The Leftist War and Suppression of Free Thought and Free Speech - YouTube bans Don Shipley's channel

Billy_BuddBilly_Budd Posts: 572 Senior Member
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/03/youtube-bans-fmr-navy-seal-don-shipley-over-exposing-stolen-valor/


How much more of this **** are we going to take from these anti-American leftist pigs???  
«1

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,768 Senior Member
    A lot of youtube channels from shooters, political stuff, and sites like his have been banned from Youtube. And a LOT of them migrated to the Pornhub website, of all places. It's been open season on anything conservative for the last two years.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,560 Senior Member
    You guys need to check out Gunstreamer. Perfect example of why Capitalism is awesome. 

    https://gunstreamer.com/


    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • terminator012terminator012 Senior Member Posts: 3,860 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    A lot of youtube channels from shooters, political stuff, and sites like his have been banned from Youtube. And a LOT of them migrated to the Pornhub website, of all places. It's been open season on anything conservative for the last two years.
    Did you get that website right. Never been there but didn't know they had shooters there.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,569 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    A lot of youtube channels from shooters, political stuff, and sites like his have been banned from Youtube. And a LOT of them migrated to the Pornhub website, of all places. It's been open season on anything conservative for the last two years.
    Did you get that website right. Never been there but didn't know they had shooters there.

    You must have missed the original Guns-n-Babes.com. Lovely women firing full automatic weapons while wearing bikini bottoms. Recoil can actually be a good thing! The site was soon toned down considerably.
  • Billy_BuddBilly_Budd Posts: 572 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    You guys need to check out Gunstreamer. Perfect example of why Capitalism is awesome. 

    https://gunstreamer.com/


    Thanks for the link, Cali!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,768 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    A lot of youtube channels from shooters, political stuff, and sites like his have been banned from Youtube. And a LOT of them migrated to the Pornhub website, of all places. It's been open season on anything conservative for the last two years.
    Did you get that website right. Never been there but didn't know they had shooters there.
    :D Yes. I got the website right. When the 'great Youtube culling' of producers of gun associated videos started, many migrated to that website and were welcomed. I KNOW it's weird, but who woulda thunk THAT website would support free speech, or maybe it isn't so weird after all. The fact that Youtube is Liberal and does a LOT of grunt work for the Left to suppress free thought isn't surprising. They also censor videos that are not conducive to the Liberal agenda.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • GilaGila Posts: 987 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    You guys need to check out Gunstreamer. Perfect example of why Capitalism is awesome. 

    https://gunstreamer.com/


    The videos there don't work...  :/
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,560 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #9
    Gila said:
    CaliFFL said:
    You guys need to check out Gunstreamer. Perfect example of why Capitalism is awesome. 

    https://gunstreamer.com/


    The videos there don't work...  :/
    I just opened a couple, no problem. One example. Runs the same as YouTube. 


    https://gunstreamer.com/watch/game-camera-scouting-2-18-19-2-26-19-stealth-cam-ds4k_tdoiEhCDteXYA1r.html

    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,252 Senior Member
    Remember Larry Flynt?
    http://www.larryflynt.com
  • GilaGila Posts: 987 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    Gila said:
    CaliFFL said:
    You guys need to check out Gunstreamer. Perfect example of why Capitalism is awesome. 

    https://gunstreamer.com/


    The videos there don't work...  :/
    I just opened a couple, no problem. One example. Runs the same as YouTube. 


    https://gunstreamer.com/watch/game-camera-scouting-2-18-19-2-26-19-stealth-cam-ds4k_tdoiEhCDteXYA1r.html


    No good deed goes unpunished...
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,560 Senior Member
    Gila said:



    I'm now at work. It runs just fine here as well as at home. 


    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Billy_BuddBilly_Budd Posts: 572 Senior Member
    CaliFFL said:
    Gila said:



    I'm now at work. It runs just fine here as well as at home. 


