Should the 1st amendment be rewritten...

besides,libtards like op would be the ones who would suffer the most from rewritting the 1st ammendment.since you crybabys cant go a week without badmouthing donald trump

Also: Nigger

Attached: baitMaster.png (433x474, 19K)

Nazi Speech should not be protected. That doesn't mean other types wouldn't be.

Unacceptable

Shut the fuck up, nigger. Damn.

Thanks for the bait

im liking this whole pretend to be a retarded leftist to indoctrinate lonely incels into the alt right thing that you guys are doing. top notch work, the people stupid enough to fall for this are just the type of people you need to turn out at those voting booths and say nigger on the internet

You are a moron OP.

Attached: 0935867905826.jpg (500x500, 55K)

People need to learn what the 1st Amendment is. It's fine the way it is now. It's designed to protect offensive speech, speech against your government, and protection from retaliation by the government. Private companies will do what private companies have the right to do. If they want to be liberal, it's their right, just like it's their right to be conservative. And this idea that youtube has to pay you for letting you make money off their platform is complete bullshit. You want to make money, setup a website and host a fucking video.

Attached: XxWLxII_d.jpg (625x613, 19K)

Why? Nazis say "They will not replace us." That's a fucking threat, asshole.

"things i don't like shouldn't be allowed to be said"
no one is harming minorities, if anything, they're harming us, and you're making up bullshit
crowder is not a nazi
ben shapiro is not a nazi, infact he's jewish
trump is just an average rich asshole
there is no real nazis in the current world, its a DEAD FOLLOWING
wanna know who's a real threat to humanity?
the ones who have killed tens of millions?
literally the people who have killed the most out of anyone in history?
the communists. mao, stalin, and all the third world shitters we see today

wtf is NAZI speech?

You're a nazi apologist

>Nazi speech
Saying the Holocaust never happened, saying "they will not replace us," anything anti-Semitic or threatening people of color.

Yes, people with the wrong opinions should not be able to misinform the public.

Sure they should be able to express their opinions but that has nothing about them demanding to be allowed to push it on social media platforms.

They can start totalfaggots.com and promote their views there.

^

He has the right to say what Youtube decides to allow him to say. That is capitalism you faggot.

Attached: teach-a-man-to-fish-16x20-web.jpg (1200x973, 1.47M)

The holocaust never happened

You're going to start a civil war, retard.

Then you should have to go to prison for saying that.

Tbh don't let your child on the internet at a stupid young age. Problem solved

dislike this vid and report hate speech and discrimination!!!
youtube.com/watch?v=NsV6jr6Mwj0&t=4s

>a civil war
a bunch of basement dwellers who grind their teeth in the night? I don't think so.

Attached: 1559864283836.webm (370x290, 238K)

Troll

regulate your kids not adults

On the contrary, Social Media could be heavily policed by 2021 to discourage criticism of this Presidency in time of War.

Attached: 000-013.jpg (300x168, 7K)

I don't even know who that guy is, but this is clearly bait

Attached: 4bf.png (625x626, 181K)

No I shouldn't GOOBER.
It never happened GOOBER.

No, it's coming. Nothing can stop the momentum at this point.

It doesn't have to be. It just has to pass muster on the Supreme Court, and once we pack the court with liberal Justices, this is very likely the scenario.

shut up fuck nut. 1st gives you rights from the GOV not from other people. You are a fucktard

You jews just never stop trying to ruin everything good, do you? Fuck you up the ass with the dick of your pet nigger!

You're coming. From fapping to trap threads.

There's a slight problem. You won't move out of your mom's.

Everyone is in favor of the first amendment, even many left wingers are in favor of it. You're so far left that you want to make the US a despotic socialist state. You'd get ripped to shreds by the users of /k/ dumbass.

user my people are being threatened. We need to send a message that denying the Holocaust happened is a major offense.

I'm left wing, and I believe that anti-semitic hate speech should not be protected.

Attached: yesitsaysthat.png (735x485, 549K)

#remove the 1st

Nazi dogfucker.

>yes rewrite american law and apply it to the world to follow

hurrr hurrr amerifats are this stupid

Censorship leads to violence, and your ideology leads to genocide.

Bait aside, is there any way to actually identify fake and real "things" on the internet. Short of having your own journalists, scientists, etc. I don't see a reliable way.

