National YT put on notice for 2A censorship by Montana AG!

[Yarome]

I'm just talkin out my a**, because I honestly don't know the full legalities, but my guess with NWFA is that it's a special interest group with a clearly defined "mission". IIRC, something like... a meeting place for like minded gun owners and the furtherance of 2nd ammendment rights.

So... any post not within those guidelines could be determined to be a violation and removed. IE., if a group of physical trainers come in and start hashing around exercise regiments... they aren't going to have the defense of "free speech" laws for Joe to kick their quarter bouncing derriers off the board.

The scope of NWFA is limited and subject to censorship if the owner or his agents decides a post falls outside the scope of the forum.... as does anti-2A rhetoric.

 

[Koda]

I'm just talkin out my a**, because I honestly don't know the full legalities, but my guess with NWFA is that it's a special interest group with a clearly defined "mission". IIRC, something like... a meeting place for like minded gun owners and the furtherance of 2nd ammendment rights.

So... any post not within those guidelines could be determined to be a violation and removed. IE., if a group of physical trainers come in and start hashing around exercise regiments... they aren't going to have the defense of "free speech" laws for Joe to kick their quarter bouncing derriers off the board.

The scope of NWFA is limited and subject to censorship if the owner or his agents decides a post falls outside the scope of the forum.... as does anti-2A rhetoric.

Im no legal expert either but as far as I know Youtube is no different, both are privately owned entities and can make the rules as they see fit.
My guess is the only way free speech would apply here is if Youtube was a government service.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

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.

As a platform YouTube enjoys certain protections that a publisher does not.

"Section 230 was introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and former Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., as a way of protecting tech companies from becoming legally liable for their users' content if they opted to moderate it.

The law followed a court ruling against the online platform Prodigy.

An investment firm sued Prodigy after one of the platform's anonymous users accused it of fraud. Prodigy argued it wasn't responsible for its users' speech, but the court found that because the platform moderated some of its users' posts, it should be treated more like a publisher, which can be held legally liable for misleading or harmful content it publishes.

The ruling galvanized Cox and Wyden to introduce what would become Section 230. The law allows for companies to engage in "good Samaritan" moderation of "objectionable" material without being treated like a publisher or speaker under the law.

That's what allows platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Google's YouTube to take down terrorist content or harassing messages while still enjoying other legal protections. It's also been essential for these companies to achieve massive scale — if they were liable for everything users posted, they'd either have to vet every piece of content before it went live, which would dramatically increase expenses and create delays, or give up all moderation, which would make for a worse user experience."

So these "platforms" moderate their customers' content in exquisite detail, while maintaining that they should not have liability for what's published because they aren't publishers. They now have it both ways. That needs to change.

 

[Yarome]

Im no legal expert either but as far as I know Youtube is no different, both are privately owned entities and can make the rules as they see fit.
My guess is the only way free speech would apply here is if Youtube was a government service.

That's not the way it works though. You can't be an open platform not subject to rules that apply to providers while acting as a provider. That's called having your cake and eating it too.

 

[Koda]

So these "platforms" moderate their customers' content in exquisite detail, while maintaining that they should not have liability for what's published because they aren't publishers. They now have it both ways. That needs to change.

So until it changes then they are still a private entity that can moderate at will? And if it does change then would a platform like this one be forced to allow anti gun posts as political free speech?

 

[Yarome]

My guess is they would have to prove that those demos threatened legal action against youtube similar to the pro gun lawyer.

Threatening legal action for non compliance is not a prerequisite. In many cases it is simply implied... or rather... most reasonable persons would take it as such.

If it was a prerequisite then... say... every LEO would be required to clearly state... "May I see your driver's license, and if you don't, I will arrest you". That second part is implied since we all know that we are legally required to obey a lawful order of a LEO... or... there will be consequences.

Senators bear implied "threat" for any non-compliance.

