|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 23:00:50 GMT
Are you suggesting that Bre should have censored her guest's racial slurs from the video? That wouldn't have been free speech, now would it? No it wouldn't because the "Free Speech" appeal is irrelevant here. Free speech has to do with the First Amendment right to not be prosecuted and jailed for public statements that those in authority disapprove of. It has nothing to do with people making racist comments on forums that have rules against hate speech. This has been explained to you before. Interesting, but she didn't make a racist comment.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 23:29:14 GMT
No it wouldn't because the "Free Speech" appeal is irrelevant here. Free speech has to do with the First Amendment right to not be prosecuted and jailed for public statements that those in authority disapprove of. It has nothing to do with people making racist comments on forums that have rules against hate speech. This has been explained to you before. Interesting, but she didn't make a racist comment. BUT HER GUEST DID! Your question was should she "have censored her guest's racial slurs". The answer is YES...if she wanted to post that video (otherwise she is in violation of the rules). "Free Speech" is irrelevant to that scenario. What part about this are you not understanding?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 23:38:46 GMT
Interesting, but she didn't make a racist comment. BUT HER GUEST DID! Your question was should she "have censored her guest's racial slurs". The answer is YES...if she wanted to post that video (otherwise she is in violation of the rules). "Free Speech" is irrelevant to that scenario. What part about this are you not understanding? So free speech is not to be messed with.....unless the establishment doesn't like it. Gee, thanks for edifying me on that, Cap'n.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 23:43:12 GMT
BUT HER GUEST DID! Your question was should she "have censored her guest's racial slurs". The answer is YES...if she wanted to post that video (otherwise she is in violation of the rules). "Free Speech" is irrelevant to that scenario. What part about this are you not understanding? So free speech is not to be messed with.....unless the establishment doesn't like it. Gee, thanks for edifying me on that, Cap'n. In case this isn't clear to you yet, "Free speech" has to do with what is established in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't limit the right of private organizations to decide what kind of content they want on their forum, so one thing literally has nothing to do with the other. Censorship is allowed by private organizations! So why do you keep bringing up free speech as though that is relevant here? And I don't know what you mean by "the establishment". Frankly, I don't think you do either.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 23:50:11 GMT
BUT HER GUEST DID! Your question was should she "have censored her guest's racial slurs". The answer is YES...if she wanted to post that video (otherwise she is in violation of the rules). "Free Speech" is irrelevant to that scenario. What part about this are you not understanding? So free speech is not to be messed with.....unless the establishment doesn't like it. Gee, thanks for edifying me on that, Cap'n. Has there been any comment on this thread that you did not (probably willfully) misinterpret?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 30, 2017 23:51:46 GMT
So free speech is not to be messed with.....unless the establishment doesn't like it. Gee, thanks for edifying me on that, Cap'n. In case this isn't clear to you yet, "Free speech" has to do with what is established in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't limit the right of private organizations to decide what kind of content they want on their forum, so one thing literally has nothing to do with the other. Censorship is allowed by private organizations! So why do you keep bringing up free speech as though that is relevant here? And I don't know what you mean by "the establishment". Frankly, I don't think you do either. Then let me explain. By "the establishment" I mean whoever decides what words are not to be said, what flags are not to be flown, and what thoughts are not to be thought. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 31, 2017 0:54:55 GMT
THE Try this on gad reel it will work everytime
.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 31, 2017 1:04:41 GMT
In case this isn't clear to you yet, "Free speech" has to do with what is established in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't limit the right of private organizations to decide what kind of content they want on their forum, so one thing literally has nothing to do with the other. Censorship is allowed by private organizations! So why do you keep bringing up free speech as though that is relevant here? And I don't know what you mean by "the establishment". Frankly, I don't think you do either. Then let me explain. By "the establishment" I mean whoever decides what words are not to be said, what flags are not to be flown, and what thoughts are not to be thought. Hope that helps. Then you should know that any given "establishment" has the right to do that, and you crying about "free speech" (which is entirely non applicable) does not hinder that establishment's right to censor what they deem as offensive speech. Hope that helps! ![](https://s26.postimg.org/7r8xnn0k9/roll.gif)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 1:17:52 GMT
THE Try this on gad reel it will work everytime
. Anything to avoid facing up to what you have written eh? tres surprise
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 31, 2017 1:29:07 GMT
gadreel
Do you like this?
![](http://img.taste.com.au/P9x2Yltr/taste/2016/11/homemade-chocolate-cake-85524-1.jpeg)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 1:31:49 GMT
gadreel
Do you like this?
![](http://img.taste.com.au/P9x2Yltr/taste/2016/11/homemade-chocolate-cake-85524-1.jpeg)
I would prefer you to have some integrity.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 31, 2017 1:34:15 GMT
gadreel
OH! Come on it is chocolate cake!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 1:36:46 GMT
gadreel
OH! Come on it is chocolate cake! Which is more of an indication on how cheaply you can be bought, not I.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 31, 2017 1:42:08 GMT
gadreel
OH! Come on it is chocolate cake! Which is more of an indication on how cheaply you can be bought, not I. You sold your immortal soul to the New World Order. You became their talking head. How cheap was that?
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 31, 2017 1:44:02 GMT
gadreel
OK
You drive a hard bargain.
Take this and I will throw in the cake as well. ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Ferrari_F430_Scuderia.JPG)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 1:45:58 GMT
Which is more of an indication on how cheaply you can be bought, not I. You sold your immortal soul to the New World Order. You became their talking head. How cheap was that? You babble lies that can be revealed by simply reading the thread you babble your nonsense on, I bet no one gives you anything for that. Sad that Maya relies on a wimp like you to defend her.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 1:46:21 GMT
gadreel
OK
You drive a hard bargain.
Take this and I will throw in the cake as well. ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Ferrari_F430_Scuderia.JPG) I am not really that into cars either.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 31, 2017 1:54:15 GMT
gadreel
What? You do NOT like Ferraris? That is positively UNamerican of you.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 31, 2017 1:59:12 GMT
So free speech is not to be messed with.....unless the establishment doesn't like it. Gee, thanks for edifying me on that, Cap'n. Has there been any comment on this thread that you did not (probably willfully) misinterpret? You're violently opposed to free speech, just like Youtube. It doesn't matter where you wrote down your list of banned words. You're also naive to take for granted that giant corporations are going to protect the oppressed from the oppressors. How does that even work?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 2:04:43 GMT
Has there been any comment on this thread that you did not (probably willfully) misinterpret? You're violently opposed to free speech, just like Youtube. It doesn't matter where you wrote down your list of banned words. You're also naive to take for granted that giant corporations are going to protect the oppressed from the oppressors. How does that even work? How am I opposed to free speech you clown, try reading what I wrote, let me re-say it for the slow of thinking (you and erjen) I do not think she should have been censored, I believe (short of inciting violence) people can say what they want, but they must accept the consequences of that speech, in this instance youtube has terms and conditions that were broken by the poster and so her video was removed. would you care to comment on my actual stance?
|
|