    Works fine for me as well. 
  • Billy_BuddBilly_Budd Posts: 572 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #15
    tennmike said:
    Yeah, I remember Larry Flynt. He's always pushed the envelope on free speech, mostly regarding his magazine empire. Like him or not, his legal battles were about the 1st Amendment freedom of the press and of speech. Freedom of speech and of the press, as described in the 1st Amendment is about the flowery stuff, and the skin, guts, and wormholes. Covers both hateful speech and the fine prose. Either you believe in both having equal footing as intended, or not. Regulating speech got us to where we are now with the hate speech laws, and suppressing any speech not to our liking. That is NOT freedom.
    Ah! Fond 70s memories of graduating from Playboy to Hustler. The jokes and comics were freaking hilarious as well! I'd laugh for hours at the '%^hole of the Month' and 'Farts in the Wind section.' 
  • Old RonOld Ron Senior Member Posts: 3,649 Senior Member
    It worked here at the end of the world  ..... watched cutting down a Christmas tree with 30 30 rifles .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,586 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #17
    YouTube is a private company owned by another private company Google. The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. They get to chose what content they want to allow on their platform. Don't like it find another platform or build it from scratch as it appears others already have. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • mitdr774mitdr774 Member Posts: 851 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #18
    YouTube is a private company owned by another private company Google. The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. They get to chose what content they want to allow on their platform. Don't like it find another platform or build it from scratch as it appears others already have. 
    Does this apply to all businesses or only ones that push left leaning policies?  Honest question since it seems like any business that tries to limit anything the left deems to be off limits, gets drug through the mud and fines a lot of money along with possible jail time threatened for the owner.  However if it's a business trying to limit something the left doesn't like it's all okay.   Even if you go off of YouTube's own mission statement,  they are being hypocritical. 
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,586 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #19
    mitdr774 said:
    YouTube is a private company owned by another private company Google. The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. They get to chose what content they want to allow on their platform. Don't like it find another platform or build it from scratch as it appears others already have. 
    Does this apply to all businesses or only ones that push left leaning policies?  Honest question since it seems like any business that tries to limit anything the left deems to be off limits, gets drug through the mud and fines a lot of money along with possible jail time threatened for the owner.  However if it's a business trying to limit something the left doesn't like it's all okay.   Even if you go off of YouTube's own mission statement,  they are being hypocritical. 
    The court upheld the baker's right to deny making a wedding cake for the gay couple. There are laws that generally protect people on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. so yeah you can't do that, which is often where businesses end up in legal trouble. Admittedly the left is better equipped in these arguments since at their core they want more regulation of private business, so arguing for more regulation is on brand. Conservatives on the other hand typically tend to argue from the perspective of freedom for private citizens and private companies so they have a much shakier leg to stand on on issues like this. You want freedom, you gotta take the good with the bad. 

    Now there's also no laws protecting businesses from the backlash from their actions. Gun owners can certainly try to boycott Youtube or boycott google. I'm sure Bing would be glad to take your search engine traffic. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,768 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #20
    mitdr774 said:
    YouTube is a private company owned by another private company Google. The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. They get to chose what content they want to allow on their platform. Don't like it find another platform or build it from scratch as it appears others already have. 
    Does this apply to all businesses or only ones that push left leaning policies?  Honest question since it seems like any business that tries to limit anything the left deems to be off limits, gets drug through the mud and fines a lot of money along with possible jail time threatened for the owner.  However if it's a business trying to limit something the left doesn't like it's all okay.   Even if you go off of YouTube's own mission statement,  they are being hypocritical. 
    The court upheld the baker's right to deny making a wedding cake for the gay couple. There are laws that generally protect people on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. so yeah you can't do that, which is often where businesses end up in legal trouble. Admittedly the left is better equipped in these arguments since at their core they want more regulation of private business, so arguing for more regulation is on brand. Conservatives on the other hand typically tend to argue from the perspective of freedom for private citizens and private companies so they have a much shakier leg to stand on on issues like this. You want freedom, you gotta take the good with the bad. 

    Now there's also no laws protecting businesses from the backlash from their actions. Gun owners can certainly try to boycott Youtube or boycott google. I'm sure Bing would be glad to take your search engine traffic. 
    Addressing ONLY the part in bold type. The 1st Amendment is clear. The Left wishes to censor speech of any kind, thus the hate speech laws, limiting access to websites, etc. And those ignorantly crafted hate crime laws were also the illegitimate child of the hate speech laws, and just as one way streets as the hate speech laws.
    The Right or Conservatives are just as bad in this regard.
    Regarding that last sentence, "You want freedom, you gotta take the good with the bad."  Here's a clue and it shows that you have no idea of what freedom really means. Censorship is NOT FREEDOM; it is a slowly growing creeping cancer that eventually suppresses speech to only what is 'government approved speech'. Maybe a rereading, or FIRST reading of the book '1984' is in order. It does seem to parallel what is going on now. As long as the speech, videos, printed materials do no physical harm by listening, watching, reading, then there is no basis for censorship. If one does not like anything they hear, watch, or read, they are free to walk away, stop watching, lay down the printed material.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,252 Senior Member
    It seems to me like there's a much greater effort being applied towards influencing popular public opinion and promoting the idea of said opinion being indicative of truth and righteousness than there is legislation of said.

    Although one can certainly see evidence and inclination of policy and law in support of the concept.