Just like those firearm mfg's that chose not to appear before the house at the houses "request". They opted to ignore it and subsequently had a ton of their records subpeona'ed and subjected to all kinds of demands and legal scrutiny.

While no specific threat was made to YT... or to the firearm mfgs either... I'm quite sure there was sufficient reason to believe that non-compliance would have consequences.

 

[Yarome]

So until it changes then they are still a private entity that can moderate at will? And if it does change then would a platform like this one be forced to allow anti gun posts as political free speech?

They can not moderate at will. That's the whole point. If they want to have the freedom to moderate at will then they must also be willing to be subject to liability for anything that anyone posts with their service.

So yeah... specifically... they must discontinue moderating legally allowed and protected content simply because they disagree with it, or.... they will be subject to laws, regulation and oversight that providers are subject to.

Big tech like YT has been getting away with it for a long time, but that's changing, people are starting to take notice and big tech is going to have to reconsider how they do business.

 

[Stomper]

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.

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.

There's a word for government and corporations acting as a single entity…..

Fascism refers to a way of organizing society with an emphasis of autocratic government, dictatorial leadership, and the suppression of opposition.


But the word we're really looking for is, Corporate Fascism, which is controlled by a small group of individuals which is an, Oligarchy.

The vast majority of public office holders are eager puppets who've been paid their 13 pieces of silver and promised "status" after everything collapses.


Right, Klause Schwab?




The only problem is, when it all falls apart and those of us who actually have the knowledge and skills to rebuild your (dis)"utopia" refuse to participate. I'm thinking an "Atlas Shrugged" event will occur.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

***Warning***
The following are only my thoughts...some of which may be against what others may think.
Also none of the following is to be considered the "Official Word" on NWFA polices.
Again these are only my thoughts.

I cannot speak about You Tube , since I have no experience posting there...or following their content guidelines and rules.

However....
Since the question of NWFA and what can be posted has been brought up.....

I have never understood the complaints about how NWFA curtails the 1st Amendment and your Right to free speech.
I say this because....

In order to become a NWFA member you had to agree to follow NWFA's terms and conditions.
One of those terms and conditions is to post within NWFA rules.

By clicking that you accept NWFA rules as well as it's terms and conditions...
You have also agreed to a partial loss , so to speak of your 1st Amendment Right to free speech.
You , did agree to post within forum rules...the rules are posted...
Rules by their nature ...Limit things....therefore your 1st Amendment is limited here at NWFA.

Now to be blunt :
You agreed to follow NWFA rules when posting.
If you didn't read the rules / terms and conditions before clicking that you accept them...
Then that ain't my problem...until a post goes against forum rules.

Please note that this post is not directed at anyone in particular...nor are the words 'you" or "your".
Also please note that Joe is very receptive to ideas...
If you disagree with NWFA rules or content guidelines , I would suggest that you contact him directly.
Andy

 

[Stomper]

***Warning***
The following are only my thoughts...some of which may be against what others may think.
Also none of the following is to be considered the "Official Word" on NWFA polices.
Again these are only my thoughts.

I cannot speak about You Tube , since I have no experience posting there...or following their content guidelines and rules.

However....
Since the question of NWFA and what can be posted has been brought up.....

I have never understood the complaints about how NWFA curtails the 1st Amendment and your Right to free speech.
I say this because....

In order to become a NWFA member you had to agree to follow NWFA's terms and conditions.
One of those terms and conditions is to post within NWFA rules.

By clicking that you accept NWFA rules as well as it's terms and conditions...
You have also agreed to a partial loss , so to speak of your 1st Amendment Right to free speech.
You , did agree to post within forum rules...the rules are posted...
Rules by their nature ...Limit things....therefore your 1st Amendment is limited here at NWFA.

Now to be blunt :
You agreed to follow NWFA rules when posting.
If you didn't read the rules / terms and conditions before clicking that you accept them...
Then that ain't my problem...until a post goes against forum rules.

