Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[NosPortatArma]

It would be needed and changing the Constitution is very hard. You can't violate legal precedent nor Constitutional law here.

This is a non-argument. We are not discussion the difficulty of turning this into law, we're discussion how something ought to be. It's a tiresome and irrelevant argument when people say "no you can't do that because it's illegal" when the whole point is about changing the laws! And then you go on arguing as if laws are set in stone, which they are not.

as with many legal issues, I think much rests on the interpretation of particular judges. I don't think changing the constitution is required to designate social medias as public forums. Evidently, as other posters show, there is not unanimity on the subject. But anyways, let's drop the irrelevant part of this: This isn't about wheter it CAN be made into law. It's about if it SHOULD be. Do you think it should?

[Vanoi]

No, it is just the 'interactive space' of Trump's personal account.

Exactly. If Twitter was actuslly made a public forum it wouldn't be able to restrict or control content which it still does.

So either Twitter is violating a federal ruling or its not a public forum.

This is a non-argument. We are not discussion the difficulty of turning this into law, we're discussion how something ought to be. It's a tiresome and irrelevant argument when people say "no you can't do that because it's illegal" when the whole point is about changing the laws! And then you go on arguing as if laws are set in stone, which they are not.

as with many legal issues, I think much rests on the interpretation of particular judges. I don't think changing the constitution is required to designate social medias as public forums. Evidently, as other posters show, there is not unanimity on the subject. But anyways, let's drop the irrelevant part of this: This isn't about wheter it CAN be made into law. It's about if it SHOULD be. Do you think it should?

No it can't. We are going to make this a discussion about law. The Supreme Court last made a ruling in 1988 on public forums. Thats farily recent legal precedent. Its not likley to be overturned. No you can't just start changing the laws to whatever you want. Thats not how government works here. Laws can be changed but they still have to be Constitutional. You still don't have an understanding of what a public forum is either.

[Cope]

So now you are going to ignore an actual judge's order because i proved you wrong? Same poor debating from you.

The Judge's order says differently. And its the actual legal order. It trumps your quote which is referring to Donald Trump's twitter account not Twitter itself.

I knew you didn't bother to actually read your source. Second time now you got beat by your own source. Keep it up.

The only thing you've "proven" is that you're capable of making arguments so dense that light bends around them. Not only is the quote I referred to literally from the same order which you falsely claim is being ignored, but it unambiguously disproves your nonsensical claim that "private companies can never be public forums". The entire ruling is predicated on the notion that the President is using Twitter as a public platform in a sense de facto.

[Vanoi]

Lying now? I quoted the full judge's order. It does not once say Twitter is a publically designated forum.

So you have gone from denial to just plain out lying. Really poor debating.

This is the judges order:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. Plaintiffs have established legal injuries that are traceable to the conduct of the President and Daniel Scavino and, despite defendants’ suggestions to the contrary, their injuries are redressable by a favorable judicial declaration. Plaintiffs lack standing, however, to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is dismissed as a defendant. Hope Hicks is also dismissed as a defendant, in light of her resignation as White House Communications Director. Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court’s forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President’s personal First Amendment interests. In sum, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 34 and 42. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi

Just more bad debating from you.

[NosPortatArma]

No it can't. We are going to make this a discussion about law. The Supreme Court last made a ruling in 1988 on public forums. Thats farily recent legal precedent. Its not likley to be overturned. No you can't just start changing the laws to whatever you want. Thats not how government works here. Laws can be changed but they still have to be Constitutional. You still don't have an understanding of what a public forum is either.

1988 is way too old. internet and social media is a new phenomenon that needs to be properly adressed.

when I first named "public forum" I didn't even know it was a legal term. It doesn't matter. I don't care about legal semantics, it doesn't matter. Whatever you want to call it, what I want is that social media platforms NOT be allowed to arbitrarily disciminate against views they don't like.

[Vanoi]

No it does matter no matter how much you keep saying no. Not my fault you lack and understanding of my country's law or how it works.

[Heathen Hammer]

No it does matter no matter how much you kerp saying no. Not my fault you lack and understanding of my country's law or how it works.

As it was pointed out above, laws change together with technology. It makes perfect sense to view Facebook, Youtube or Twitter as public forums.

[Vanoi]

As it was pointed out above, laws change together with technology. It makes perfect sense to view Facebook, Youtube or Twitter as public forums.

Not it doesn't. Using your logic newspapers, radio, and tv should be made public. Yet they have existed fir decades and were never made into public forums no matter how many people used them or their influence on society.

You want to change the entire legal definition of what a public forum to simply suit your ideology while taking rights away from businesses all for more useless government regulation.

Sounds like you should just move to Russia or China. Plenty of government regulation for social media.

[Love Mountain]

lets be frank. youtube et al is a huge forum, very influential. if you are shut off from it you are greatly handicapped. those who decide that have great power, and i dont want that power in hands of private companies. its really that simple. in my view these platforms should be considered public forums. I am a practical man, i simply ask what good there is by allowing private companies to shape public discourse? that is not their purpose.