    The idea of majority thought and opinion representing truth is as old as human time. The age of instant information has put it on a fast track with greater danger for injustice and corruption than ever before. Independent thought and analysis can literally be short circuited with resultant action superseding logical thought. Nothing new for sure, but the speed is most certainly a threat to a free society.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,092 Senior Member
    My late mother always said that public opinion was Ahramanic i.e. "of the devil" to put it in Christian terms. I'm inclined to agree.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,586 Senior Member
    edited March 11 #23
    tennmike said:
    mitdr774 said:
    YouTube is a private company owned by another private company Google. The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. They get to chose what content they want to allow on their platform. Don't like it find another platform or build it from scratch as it appears others already have. 
    Does this apply to all businesses or only ones that push left leaning policies?  Honest question since it seems like any business that tries to limit anything the left deems to be off limits, gets drug through the mud and fines a lot of money along with possible jail time threatened for the owner.  However if it's a business trying to limit something the left doesn't like it's all okay.   Even if you go off of YouTube's own mission statement,  they are being hypocritical. 
    The court upheld the baker's right to deny making a wedding cake for the gay couple. There are laws that generally protect people on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. so yeah you can't do that, which is often where businesses end up in legal trouble. Admittedly the left is better equipped in these arguments since at their core they want more regulation of private business, so arguing for more regulation is on brand. Conservatives on the other hand typically tend to argue from the perspective of freedom for private citizens and private companies so they have a much shakier leg to stand on on issues like this. You want freedom, you gotta take the good with the bad. 

    Now there's also no laws protecting businesses from the backlash from their actions. Gun owners can certainly try to boycott Youtube or boycott google. I'm sure Bing would be glad to take your search engine traffic. 
    Addressing ONLY the part in bold type. The 1st Amendment is clear. The Left wishes to censor speech of any kind, thus the hate speech laws, limiting access to websites, etc. And those ignorantly crafted hate crime laws were also the illegitimate child of the hate speech laws, and just as one way streets as the hate speech laws.
    The Right or Conservatives are just as bad in this regard.
    Regarding that last sentence, "You want freedom, you gotta take the good with the bad."  Here's a clue and it shows that you have no idea of what freedom really means. Censorship is NOT FREEDOM; it is a slowly growing creeping cancer that eventually suppresses speech to only what is 'government approved speech'. Maybe a rereading, or FIRST reading of the book '1984' is in order. It does seem to parallel what is going on now. As long as the speech, videos, printed materials do no physical harm by listening, watching, reading, then there is no basis for censorship. If one does not like anything they hear, watch, or read, they are free to walk away, stop watching, lay down the printed material.

    But it's only censorship if the government does it. Private companies and organizations are free to censor anything they want however they want. Last I checked YouTube wasn't run by the government.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    I don't believe anti-Second Amendment talk is allowed here. I know it wasn't under Marshal Dan. And while we complain about the strictness of the autocensor, nobody's asked for the ability to use blatantly racist language lately. (We did, and they got banned, IIRC.)

    Point is, it's a private house we're allowed in as guests, and it seems some limits are accepted as it is... private. 
    Regarding the OP, why is this surprising? YouTube has been doing it for a while, so it shouldn't be a shock. If people truly want their message out, they should find an outlet. That's how the market should work.

    I don't like that YouTube is doing this, but it is their private operation...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,768 Senior Member
    But it's only censorship if the government does it. Private companies and organizations are free to censor anything they want however they want. Last I checked YouTube wasn't run by the government.
    Holey Mother of Pearl! Ever heard about 'incorporation' used in conjunction with the Constitution? YOU mentioned the cake baker winning his case. Incorporation of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion and association. Incorporation allows the government to stick their noses in any private business practice that they choose. They have chosen to to do so in this manner with Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, et al, yet.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,586 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    But it's only censorship if the government does it. Private companies and organizations are free to censor anything they want however they want. Last I checked YouTube wasn't run by the government.
    Holey Mother of Pearl! Ever heard about 'incorporation' used in conjunction with the Constitution? YOU mentioned the cake baker winning his case. Incorporation of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion and association. Incorporation allows the government to stick their noses in any private business practice that they choose. They have chosen to to do so in this manner with Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, et al, yet.
    As far as I know incorporation applies to states. Last I checked Google wasn't a state and the bill of rights hadn't been extended to protect citizens from corporations. If you want to propose a law of constitutional amendment that does so I'll be happy to hear your arguments in favor of it and might even be able to be convinced it's a good idea, but as far as current law, there is none that protects speech on a private online platform.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,543 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    My late mother always said that public opinion was Ahramanic i.e. "of the devil" to put it in Christian terms. I'm inclined to agree.

