Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
As mentioned, they have to change their ways and decide if they are truly a platform, or a publisher/provider.

If they are "acting" as a platform they are limited in so much as when it comes to broad reaching factors where the reasons are political, moral or discriminatory and the discrimination/censorshipn falls under a protected trait or class, such as race, religion... political affiliation.

And yes... an educational video on legal subject matter is protected by free speech laws.

That was the main crux of the threat from the Montana AG. Shape up, be the platform you are supposed to be or they will start using laws to hammer YT the same way they would any other provider.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
19,492
Reactions
74,343
So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech and a private entity doesn't have a right to censor its content?
So, there's a bunch of folks thinking wrongly in the big tech world, they believe they have the powers to censor any content that violates their CoC's BUT, and this is the biggy, there is ZERO oversight, who makes the rules, and who holds them accountable, or holds their feet to the fire for honesty?
U-tuby touts it's self as a PLATFORM for sharing content, YET it censors content It it's self doesn't agree with, despite claims of being neutral, so the BIG QUESTION becomes, are they a Platform, or Publisher? Only a publisher can edit, censor, or delete content it doesn't like, while a Platform MUST NOT interfere, lest they violate the1st rights of free speech! As Posted above, they need to pick a lane, and deal with the consequences of those actions, and in this case, Fed. Regulation FORCING adherence to Protected FREE SPEECH if they wish to remain an open platform!
 
Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
But when was it decided that an instructional video was free speech?
I thought it was long well known by now that private entities can censor whatever they want?
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
I thought it was long well known by now that private entities can censor whatever they want?
That's what "they" want you to believe. Thanks for drinking their kool-aid?? 🤣

"I" most certainly don't know or acknowledge anything of the sort.
 
Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
That's what "they" want you to believe. Thanks for drinking their kool-aid?? 🤣

"I" most certainly don't know or acknowledge anything of the sort.
no koolaid, share with me how this works then?
So a private entity sets up a platform, like this forum... should NWFA not be allowed to censor pro gun control posts and discussions?
 
Messages
714
Reactions
2,109
But when was it decided that an instructional video was free speech?
I thought it was long well known by now that private entities can censor whatever they want?
It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.

No government entity can use a private entity to violate the constitution. Don't have a link, but it's my understanding that this has been case law for a long time.
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.

No government entity can use a private entity to violate the constitution. Don't have a link, but it's my understanding that this has been case law for a long time.
That certainly plays a big part. The specific content being cited in the AG's letter, YT removed it under direction of 4 democrat senators "request" that it be removed. Massive no-no but reaches much further beyond just those cited incidents and just the blaringe examples of systemic discrimination.
 
Messages
19,492
Reactions
74,343
no koolaid, share with me how this works then?
So a private entity sets up a platform, like this forum... should NWFA not be allowed to censor pro gun control posts and discussions?
There is a very distinct difference between Utube and a private forum! YT is an open platform specifically set up to allow the sharing of ideas, content, entertainment, and all that, it's PUBLIC, that's the key! NWFA is a privately owned Publisher owned by Joe Link, it's his baby and his rules! While Joe and staff do an excellent job of moderating what gets posted here, the key difference is: it's NOT free speech, you have no 1st rights here! While it's generally very open and accommodating and mostly invisible, it still regulates what can and cannot be shared, and there are hard lines covering that if you read the CoC's
Bottom line here, YT is a Public Platform, NOT a publisher, and as such, both are governed by specific rules and protections! If you post video content to YT, you still "Own" that content, vs posting here, Joe owns whatever gets posted, it's his and his alone once you hit enter!
 
Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
It's the removal at the behest of gov agents that is the issue IMO.

No government entity can use a private entity to violate the constitution. Don't have a link, but it's my understanding that this has been case law for a long time.
ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
So a private entity sets up a platform, like this forum... should NWFA not be allowed to censor pro gun control posts and discussions?
That's getting deep into the rabbit hole and would require legal council from someone specializing in free speech issues, but I believe part of might be gounded within "special interest group" classifications... but that is quite honestly well beyond my wheelhouse.
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.
It would be... if they didn't have the letter from those 4 demo's requesting those specific videos to be removed... hu!? ;)

Others.. it's incredibly easy to prove. The owners know what they posted, they know when it's removed and have notifications from YT proving YT removed them.
 
Messages
19,492
Reactions
74,343
Don't forget, there's also monetization of content, when you post video to YT, you earn a little bit for every click, and TY charges companies to advertise, however YT has demonetized many creators, but allowed their content to remain, essentially discouraging the continuation of content sharing from those creators! A publisher works under a completely different set of rules, and are FAR more regulated as to what and how they work!
 
Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
There is a very distinct difference between Utube and a private forum! YT is an open platform specifically set up to allow the sharing of ideas, content, entertainment, and all that, it's PUBLIC, that's the key! NWFA is a privately owned Publisher owned by Joe Link, it's his baby and his rules! While Joe and staff do an excellent job of moderating what gets posted here, the key difference is: it's NOT free speech, you have no 1st rights here! While it's generally very open and accommodating and mostly invisible, it still regulates what can and cannot be shared, and there are hard lines covering that if you read the CoC's
Bottom line here, YT is a Public Platform, NOT a publisher, and as such, both are governed by specific rules and protections! If you post video content to YT, you still "Own" that content, vs posting here, Joe owns whatever gets posted, it's his and his alone once you hit enter!
respectfully, Im not certain yet i agree with that. NWFA is open to the public (like this thread is visible...) and each one of us here posting and commenting is actually publishing with every reply just like we can publish a video on a Youtube channel.
In short, Youtube is a private company.
 
Messages
714
Reactions
2,109
ok this makes more sense. I think it will be very difficult to prove Youtube removed those specific videos at the behest of those gov agents, considering Youtube has many pro gun channels.
I agree.

I think this issue shows where the utility common carrier laws came from. On the one hand they totally violate the spirit of liberty (you must serve everyone if you're doing business here even if you don't want to), on the other hand they keep everyone including gov from denying service because they don't like what you're saying. Regs are then put in place defining what can be restricted (pron, etc).

Freedom was much less tricky before electricity. Then again there were the water wars... :eek:
 
Messages
8,718
Reactions
14,879
It would be... if they didn't have the letter from those 4 demo's requesting those specific videos to be removed... hu!? ;)

Others.. it's incredibly easy to prove. The owners know what they posted, they know when it's removed and have notifications from YT proving YT removed them.
My guess is they would have to prove that those demos threatened legal action against youtube similar to the pro gun lawyer.
Im not holding my breath on this letter making any changes....
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top