Please note that this post is not directed at anyone in particular...nor are the words 'you" or "your".
Also please note that Joe is very receptive to ideas...
If you disagree with NWFA rules or content guidelines , I would suggest that you contact him directly.
Andy

You forgot, "you're"….

 

[Andy54Hawken]

You forgot, "you're"….

Well I grew up speaking Southern...
So I also forgot "Y'all" , "You uns" and "All Y'all".....
Andy

 

[Yarome]

You forgot, "you're"….

Well I grew up speaking Southern...
So I also forgot "Y'all" , "You uns" and "All Y'all".....
Andy

Mayonaise funny... ain't they?

 

[bbbass]

No matter that posts/content is public, NWFA is NOT a "platform"... a "platform" allows posting of everything, every subject, except threats, porn, gore, racism, etc. As such, it qualifies for immunity, protection against liability, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The section was promulgated to further the open use of the internet and it's burgeoning social media entities. Examples of "platforms" are: Google's Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

Online "publishers" such as: The Epoch Times, Dan Bongino, Conde Nast, Wikipedia, eHow, Livestrong, WebMD, Salon, Buzzfeed, etc, choose material to publish on their websites vs having individuals post material. As such, they are responsible and liable for what is published/printed, ostensibly because THEY chose it to print. When posting replies to their articles, one is completely subject to their whim, as they MUST control their liability. In such cases, just as in Letters to the Editor, there is no 100% free speech.

As Andy mentioned, forums are not 100% open to the public, in that you can READ material, but you cannot POST material, unless you sign up and agree to the conditions and rules of said forum. The forum may moderate content as they see fit, but most only moderate within their rules. By agreement, there is no 100% free speech on forums.

When a "platform" starts behaving as a "publisher" by picking and choosing what material is posted, when such material does not violate FCC or Federal Law, then that "platform" should lose it's protection from liability under Section 230 and no longer be considered a "platform".

NWFA is clearly NOT a platform!

 

[Soli]

From a pretty good paper on the history of telecom regulations in the US.

"As a result, through the latter half of the Nineteenth century, Western Union was able to charge monopoly prices, support a newswire monopoly (the Associated Press) and discriminate against disfavored customers through its pricing. The firm was also able to use its monopoly to exert substantial political influence by, among other things, refusing to give certain news organizations access to its system to transmit their reporting. For example, in the contested Presidential Election of 1876, Western Union's backing of Presidential candidate Rutherford Hayes gave the candidate important advantages both in reaching newspapers and detecting the plans of his rival. In the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, Congress declared both telegraph and telephone companies (including AT&T, which at the time not only owned Western Union but also had its own monopoly in long-distance telephone lines) to be common carriers. The act placed communications, for the first time, under the jurisdiction a federal agency: the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Being a common carrier meant that telephone and telegraph companies had to offer their services without discrimination to all willing customers who were able to pay, and that they had to charge reasonable rates set by the ICC. In return, the telegraph and telephone companies received certain benefits, such as immunity from liability for the content they carried. The "common carriage" concept, originally a product of English common law remains the basis for the regulation of telephone carriers today."

The more things change and all that.

Anyway, what bbbass said!

 

[Cavedweller]

So basically an instructional video on building 80% receivers is considered free speech

The Framers of the Constitution had political speech in mind when they crafted the 1st Amendment. Supreme Court decisions since then, most notably by the Warren court, have expanded what is considered protected under the 1st Amendment to many forms of "expression." If a woman's freedom to remove her clothing in front of a bunch of drunks in a strip club is protected "expression," why not an instructional video on building 80% receivers? The boundaries are somewhat murky these days.

 

[bbbass]

If a woman's freedom to remove her clothing in front of a bunch of drunks in a strip club is protected "expression," why not an instructional video on building 80% receivers? The boundaries are somewhat murky these days.

I'd like a video of a naked woman building an 80% firearm!!!

That be true "gun porn". LOL