    Your hate is focused on anything Christian rather than public opinion.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,092 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    My late mother always said that public opinion was Ahramanic i.e. "of the devil" to put it in Christian terms. I'm inclined to agree.

    Your hate is focused on anything Christian rather than public opinion.
    Huh? You just lost me...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,768 Senior Member
    As far as I know incorporation applies to states. Last I checked Google wasn't a state and the bill of rights hadn't been extended to protect citizens from corporations. If you want to propose a law of constitutional amendment that does so I'll be happy to hear your arguments in favor of it and might even be able to be convinced it's a good idea, but as far as current law, there is none that protects speech on a private online platform.
    Well, it's just a matter of time before this comes up in court. Can't wait. It's as good an argument as any.


    “Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, etc. are private companies, so they can ban and censor anyone they want!”

    Wrong.

    These companies have a de facto monopoly - at that point, the "private company" argument no longer flies.

    I'm normally against anti-discrimination laws, but if you're the one and only grocery shop in town, you shouldn't have the right to refuse service to people because of their political views, race, gender or religion. If you have a monopoly, you should have an obligation not to discriminate.

    Likewise, if Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are number one at their respective things, they should be treated like public utilities rather than private companies. In fact, given how much federal funding Silicion Valley got…

    Also, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are PLATFORMS, not publishers - they are not responsible for what gets shared on their platforms.
    If you can pick and choose between whose stuff you want to see, you are a publisher - and are therefore liable for the stuff you publish.
    They cannot have it both ways. At least, they should not be allowed to have it both ways.



    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Thanks to a perpetually dysfunctional Congress, the 1st and 2nd Amendments will probably stand or fall with the Supreme Court. Get used to the idea that all attempts to remove freedoms will win in the 9th Circus and be settled in the SC. Even then, it would likely require a president that will force the enforcement of the final rulings. That's a heavy load, and the 9th Circus rulings will be allowed to stand during the months or years it takes for the SC to even get around to deciding whether they will hear the arguments. Meanwhile, the strong red states will have to ignore federal law, in much the same way as the sanctuary cities and states are doing now, over immigration. It's a disaster, made possible by the low-lifes and idiots that the media elects to Congress with character assassination and false evidence.

    Hopefully, the lawsuit on behalf of the 16 year old boy who was trashed over the MAGA cap incident, with the token Indian, will win punitive damages in the 200 million dollar range (plus about 50 million for the kid), and start attracting some of the hired guns to employ their sleazy tactics against the left, for a change.The owners of the left wing propaganda outlets are companies like Google, Microsoft, ATT, Time-Warner, etc. and will spend a billion dollars per case (or more) to suppress evidence, stonewall depositions, buy juries, and destroy the offending lawyers who can find the resources to bring such cases to court. So, enough half-billion dollar judgements against lefty corporations might be the only incentive that might eventually 'clean up' the current state of what is passed off as journalism, and therefore public opinion. It's a long shot, considering the difficulties of finding objective juries, and digging up suppressed evidence, but it may be all that's left, short of revolution, secession, etc.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,586 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    As far as I know incorporation applies to states. Last I checked Google wasn't a state and the bill of rights hadn't been extended to protect citizens from corporations. If you want to propose a law of constitutional amendment that does so I'll be happy to hear your arguments in favor of it and might even be able to be convinced it's a good idea, but as far as current law, there is none that protects speech on a private online platform.
    Well, it's just a matter of time before this comes up in court. Can't wait. It's as good an argument as any.


    “Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, etc. are private companies, so they can ban and censor anyone they want!”

    Wrong.

    These companies have a de facto monopoly - at that point, the "private company" argument no longer flies.

    I'm normally against anti-discrimination laws, but if you're the one and only grocery shop in town, you shouldn't have the right to refuse service to people because of their political views, race, gender or religion. If you have a monopoly, you should have an obligation not to discriminate.

    Likewise, if Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are number one at their respective things, they should be treated like public utilities rather than private companies. In fact, given how much federal funding Silicion Valley got…

    Also, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are PLATFORMS, not publishers - they are not responsible for what gets shared on their platforms.
    If you can pick and choose between whose stuff you want to see, you are a publisher - and are therefore liable for the stuff you publish.
    They cannot have it both ways. At least, they should not be allowed to have it both ways.



    It's an Interesting argument. I still don't see where a court, especially a supreme Court that is even more conservative and pro corporation than the one that designated corporations to be people and thus entitled to unlimited financial and media influence on our elections is now going to find somewhere in the constitution to justify that these same corporations are not able to set and enforce standards of what content users display on their sites. Imho this sort of change will require congress to pass a law saying as much. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.