You start taking people who own guns way of making a living, don't be surprised when a few of those people start emptying mags into progressive types.

This

it's almost as if this is a /pol/ bait thread

but im confused... im on Yea Forums, not /pol/

why is this here? It's not very random.... it's actually fairly specific, specifically smells like /pol/ and giant blasts of piss

You could be sent to a Patriot Camp for posting that.

It's far more likely, shareblue.

>violence, genocide
You mean what you white nationalists want to do?

This is now a Spongebob thread.

Attached: ban inna can.png (300x300, 188K)

user you can't even rebel against your mom
fuck off

You could go to prison for posting that.

/thread

>durr civil wor civil worr durr

faggot

Attached: 3ji35.png (1205x721, 1021K)

God is everyone in here a nazi cock gobbling pussy?

he's fucking canadian
couldn't be any LESS nazi

spongy

Attached: sbyerbob.jpg (1920x1080, 149K)

dislike this vid and report hate speech and discrimination!!!
youtube.com/watch?v=NsV6jr6Mwj0&t=4s

Ever been to Alberta?

Interesting. All of this, with maybe the exception of the threats part, is legally protected speech. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are referring to actual credible threats, and not simply words such as Stupid Nigger or Greedy Jew or Lazy Spic. In which case you don't need to mention minorities. It is illegal to threaten anyone.
But yeah, I can publicly say the holocaust never happened, Niggers are subhuman, and not enough Jews were gassed. All protected.

Fuck Vox and the lispy fag
#4chanCallToArms
FIGHT BACK!

I'm not user, but...

All of the tech companies that run social media are in the US. Every one of them. All are located on the West Coast, and most of them within a 30 mile radius.

So yes, we need to add protection for first amendment rights to the users of these platforms. These companies think they can blur the line of platform and publisher to suit their needs. They can't get away wit hit forever.

If we can't accomplish this, corporations with budgets bigger than most countries will continue to rule communication throughout the world. They will force their politically homogeneous messages down our throats and implement lifetime bans on those that vocally disagree. It's already happening.

Billions of people around the world are subject to their rules and regulations, and they have no oversight, no checks and balances. But they are located in the US, therefore subject to its laws. Implementing online first amendment rights would protect Americans, as well as the rest of the world.

I'll literally shove my cock down your throat

Attached: 235.png (485x330, 264K)

>I can publicly say the holocaust never happened
That will be an automatic 30 Year Sentence. No Judge, No Trial, nothing. And it's "Holocaust." You'd be fined for that on top of your sentence.

sbob or riot

Attached: Quicky.png (560x662, 535K)

Attached: 438u.png (583x516, 473K)

faggot

nigger

Attached: 1486u.png (600x481, 366K)

...

Nah, we should just rewrite the Second Amendment to allow us to shoot assholes like Crowderbaby.

Attached: allahuakbar.jpg (1080x1075, 193K)

Fuck Nazis asshole

Attached: 124.png (196x200, 63K)

GODDAMMIT STOP POSTING THAT FAGGOT SHIT

Attached: trump dantuono.jpg (1273x900, 373K)

>Things said could discriminate against minority groups.
Your words are oppressing me!!!

Attached: 13562.png (625x478, 449K)

lol Bush2 giving the finger

FAGGOT

And that's fine up until the government decides that this does indeed qualify as editorialization and that youtube is therefore a publisher and not a platform. And once they do that the floodgates will be open for lawsuits from every corner of the country. Suits of all stripes... Defamation, slander, incitement, you name it.
You see, capitalism has nothing to do with this, and the fact that you even bring it up is a really good indicator that you don't have a very solid grasp of what it even is. No, what this is all about is whether social media as it has now evolved constitutes a public forum or private property. The companies all want to be both at the same time. The legal protections afforded to a neutral platform with the authoritative content control of a publisher. But that levee will be breaking soon, I suspect. And once that happens they will be wishing they had chosen to stay neutral.

Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from responsibility to what you say.

Attached: 1556723542523.png (800x448, 491K)

Attached: 28535.png (680x458, 358K)

Just remember that you are someone else's Crowder

I hope no one in this thread is stupid enough to think any liberals think like this.

Attached: 0d2.gif (500x448, 707K)

...

Attached: spongey.jpg (1280x720, 154K)

I do. Nazi hate speech should not be protected.

That's an adorable 3rd grade level of understanding you have regarding the 1st.

