLISHING, which include editing and censorship
and deleting of content that was legal under their Constitutional RIGHTS
in PUBLIC.



Amendment I
*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.
Like they did in 2016?
Oops, no, Hillary conceded defeat
the day after the election. No whining
about "fraud", no filing of frivilous
lawsuits, no calls to governors to
overturn the election. That is the way
mature people behave.
She was hiding her election fraud by NOT attacking TRUMP.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
KWills
2020-12-11 10:05:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:13:47 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
NO, Youtube, like Facebook has taken on the role of the public square
Will YOUTUBE delete content alleging sexual assaults? So nothing from a
Judicial hearing like the Kavanaugh hearing could be viewed or heard?
Alleged crimes are all the same, they're all alleged.
When you're right, you're right. Until a verdict or ruling of
guilty is reached, or a confession of guilt made by the accused, the
crime is only alleged.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Isn't this also infringing/abridging our RIGHT to petition the
government for redress and the RIGHT to peaceably assemble in the PUBLIC
SQUARE?
You have no RIGHT to have your videos shown on Youtube, or
anywhere else. Even if political in nature.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Amendment I
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* .
Certainly we have a Constitutional RIGHT to address our GOVERNMENT about
a government election that has in our estimation been stolen.
You do.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
And BIG
TECH is forbidding us from engaging in it on a platform that is
protected by a GOVERNMENT LAW law so long as it doesn't edit or censor
or PUBLISH the content as it's own. But instead allows PUBLIC activity
on their PLATFORM.
Big Tech isn't an agent of the government. As such, it may remove
any content it wishes.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
You got a court decision that contradicts US Code?
The special law that gives them special indemnity is unconstitutional
since it removes FREE SPEECH by removing our ability to say what we want
and to redress our *grievances* and to post our petition on their TOWN
SQUARE. And that is done by allowing the BIG TECH companies to edit and
censor our free speech without our being able to seek due process to
secure our rights, in essence it gives the BIG TECH companies the RIGHT
to slander us and to silence us without being sued but we can't sue them
to get our RIGHT to free speech enforced.
No rights are being violated.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
And so the *Congress made an unconstitutional law that infringed on our
*RIGHT to free speech* in order to indemnify the BIG TECH companies
which allows BIG TECH to have a monopoly on free speech where they can
edit and censor our FREE SPEECH as a legal agent (created by law) on
behalf of the government. And that's *clearly unconstitutional* .
Congress did no such thing.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The law may be able to indemnify the BIG TECH companies if they don't
edit or censor but the moment they decided to edit and censor and become
PUBLISHERS and "correct" the content of others the BIG TECH companies
began enforcing limits on free speech. And that free speech was never
allowed to be edited and censored under CONSTITUTIONAL law, because it
would infringe on FREE SPEECH.
You are correct about them becoming publishers, but you're wrong
about them infringing on free speech.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The short way to say it is that the #230 law that protects BIG TECH
can't limit our FREE SPEECH in the process, it has to be either/or,
because they are mutually exclusive when it comes to BIG TECH being a
PUBLISHER. They either limit our free speech as a PUBLISHER or they do
NOT have any protections by the #230 law. It's a matter of FREE SPEECH
ans a matter of peaceable assembly, with redress to the government.
None of which is infringed.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Either BIG TECH can edit and censor and PUBLISH or BIG TECH can be
indemnified against law suits, but it can't have BOTH the POWER TO EDIT
AND CENSOR AND BE A PUBLISHER, and the indemnity that goes with it being
a government protected (GSE) Government sponsored entity.
The legal carve out could be called a violation of the "EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE" since it allows BIG TECH to have unequal RIGHTS. And the
Constitution is the supreme law, and it says we have equal protection of
the law.
What law, in reality please, has been violated?
--
KWills
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
Loading Image...
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-11 14:03:51 UTC
Permalink
NO, Youtube, like Facebook has taken on the role of the public square
You got a court decision that contradicts US Code?
It's not there *yet* but only a drunk like yourself would disagree
with that premise.
Those platforms are the same as Cable TV or the electric transmission
lines (the GRID). They're pseudo government entities as in they're
government protected monopolies. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before
they collapsed and had to be bailed out.

Notice no more nonsense about blacks being discriminated against by
Fannie/Freddie after they were pillaged and bankrupted by the Democrats?

The same with smoking, it's OK to smoke weed but NOT tobacco, that's
because Democrats needed the money from BIG tobacco, but they already
control the money from the Marijuana so it's OK to smoke it.

Democrats have the money from FACEBOOK and TWITTER... All things that
are private and NOT government sponsored entities have to be destroyed
so government controls the money.

The way to stop the attack on our FREE-SPEECH is to repeal the law #230
that protects the BIG TECH companies from law suits. So they can Publish
and edit and censor to their personal private company standards without
violating the Constitution that prevents the Government/Congress from
engaging in laws abridging the freedom of speech.

And what goes along with that Personal private company standard is the
responsibility for all the content, which means they get sued when they
post liable material.

It may cause them to go bankrupt. They will either have a loss of users
due to restrictions or a loss of money from all the lawsuits.

It will also spark others like NON profits to run them who would
possible seek a law like law #230 that indemnifies them under tighter
restrictions so they can't be sued if they follow the limitations of
the editing and censoring, perhaps the FCC would license them as a quasi
public entity, and then they can probably compete and outperform Google
and FaceBook and TWITTER without editing/censoring a PUBLIC FORUM.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
Loading...