YouTube bans anti-vaccine misinformation on its platform

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
At least I know how to read property lines.
Lol apparently not from a legal standpoint, you showed that ignorance look I am not going to argue with people that in all likelihood never had a legal class in their life, It was my minor I'm college fyi. If my advisor seen your comments she would be horrified at general understandings of the legal system.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 181   +172
Lol apparently not from a legal standpoint, you showed that ignorance look I am not going to argue with people that in all likelihood never had a legal class in their life, It was my minor I'm college fyi. If my advisor seen your comments she would be horrified at general understandings of the legal system.

Tell your teacher this old teacher said she's full of crap.
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
Well that's you. Everything you have written on this is wrong. You need to learn where to look for information, what you're putting here is bullshit.
Yeah no, It's not my problem you obviously are pulling information from the internet and not legal books trying to.debate law.
You read it on the internet so it has to be true right?
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,732   +1,788
TechSpot Elite
...another person that cannot debate properly, ....such a shame so hardheaded 3 of you are spouting nonsense based on assumptions of Law rather than actual....Law.
Bye enjoy yourself and your so called facts.
Brother, you just conclusively reveled yourself as a trump fan.
You said things that, while not always out-and-out wrong, were factually incorrect in key areas. You ignored other things we said, even if you were proven wrong. And you made assumptions about us that were completely out of nowhere. You break all rules of proper debate on fact based evidence, and yet you lecture others on what you believe is debate etiquette.

And yet, it is everyone else's fault.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,736   +5,179
Lol apparently not from a legal standpoint, you showed that ignorance look I am not going to argue with people that in all likelihood never had a legal class in their life, It was my minor I'm college fyi. If my advisor seen your comments she would be horrified at general understandings of the legal system.
You certainly have not demonstrated any understanding of the "law" as you call it. Perhaps you should ask your school for your money back.

It won't serve any purpose to call you unreasonable back. So, perhaps you ought to read up on a reliable source https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/the-public-forum
As I see it, you are stretching the limits of what is considered a public forum in that an operative word in the definition of public is "government".

You strike me as someone who interprets the law as something that is subject to your interpretation and your interpretation only.

My arguments were intended to be unreasonable in nature as an attempt to get you to realize the unreasonableness of your own arguments. At least you recognized that my arguments were unreasonable; however, I think you failed to reflect on your the unreasonablness of your own arguments.

So now you've let the community know that you minored in law and that it is apparent that consider yourself an expert. I bet your college teachers would be very proud of you. :rolleyes:

EDIT: To quote something pertinent directly from the above link:
A corollary to the rule forbidding regulation based on content is the principle—a merging of free expression and equal protection standards—that government may not discriminate between different kinds of messages in affording access.
I hear you and people of a similar mindset constantly claiming that forums like facebook and others are subject to letting any joe schmoe say anything that they want on their sites. However, clearly the above quote states "government" may not discriminate different kinds of messages.

Unless facebook or other similar forums like you tube have become arms of the government (heaven forbid), free speech laws do not apply to them. And a simple reading of the First Amendment of the US Constitution also clearly says the same thing.

There it is in plain language, but I just do not get why so many people seem to think that it applies to any entity whether or not that entity is governmental, and established precedent in law backs the governmental definition of public forum and how it is applied. There is no debating this. In order to have your definition of public forum be established law or precedent, the constitution of the US would need to be changed to fit your definition. Personally, I don't think the constitution being altered to fit your definition of public forum is likely to actually happen.

And one final edit - by letting any joe schmoe say anything they want on a site like facebook or you tube, those sites themselves could very well be held liable for content posted by some joe schmoe user that is well outside of the limits of what SCOTUS itself has determined is "free speech". Which, if you are not aware, does not include things like inciting violence.

If you want such content to be allowed, then start your own site, and be held legally responsible then the content that is posted that is well outside established law.

Reliable sources of what is law are so easy to find, like this one, too https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums read it and note it applies to "government" in all cases. Yet the free speech experts that post to TS seem unable to find such sources. Wonders never cease.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,665   +6,450
Depends on the state, you have a straw man argument going on.
Either way you are unreasonable so grats and you are not worth debating with.
Another absolutely unreasonable person that simply does not understand how to debate properly. Bye bye.
...another person that cannot debate properly, ....such a shame so hardheaded 3 of you are spouting nonsense based on assumptions of Law rather than actual....Law.
Bye enjoy yourself and your so called facts.
I'm hoping that "bye, bye", is a tacit admission that you're losing this argument, and that you still have enough of a shred of decency within you, to put us all on your "ignore list" :poop:.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,440   +3,769
...another person that cannot debate properly, ....such a shame so hardheaded 3 of you are spouting nonsense based on assumptions of Law rather than actual....Law.
Bye enjoy yourself and your so called facts.
I don't think YOU know how to debate... generally, when one wants to be taken seriously in an argument, you make a cogent argument - then back it up with EVIDENCE.

