Private Censorship

[mikemcgee]

there too many people in this country except for some of us are pro censorship in the name of tolerance morality god deffence success excetera .the fact that th brick and morter rorn buisness is not 100 percent legal yet, the state by state anti adult obcenity laws and zoneing laws that still exist state by state,but this is contributed by the consumers themselves as wel las most people in the biz since many are hypocrites and only deffend gray market

[Iffy350]

What about China??? They lie steal and cheat all of the time. Copyright claim by fox. China pirates tons of DVD movies and games every year. Where attacking the wrong people. We need to go after china; there the real threat!

[sassyjane2112]

Thank you :)

[darkblood626]

in the land of the blinedthe one eyed man is king

[RatedRKO05055]

WTF

What The FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!

[fieryraven]

Good arguement...btw I like your voice

[squirrellywaffle]

Where are Atheistic ideas not supported?! The internet turned me from a nonbelieving Christian into an Atheist. You're just looking in the stupid locations.

[noname98967]

Look private "censorship" can be a problem if power and wealth become overly concentrated into the hands of a few private entities. However there are alternatives making private "censorship" a non issue. Now excuse me as I go watch Ayn Rand mud wrestle Karl Marx while James Maynard Keynes pokes Adam Smith in the eye.

[noname98967]

*John Maynard Keynes

Sorry its late LOL

[GIGIDIEGIGIDIE]

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality." I believe that is also free speech. Fucking anti free speech fuckers

[jmantnafan]

fuck niggers fuck faggots, fuck honkeys, fuck cheds, fuck wops, fuck degos, fuck spicks, ha there freedom of speech i love it lol

[Robfenix]

There is a modern problem of the concentration of power and wealth into private hands and then those private interests demanding people give up their rights, such as free speech, if they want any part of the pie. Classical conceptions of censorship, which dominate our perspective here in the U.S inadequately address this problem. (read bottom comment first)

[Robfenix]

The notion of competition (being able to go some other place) is significant, but often illusory today. Often all major employers or providers of a certain service will have similarly oppressive contracts which require signers to give up their rights.

[Robfenix]

Just because someone privately owns a certain space, does not mean that they can force others to give up their rights in that space, see State v. Shack (1971). This is often true even when contracts are signed! Should I give up my rights of free speech when I work at a certain place? NO!

[TheShankman]

I really am not sure if that apply here. According to the ruling, "Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises." Yeah, uh this is a website on the internet, not like real, physical property that takes up space. This is different, and come on, the internet didn't even exist back in 1971!

[Robfenix]

We should assert our larger right to free speech in private spheres as well (to the extent they don't interfere with other rights such as a right to be free from racial harassment). I do not think that the free speech right is absolute (private entities can restrict free speech if it excludes another's voice or participation in that environment), but it should be maximized.

[Robfenix]

John Gaft fails to give enough consideration to the largest modern threat of how private concentration of wealth threatens our rights, including free speech.  One's rights to free speech is not simply a right to to not have the government censor you. The framer's of the constitution correctly saw government action as the largest threat to a general right at the time and focused on government censorship. However, private interests constantly threaten our rights, including free speech.

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

However, if YouTube is directly or indirectly receiving government money to keep them afloat, then they are, indeed, a part of government, and any claims they make toward being "private" is just a manipulative sham, so that they can discriminate with impunity.

[spaceplayer]

Well said.

[tsummerlee]

Wow. Who the ef is Nick Gisburne?

[Talemir]

*claps* congrats, you have a brain. =)

[teslacoils2001]

what about subgenius or their devivals?

Youtube is owned by Iluminati

[freddy77777]

You tube is absolutely brilliant for freedom of speech anyone who argues otherwise is a moron

[AmoredPanther]

Ol' Ayn Rand was very intelligent. I liked your video, but I doubt the people in question will do as you ask [Sigh...]

[Crosisborg]

Plain and simple. You're wrong. Even the government says it's possible to be censored by private entities and found it illegal in many cases.

[AynRandmInd]

The Law of Causality- never to be reversed. With wise wORds such as these we'll have the wORld back upright in 'know' time.

[JohnGalt91]

Thank goodness someone had the sense to realize this.