...

Attached: 243346.png (961x759, 758K)

Attached: spongey2.png (970x546, 554K)

You may think you're a liberal, but you are in fact either a progressive or a troll.

You people say that same thing about the second amendment. Hell why your at it why don't we just change all the amendments being that they are a couple hundred years old and all you know outdated. Do you see how stupid you sound. And I better not get a (you) that's rhetorical.

Attached: Dh_iTtGX4AE12tI.jpg (1017x1200, 107K)

It means maybe we need the government to step in because the private sector fails. Again.

Oh. You're one of those faggots who thinks "liberal" means something else, like dickertarian.

Cool fanfic bruh

FAGGOT

Attached: 3445.png (750x607, 656K)

No, really. You've threatened my people long enough.

FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT

Attached: spongey3.png (625x352, 261K)

FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT

Oooh, this is awkward...
Sit down user, I have some bad news for you.

Attached: 07-jeopardy-trebek.w710.h473.jpg (710x473, 58K)

Attached: 3565.png (500x499, 334K)

nice bait faggot

Got his ass ripped by

Immediately devolving into Godwin's Law invalidates your argument. Fuck off.

I wasn't aware that removing ads from internet videos counted as someone removing your right to say what ever dumb shit you want.

Oh wait. Demonization doesn't have anything to do with censorship since it's not stopping them from freely speaking.

Attached: 1558536314270.jpg (1300x960, 92K)

They're nazis. Why are you protecting them?

Spongebob thread or riot

Attached: 4115.png (500x378, 334K)

Social media has nothing to do with the first amendment. All the 1A does is prevent you from being charged or jailed because of speech that doesn't incite violence. It doesn't prevent platforms or companies from de-platforming you. Conservatives are not a protected class. They can ban them as much as they want. You don't have the right to be monetized on YouTube. It's privilege that can be revoked any any time.

Why do you protect pedophiles?

>They're nazis. Why are you protecting them?

Attached: hitler.jpg (801x928, 118K)

>ITT: Trolls trying to troll trolls

Attached: 23534yethethe.jpg (835x580, 58K)

same reason people protect fags and trans people. just because someone has a mental illness you need to understand it and cope

But forcing Crowder to remove links on his own page (aka editorializating content) could place them into publisher territory.

It's actually working, btw.

Attached: 145.png (480x360, 257K)

>thinking this won't get turned on you

You people just are not going to stop until you complete eradicate yourself's kek

Attached: hoess.jpg (260x421, 92K)

Attached: spongey4.jpg (646x431, 56K)

And he hosts his videos at no costs to himself on a website.
If he doesn't like the way they do business, he should move to another platform.
YouTube isn't the govt user, they are a private business owned by Google and they can choose who can and can't do certain things in thier ecosystem. Now go be a commie faggot somewhere else.

Attached: mmmm.jpg (350x350, 15K)

Im selling shirts check 'em out that say

CONSERVATIVES F*** KIDS and

K*** ALL CONSERVATIVES buy em at

goatse.ex

at least before that happens we get to exterminate pedophiles like you

Attached: 185.png (640x480, 276K)

don't worry F** actually is FAKE and K*** is actually KISS so i'm not inciting violence

Attached: projecting.jpg (490x333, 34K)

Attached: 524.png (474x355, 265K)

But remember that dumb cunt that sued Trump for blocking her on Twitter? Yeeeeeah, that was a gateway that shouldn't have been opened. It is the gateway that will be used to argue that social media is a public forum. It is an argument that could potentially hold sway in terms of legislation. You'll have the dumb cunt to thank.

I think YOU are outdated and should be removed

Attached: 595.png (356x239, 149K)

Wow. This asshole might be more of a retard the the OP. Impressive retard level, retard

Progressives are just retards that think they are liberal, or are purposely misleading others because liberalism is a lot easier for the public to get behind.
>Liberalism: political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law
>limited government
>individual natural rights
>free markets
>secularism
>believes in equality of opportunity
The entire US government was designed around liberal ideals

Contrast that with you:
>Progressivism: the support for or advocacy of social reform.
>change for the sake of change
>when original goals are met, move the goalposts
>based on socialist ideals
>revitalized by postmodern philosophy
>believes in no objective truths
>only a single-dimension of value, based solely on power
>commonly manifested as social justice
>believes in equality of outcome

If you think it's okay to punch someone because you think they are a Nazi, you are a progressive. If you think that even a Nazi has the right to speak their mind, you are a liberal. if you think the Nazi is making a lot of sense, go back to /pol/

Social media can never be regulated as a public forum due to the sheer fact its hosted and moderated by private corporations. In order for it to be a PUBLIC forum, it needs to be run by PUBLIC officials or have the dot gov shit thrown at the end. Why do you faggots think this anyway? If you went to a bar and started shouting the shit that gets you in trouble on Twitter, you'd get thrown out and banned there too. No infringement on free speech, since the owner isn't a govt official.