Feel free to state the thesis of your argument - and back it up with some evidence.

Your move :)
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,665   +6,450
And yet, it is everyone else's fault.
While I certainly don't have a degree in psychology, I have had enough struggles in my life, and done enough research in the field, to realize that I have a number of sociopathic tendencies.

For example, I almost completely lack empathy toward members of our own species.. Which in and of itself, almost brands me of being a sociopath

Over many decades, I have worked diligently to mitigate them.

But yet, I still hit "mute " when social interest stories manifest themselves on the news. I could care less. The only thing I care about in the startling rise in the murder rate, is that I'm glad it wasn't me..

In fact, I somewhat enjoy watching the body count rise. Since most of these murders are "black on black crime", I think that the BLM movement is a joke, and should have it's name revised to "black lives matter, but not to each other".

Accordingly, these far fetched and anti social opinions brand me as having, "sociopathic tendencies"..

And, as the old adage goes, "it takes one to know one". (Not naming names now , mind you) 🤣
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
Brother, you just conclusively reveled yourself as a trump fan.
You said things that, while not always out-and-out wrong, were factually incorrect in key areas. You ignored other things we said, even if you were proven wrong. And you made assumptions about us that were completely out of nowhere. You break all rules of proper debate on fact based evidence, and yet you lecture others on what you believe is debate etiquette.

And yet, it is everyone else's fault.
You proved nothing wrong that is the problem....you made arbitrary statements with no factual basis...
Once again not a fan of anyone political nor even political party or side, the fact you just keep insisting oh you believe this so you must be this is incorrect.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,440   +3,769
You proved nothing wrong that is the problem....you made arbitrary statements with no factual basis...
Once again not a fan of anyone political nor even political party or side, the fact you just keep insisting oh you believe this so you must be this is incorrect.
You have proven nothing either... you have claimed that the CDC has used old wives tales and have censured doctors... evidence please?

When someone disagrees with you, if you simply say "wrong" - it's not an argument or debate... it's simply contradiction.

Here is a nice video explaining the difference :)

 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
I don't think YOU know how to debate... generally, when one wants to be taken seriously in an argument, you make a cogent argument - then back it up with EVIDENCE.

Feel free to state the thesis of your argument - and back it up with some evidence.

Your move :)
I have, you however provided no evidence of your argument, you simply made arbitrary statements and then proceeded to act like a child because 3 of you have to be right.
Your portraying a fantasy of law rather than actual law, the fact the 3 of you have argued it is set in stone and this is the way it is means you have a fundamental lack of understanding how the system actually works in reality.
There is reality and then there is the way you seem to want it to be, law is based on being in un-biased/impartial/nonpertisan in interpretation, the fact you seem to display a bias pretty much means you are predisposed to the interpretation of the law. That is a fundamental problem.
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
No
I'm hoping that "bye, bye", is a tacit admission that you're losing this argument, and that you still have enough of a shred of decency within you, to put us all on your "ignore list" :poop:.
Just really being done with people arguing instead of having a proper debate, people who demand evidence but provide none of their own and clearly show a lack of understanding of law and having a political bias.
Brick walls are not worth my time really.
The fact you ain't jump to insults and attack ones character rather than the point means you are beyond any reason discussing anything and basically just a set of possible trolls.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,440   +3,769
I have, you however provided no evidence of your argument, you simply made arbitrary statements and then proceeded to act like a child because 3 of you have to be right.
Your portraying a fantasy of law rather than actual law, the fact the 3 of you have argued it is set in stone and this is the way it is means you have a fundamental lack of understanding how the system actually works in reality.
There is reality and then there is the way you seem to want it to be, law is based on being in un-biased/impartial/nonpertisan in interpretation, the fact you seem to display a bias pretty much means you are predisposed to the interpretation of the law. That is a fundamental problem.
What fantasy of law have I portrayed? I have simply stated that vaccines save lives... think you have me mixed up with someone else... You simply have to look up Covid death rates in countries and compare vaccination rates. The countries with the highest vaccination rates have the lowest per-capita deaths from Covid... it's really cut and dry...