Handicapped from what, exactly? What is it that youtube does, that they cannot do anywhere else? Youtube is not a newspaper. It's social media, and a monetization platform. Nobody is entitled to employment from Youtube. Nor is anybody entitled to forcing Youtube to host their content for free. Youtube should always have the capacity to refuse service to whoever it wants to.

not comparable. society has an interest in allowing a free public discourse

Which isn't impaired. The government didn't ban specific political ideas from the internet.

[Cope]

Handicapped from what, exactly? What is it that youtube does, that they cannot do anywhere else? Youtube is not a newspaper. It's social media, and a monetization platform. Nobody is entitled to employment from Youtube. Nor is anybody entitled to forcing Youtube to host their content for free. Youtube should always have the capacity to refuse service to whoever it wants to.

It's more complicated than that. One bone of contention is that YouTube doesn't actually employ the overwhelming majority of content creators. This means that they're deprived of many of the workplace rights which come with employment. Secondly, YouTube doesn't have the capacity to refuse service to whoever it wants: like all businesses it is subject to anti-discrimination legislation.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Yes there is. Their duty is to shareholders .It is they who should profit from social media, not racist dweebs.

If a company is on the stock exchange, doesn't that make them a "Public(ly traded) Company" and not a "Private Corporation"?

[mongrel]

If a company is on the stock exchange, doesn't that make them a "Public(ly traded) Company" and not a "Private Corporation"?

I presume that is a jest.

They still don't need to provide extremists a living, for example Boots the Chemist wouldn't profit from employing Nazis to racially abuse its customers. Its customers just want remedies and cheap gifts.

If racists and jihadis need money, there are plenty of proper jobs out there.

[NosPortatArma]

Handicapped from what, exactly? What is it that youtube does, that they cannot do anywhere else? Youtube is not a newspaper. It's social media, and a monetization platform. Nobody is entitled to employment from Youtube. Nor is anybody entitled to forcing Youtube to host their content for free. Youtube should always have the capacity to refuse service to whoever it wants to.

Which isn't impaired. The government didn't ban specific political ideas from the internet.

free discourse is impaired thats the point. youtube reaches a huge audience. if youtube can arbitrarily decide to silence people, they have a great power over public discourse which they should not have.

[mongrel]

free discourse is impaired thats the point. youtube reaches a huge audience. if youtube can arbitrarily decide to silence people, they have a great power over public discourse which they should not have.

'Free' discourse that brainwashes people into committing murder and terrorism. There is a reason why such material should not reach a wide audience.


Imagine paying good money to see Spiderman, only to find half way through that viewing is interrupted for half an hour's worth of compulsory racial and sexual harassment? What kind of messed-up world that would be.

[Infidel144]

'Free' discourse that

Should people who call for others to be 'milkshaked' be banned?

[Heathen Hammer]

Not it doesn't. Using your logic newspapers, radio, and tv should be made public. Yet they have existed fir decades and were never made into public forums no matter how many people used them or their influence on society.

You want to change the entire legal definition of what a public forum to simply suit your ideology while taking rights away from businesses all for more useless government regulation.

Sounds like you should just move to Russia or China. Plenty of government regulation for social media.

Dude, you can't compare newspapers or radio to social media. Different things. Social media, if it is widespread enough and has government institutions represented there it should and will be viewed as public forum. It seems like you just like the idea of corporate CEOs being able to control what can be said on the Internet, because you like their ideology. No apocalypse will happen once Google, Facebook and other big tech giants lose the ability to censor people based on superficial nonsense.

[Vanoi]

Oh yes i can because radio, newspapers, and TV have influenced society longer and greater than social media has. They were as widespread as social media. Yet they were never made into public forums nor forced to give people platforms. Your whole argument on social media being so widespread falls apart when you mention the other media in America.

Coporations only control content on your services. Keep repeating that false claim the control the Internet. Its funny to continue to prove you wrong so easily.

No apocalypse will happen because you can't use Facebook.

[Heathen Hammer]

You didn't really address what I said. Social media gives voice to user, not the media itself, which is the difference. And no, taking away right to deny platform would not be a major infringement, corporations are already regulated by a variety of laws and regulations, it would be just another one. You need to find a better argument for defense of corporate oligopolies.

[Infidel144]

Oh yes i can because radio, newspapers, and TV have influenced society longer and greater than social media has. They were as widespread as social media. Yet they were never made into public forums nor forced to give people platforms.

Never...
Fairness Doctrine comes to mind, as does the Equal Time rule.

[Vanoi]

Never...
Fairness Doctrine comes to mind, as does the Equal Time rule.

The Fairness Doctrine is gone and it had to do with airing issues related to the public and allowing contrasting views. FCC got rid of that years ago. They weren't forced in any way to give just anyone a platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

The Equal Time rule was superceded by the Comminucations Act of 1934 and it has to do with giving the same amount of air time to political candidates not forcing them to give everyone a platform.

The rule has also changed numerous times, has numerous exceptions, and is nit enforced with broadcast television and because radio no longer holds debares they are pretty much no longer bound.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

@HH Newspapers, TV, aand radio also give people voices. They like social media are platforms in which people can voice their opinion. Taking away the right to deny service infringes on basic business rights.

You should try better arguments.