BUY THE SHIRT

Attached: lol.jpg (513x490, 40K)

was she successful?

Attached: 636.png (480x360, 217K)

We need another Marsh vs Alabama, but for the internet

There you people go. Just call him a bad name that will teach him. I'm obviously a nazi not a leftist pedo

Congratulations to the black race for having the best cocks. Everyone should suck them

Attached: D8E5F605-BED6-49B8-8689-EFC4B7503C73.gif (360x360, 1.78M)

Attached: 655.png (480x360, 254K)

You really don't get this, do you...
Look imma spell this shit out pretty simple for you Skippy.
In the US media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook enjoy certain legal protections. Namely, protections from possible repercussions as a direct result of the content that their users produce. The reason they get this protection is because it was contended that they played no hand in the actual production or selection of that content. That way, when some asshat starts makin threats to his ex on Facebook, the ex can't turn around and sue Facebook for allowing it and the government cannot go after Facebook as an accomplice.
But if the companies are going to be picking and choosing what is allowed and what isn't, then the argument will become that they ARE responsible for everything on their site. Because they are editorialising. So if you go on there and tell everyone I'm a nazi and a racist and whatever, I can just tell YouTube I'm gonna sue for publishing slander and defamation.
Get it now, stupid? It has nothing to do with communism or capitalism or any of that shit. It is about legal protections.

Yup. I think it was the 9th that sided with the cunt and determined that since POTUS was on the platform it constitutes a public forum.

Attached: 663.png (1280x720, 843K)

That's not how limited liabilities laws work you fucking dumb cunt.
They are well within thier right to do whatever they want because the only people they answer to is INVESTORS and ADVERTISORS
Thanks to the fucked up lobbying system of America, corporations actually have more rights than govt or individuals. They can attempt to sue all they want, but thanks to limited liability laws it would get thrown immediately out.

Your logic is so retarded, because if it was even slightly true YouTube wouldn't be allowed to remove material from thier site that infringed on the copyrights of others. This is also another thing that YouTube is protected under, but they remove copyrighted content for the sole purpose of advertisers and class action law suits.

Attached: 12389067345.png (1024x885, 987K)

Attached: 672.png (1280x720, 1.05M)

The difference is what I have outlined here You see, what YOU faggots seem to forget is that places like bars and other private businesses do not get these legal protections. They protect themselves. But companies like YouTube and Facebook wanted legislated protection. You know, by the government.

>no kids on Yea Forums
Can’t believe it’s summer already

Go read a book you dumb nigger

Attached: C005F65C352B4AEE823F30443FEC1C93.jpg (600x617, 27K)

Attached: 684'.png (300x168, 109K)

That's not how it works. Have you ever done a business course in high school?

SPONGEBOB PICS OR RIOT

Attached: 122.png (640x360, 299K)

Not limited liability protection you retarded cunt. CDA 230 protections. Not the same thing remotely.
All you're doing here is proving that you have almost no understanding of digital protection legislation.

The dicks in your favorite porn, are fake.

Attached: FAKED,com.png (1024x683, 687K)

This whole thread is just one massive bait tbh

Something tells me you're LARPing as a tankie, and wan the first amendment repealed because you KNOW hate speech isn't free speech. Sorry, chud, but you can't say the gamer word without repercussions.

Attached: 1520006057826.jpg (480x474, 18K)

He? Did youtube just assume Steven Crowders gender?!?

You are so goddamn unbelievably retarded it is painful.

dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act

Here, trying fuckin learning something you ignorant twat.

The issue is that removing ads, isn't removing the ability to freely state an opinion.
Your argument has no grounds.