If you have some evidence to refute this, I'm all ears...
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
You certainly have not demonstrated any understanding of the "law" as you call it. Perhaps you should ask your school for your money back.

It won't serve any purpose to call you unreasonable back. So, perhaps you ought to read up on a reliable source https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/the-public-forum
As I see it, you are stretching the limits of what is considered a public forum in that an operative word in the definition of public is "government".

You strike me as someone who interprets the law as something that is subject to your interpretation and your interpretation only.

My arguments were intended to be unreasonable in nature as an attempt to get you to realize the unreasonableness of your own arguments. At least you recognized that my arguments were unreasonable; however, I think you failed to reflect on your the unreasonablness of your own arguments.

So now you've let the community know that you minored in law and that it is apparent that consider yourself an expert. I bet your college teachers would be very proud of you. :rolleyes:

EDIT: To quote something pertinent directly from the above link:

I hear you and people of a similar mindset constantly claiming that forums like facebook and others are subject to letting any joe schmoe say anything that they want on their sites. However, clearly the above quote states "government" may not discriminate different kinds of messages.

Unless facebook or other similar forums like you tube have become arms of the government (heaven forbid), free speech laws do not apply to them. And a simple reading of the First Amendment of the US Constitution also clearly says the same thing.

There it is in plain language, but I just do not get why so many people seem to think that it applies to any entity whether or not that entity is governmental, and established precedent in law backs the governmental definition of public forum and how it is applied. There is no debating this. In order to have your definition of public forum be established law or precedent, the constitution of the US would need to be changed to fit your definition. Personally, I don't think the constitution being altered to fit your definition of public forum is likely to actually happen.

And one final edit - by letting any joe schmoe say anything they want on a site like facebook or you tube, those sites themselves could very well be held liable for content posted by some joe schmoe user that is well outside of the limits of what SCOTUS itself has determined is "free speech". Which, if you are not aware, does not include things like inciting violence.

If you want such content to be allowed, then start your own site, and be held legally responsible then the content that is posted that is well outside established law.

Reliable sources of what is law are so easy to find, like this one, too https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums read it and note it applies to "government" in all cases. Yet the free speech experts that post to TS seem unable to find such sources. Wonders never cease.
Interpretation is non biased there is no only one way to interpret law which is where the 3 of you show major ignorance there is only 1 fundamental rule you ignore which is being impartial, your political beliefs have no bearing. I have read that I also read the original court cases containing fire in a theater which Biden served on the commission for.
There are exceptions for freedom of speech or ends to rights, when you infringe on the rights of another which is fairly common knowledge, you can say there is a fire in the theater...when there is a fire, however we have laws that simply state you cannot claim that and start a panic getting people hurt or killed.
Everything you posted still does not support your argument.
Never said I was an expert, but clearly am more qualified than the 3 of you by your statements.
Once again, you lose your argument because you actually have no fundamental facts from a credible source supporting your statements, I could listed a Dozen or so cases that would help prove your argument if you like however you would still basically be fundamentally wrong because of other cases that provide precedent overrides those cases and also the judicial branch of our government are constantly showing whether the fundamentals of the written law is legally bound in an impartial way....
Keep in mind the basis of you argument is still being decided in courts and federal, state agencies as in 40 years technology is still relatively a new area for the government to tackle.
Also you have to realize private property is differently defined by the Federal government as it is by state, walk in a property in Texas and it is different than what can happen in different states that is why some states have what is called castle law and others have different rules, however private property does not mean someone can tell you what you can say in regards to freedom of speech, otherwise a building owner can tell tenants what they can personally say on rented property, keep that in mind when you try posting some real arbitrary position of a slanted view on law.
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 480   +410
What fantasy of law have I portrayed? I have simply stated that vaccines save lives... think you have me mixed up with someone else... You simply have to look up Covid death rates in countries and compare vaccination rates. The countries with the highest vaccination rates have the lowest per-capita deaths from Covid... it's really cut and dry...

If you have some evidence to refute this, I'm all ears...
I never said anything about vaccines, all I said was to make a choice is do your own research and don't rely on possible false facts being rammed down your throat by in credible sources.
If you have a good doctor that you can trust consult them, have them explain the reality and not the political fantasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.