First Amendment doesn�t apply on YouTube; judges reject PragerU lawsuit

.... in Xanadu, public school kids log into their publicly-funded Chromebooks every day!

Mass surveillance, 2D brain washing, CGI dependency and educamation for the win!!

I don't know why conservatives believe business should be left alone, unless they are blocking conservative views. Then they are public utilities, and must support any opinion regardless of their own.

Wouldn't turning the internet into a public utility be, like, socialism?

Next thing you know, they are going to censor you by letting you sell books critical of the ruling government.

That's not the kind of world I want to live in! Why didn't we listen when Orwell warned us this was coming!

But it's for your own good. You don't know what is good or bad till the Government tells you.

Great. Now we all get mandatory euthanasia.

See what your right to free speech did!

hot diggitty! where can I go to volunteer for this pilot program?

Not me. I'm much the opposite on this. I believe everyone is entitled to equality with the law (government). But if a business chooses to discriminate for constructive or even offensive reasons then IMHO that's their business.

That said, if you want a men-only social club then so be it.

Ladies only? Same thing.

Want to have a trail run and not worry about some asshole in a wheelchair suing you because you want a trail run and not a street run?

No blacks? No whites? No Jews? No (insert group here)? Then that's your business and if the public boycotts your ass then that's your business too.

But it's none of the government's business to tell you who you must serve.

So now that conservatives don't have free speech on You Tube would everyone be okay with You Tube banning homosexuals and lesbians?

Hey, what about a Christian bakery refusing to bake a gay themed cake for someone? Is that okay?

It's the same thing because I can assure you that this You Tube ruling will be used as a precedent in the cases against Christian bakers and florists.

Not me. I'm much the opposite on this. I believe everyone is entitled to equality with the law (government). But if a business chooses to discriminate for constructive or even offensive reasons then IMHO that's their business.

That's because you are more enlightened than Prager U. They and many like them see the internet as their soap box without considering all the money it takes to keep the lights on.



I don't disagree.



And that's where we come to a screeching halt. It is the governments business to make sure everyone is treated equally in the public space.

Youtube could ban minorities, if that is their preference, as it is apparently their right. It would however be a bad business move.



Not going there.

In public spaces, yes. Like schools, government buildings, parks, roads, etc.

But it how does the government justify expropriating control of a privately owned, privately funded property/business and then dictating who has access to it?

I'd rather let the public decide on this.

See, in some ways they already have.

Because if I'm in New York City and I want to go somewhere where I can be comfy in the company of upper class white people all I have to do is pay for the privilege.

Check out Le Bernadin.

https://nymag.com/restaurants/reviews/l ... n-2011-12/

Want to keep them swarthy types away while preening yourself as a progressive social liberal? Just pay for the privilege and you're good!



Or should the government force Le Bernadin to provide meals to low income poor people who will drive away the upper class clientele with their boorish behavior and dearth of sartorial splendor?

Why is this any different than telling a white owned BBQ shop in South Carolina that they have to serve people they don't want to serve?

Should they just jack up their prices to accomplish the same discrimination that Le Bernadin gets away with because it's a favorite with rich, white liberal Democrats?

How does that square with the mantra of...





Seems to me the government is awfully selective about that equality of yours.

Myself, I'd rather them not get involved at all because doing so violates property rights and it also violates the First Amendment clause on Freedom of Association.

See, Freedom of Association is necessarily the freedom to discriminate.

Ironic thing is that the Democrats are so against this notion that their party is right now being hijacked by a non-Democrat named Bernie Sanders.

The GOP has no such problem because it aggressively asserts their freedom of association whenever it has been challenged.

Like I've long said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty...warts and all.