Conspiracies aren't opinions

Because YouTube is only removing ads and certainly has never censored content like moon man

Is that supposed to be Alec Baldwin playing Trump? lol

You are the one that keeps bringing up ads. I haven't even said the word ads until now. Let go of the fucking ads argument.
Fuck, even Crowder doesn't care about the ads. But YouTube wants him to remove the link he had to his store on one of his video descriptions. That is called editorializating and it is something a PUBLISHER does.

Holy shit, I've pissed off OP so much, that I made him rage quit.

Attached: 199.png (650x650, 436K)

i think its fine the way it shouldnt be rewritten though in the case of companys when you join a company you sign a contract one that says you will behave a certain way this isnt infringement because because its specified that this will get you fire tl:dr i cant curse out my boss cause i signed a contract saying i wouldnt

Kind of wondering if they read that link and had an 'oh, shit' moment when they figured out how these companies are screwing themselves over.

I really don't know. I think me turning this into a spongebob thread got him to sperg out and rage quit. The Shareblue shill or troll is gone.

Attached: 175.png (480x480, 347K)

MODS MODS MODS.

/pol/ out of its cage again.

Take your shit back to your corner you fucks. I see this shit on every board now.

Same thing is happening on /k/. /pol/ is spreading it's cancerous bile across the more populated boards.

found the nigger!

But I thought the first amendment would protect my ability to say hateful things on whatever platform I want. Why do companies think their bottom line is more important than my desire to preach hate?

>platform
That's the key word. If they are a platform, they have no control over the content, by definition. They can ban things that are literally illegal, but they cannot make exceptions past that. If they are selective over content, based on their preferences, they become a publisher and are legally responsible for the content they publish.

Straw man. Nobody is advocating the op point of view.
Back to /pol/ trumpanzee

Stop listening to Ted Cruz, he was wrong, and now you believe it.

Section 230 was adopted precisely to encourage this moderation. As the statute’s proponents explained at the time, the hope was to incentivize online service providers to “help ... control” what enters the home through the “portals of our computer.” Protecting “anyone ... who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers” was an explicit goal. And the drafters did not look favorably on government review of these discretionary decisions: “We do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the internet, ... a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet.” By moderating its website, Facebook doesn’t risk running afoul of Section 230; it lives up to it.
lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act

So making fun of trump should be treated the same correct? He is targeted by harrassment the most especially on YouTube. But wait he isnt,

Crowder has done nothing wrong and is getting the attention he deserves, hes a idol towards free speech

>Crowder has done nothing wrong

Repeated insults of a reporter for being gay is not wrong? Bullying gays for being gay is not wrong?

The issue is not indecency or offensive material. The issue is widespread political censorship.

Section 230 is meant to exempt online platforms from libel law, specifically to facilitate "forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse". This means common-sense moderation can take place, removing trolls who just want to derail the conversation. But this no longer fits the description of a contemporary media 'platform'-- Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and all the other tech monopolies are actively engaging in political censorship-- which is their right, if they are a publisher. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all the mainstream media companies do this, because they are politically oriented publishers. This means theyare liable for any content they put out into the world.

The tech monopolies cannot have it both ways. They are either a publisher (and can choose content based on politics), or they are a platform (which means they must be politically neutral, but can still moderate for specific purposes).

>The issue is widespread political censorship.
How is hating on gays a political issue?
How is spreading lies about how shooting were fakes a political issue?

Insults aren't illegal. Bullying is if it reaches the level of credible threat or imminent lawless action.

>insults of a reporter for being gay
He literally just said he is gay and Mexican. Is there something wrong with either? Are you a homophobe or a racist?

Yeah, he did a lispy impression of the guy. Which is not exactly tasteful. But the guy has a lisp that he plays up purposefully on set (see his outtake videos, where his producer says something like "hey, you sounded extra gay in that take"). Most of what the guy is pissed at is being criticized, which has nothing to do with him being gay. besides all that, he's likely doing all of this as a ploy to force Vox (who's main source of income is YouTube) into settling a union deal.

Fpbp

Back to the point you seem to not understand. It violates their terms and they can enforce them as they please because it is their company.

>How is hating on gays a political issue?
It's not. If you call for violence against gays, etc., then by all means censor the person. Or, better yet, archive the video and report them to the police.

>How is spreading lies about how shooting were fakes a political issue?
I don't know why you're cherry picking examples that are meaningless to the argument? It makes for a nice straw man, but it's not the issue.

The tech monopolies are political monocultures. They have a political agenda, and they are censoring anyone to the right of them extensively. And people to the right of them account for about 90% of the population. What happens when a new moderate starts to gain steam on YouTube? They get demonetized. What happens when they still gain followers? they are banned, with no explanation, and no recourse. There are straight-forward liberals being banned now.

I only care about the far-right being censored for two reasons: it sets bad policy and makes that bad policy palatable; and it forces the radicalized right into the shadows where they can grow, unopposed. A better response would be to leave their content out in the open, and make them deal with the inevitable rebuttals, which would obliterate their causes. Why do you think the Klan all but died out?

Nobody's saying that they can't do what they want, pay attention you fuckwit. What I'm saying is that insulting and bullying aren't crimes except under highly specific circumstances.

Im against censoring for political issues, but this guy was censored for harassing someone, that is not political reason. This guy could keep making money on youtube saying right wing stuff as long as he kept his fag comments to a minimum.

They dont need to be crimes to break their terms.

>they can enforce them as they please because it is their company
Yes, they have two options:
>1. be a publisher
>allow or disallow content as they want
>be legally responsible for the content they publish
>2. be a platform
>maintain poltitical/etc. neutrality
>moderate posts if they deem them to be illegal or harmful to the community (straightforward trolling, for instance)
>have widespread exemption from libel laws, per Section 230

no you are misinformed and this was not political.
lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-communications-decency-act

Maybe? But if so, the rest of the Amendments will be unlocked.

Its a 'slippery slope' but i see its possible

Attached: derp8.jpg (326x309, 14K)

Solid post. /Pol fags need to go back

>Should the 1st amendment be rewritten?
as much as I despise that sack of shit in OPs photo, No, 1st amendment does more good than harm.

You're a liar! Your business website only went to gaping assholes! No T-shirts at all!

It was not harassment, it was comedy (albeit in poor taste). it did not remotely fit the legal definition of Harassment (even by YouTube's admission). Every talk show host out there says things more obscene than what this guy said. Hell, we have comedians calling for the death of Trump regularly. We have comedians that post, publicly, calling for violence against private individuals (and they say, 'hur dur, it's a joke' and get away with it).

If they want to demonetize his videos, that's their option. But they should demonetize all comedy. Because all comedy is offensive to someone out there. I don't believe they should be able to remove his content, without taking on the title of 'Publisher'. The guy's lawyer specifically cleared a lot of previous content with YouTube, who gave it the green light. And now those same videos are being removed, with no statement as to what the policy violation is. He's a mix of political content and comedy, neither to my taste. But he's not breaking the rules. He's being censored because they don't like him, his sense of humor, or his politics. And that makes them a publisher.

YouTube revokes ads from Steven Crowder until he stops linking to his homophobic T-shirts
The restriction isn’t permanent, though: YouTube said Crowder’s monetization could be restored if he “addresses all of the issues with his channel,” according to a recent tweet.

theverge.com/2019/6/5/18654196/steven-crowder-demonetized-carlos-maza-youtube-homophobic-language-ads

/thread

Attached: 1474675041237.jpg (413x395, 67K)

>I read the act
>never even bothered to listen to Cruz
>I don't care about his argument

>stop equating his argument with mine-- just read what I write and ignore Cruz
It is political. Only right-of-progressive channels are being banned. Many with no demonstrably poor conduct. Crowder is not the best example, because he mixes comedy and politics, which blurs those lines. But people are being banned by the thousands, based solely on politics. And even if they are banned solely on their comedy, it's still the role of a publisher to do so.

it is not the job of YouTube to make everything inoffensive to everyone. That's impossible. They can: remove trolls, remove illegal content, remove spam, etc. But they cannot say, " This comedian offends these people, we should ban him," or, "This guy's opinion on politics undermines our own-- ban him". If they do that, THEY ARE A PUBLISHER BY DEFINITION. And they must then abide by the legal terms of publishing. Section 230 is meant only to protect platforms and platform moderation, not publishers and their publications. If a publisher could utilize Section 230, all they would have to do is concurrently publish their content online to avoid any libel laws.

And then when confronted by the Left, YouTube said they are combing through all his content to find offenses. They have now removed his content that was previously reviewed and green-lit. They are going through the same process as they have hundreds of times before, which all leads to one thing: a ban.

Can we kill them with fire?