However, human's only moral responsibility is to remain staunchly dedicated to his own happiness before everbody else's, there is no responsibility to give to others.

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

I'd like to see more atheist videos defending people, science and truth from dogmatic religious repercussions: undue the lies! I'd like to see videos of how atheism can replace religious symbolism, institutions, rituals, aesthetics, etc. I'd like to see more philosophy and history of atheism, and more goals the modern atheist could contribute to future peoples. Many great thinkers who were atheists have been killed for their beliefs!

[premed411]

I do not argue with YT's terms of use or their right to ban Nick. My only problem is with their decision to do so.

[robion2020]

whereas those people with intolerant beliefs have nothing ahead but hatred and killing. r2020

[robion2020]

great discussion between tijg and sc099. although there are clearly some differences in point of view or modus operandi, there is tolerance and therefore the possibility of a common agreement of terms.

[xild]

Thank you!

[ThisisJohnGalt]

I agree with step 1. Step 2 however is exactly what I just spoke out against in the video.

[thinkpinkwink]

I never said I approve of what happened to Nick Gisburne.

[ThisisJohnGalt]

Being "responsible" as you phrased it is going to cost money. I believe the system on this site can be improved, but I acknowledge no man's right to demand that google or youtube conform to an undefined body "the publics" wishes. If the public disagrees with the way the private company is being run, they will withdraw their shares. Thats as much say as you have a right to.

[premed411]

ThisisJohnGalt

"If the public disagrees with the way the private (I think you meant "public") company is being run, they will withdraw their shares. Thats as much say as you have a right to."

Thisispremed411

NO! There are other methods that have been effectively used to alter corporate behavior. Intense publicity, educational campaigns, strikes, and boycotts, have all been legally used to effect necessary change.

[premed411]

Corporations are composed of people. People have moral obligations that supersede legal strictures. In a democratic system of government, the public not only has the right, but also the moral obligation to act if they believe such actions are warranted.

[ktaawbarrius]

Thank goodness we don't live in a democracy, then. Idiot.

[thinkpinkwink]

YouTube is privately owned. They make their own (business) decisions and expect to suffer or gain from the consequences. Naturally.

[ThisisJohnGalt]

Yup, Nothing wrong with making video's criticizing YouTube. My MAIN point is that this isn't "Censorship" the best way to handle change on YouTube is constructive criticism, not calling YouTube names and crying about them violating your "rights" while on YouTube. If you're that angry and you own stock in YouTube/Google. Sell it and support another Video hosting site!

[ThisisJohnGalt]

YouTube has no "moral Obligation" to you or anyone else. YouTube started off as a few friends who had a good idea, just because a lot of people USE YouTube doesn't mean those people are entitled to RUN YouTube. "Public" isn't an entity with motivation goals or standards like an individual is, you unjustly want to make demands in the name of the public good and attempt to force YouTube to conform to you're model.

[premed411]

I'd like to add one more example of a method which the Big Bad Old Public may employ against poor fragile little corporate interests. A consumer advocate, such as Ralph Nader, can educate the public, and so embarrass the auto industry that a political firestorm causes laws to be passed that result in the saving of a huge number of lives at minimal expense.

[fnordly]

this is the most well thought out response to the ginsburne issue i have seen yet. indeed YT terms of service are that vague for a reason. however that won't prevent YT from suffering a severe PR hit, as i think they should. after all, they are still learning and sometimes the corrective mechanisms in life aren't pleasant. you are alos tight on that the muslims are simply confirming the worst criticisms of their religion when they act this way

[ThisisJohnGalt]

If you as the customer of a free service want to pressure YouTube to regulate the video's coming in and evaluate them equally, expect to begin paying for this service. If you want them to take a more hands off approach expect a flood of pornography and indecency to pour in. I still believe the issue is discouraging gang warfare, because it's too easy for us to trump each other. Flag video's that need it, not video's you disagree with.

[SSanf]

Censorship is the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression, largely in regard to secretive matters. Sanitization (cleaning or decontamination) and whitewashing (from whitewash) are almost interchangeable terms that refer to particular acts or campaigns of censorship or omission which seek to "clean up" the portrayal of particular issues and facts which are already known, but which may conflict with a presented point of view.

[ThisisJohnGalt]

This isn't systematic its an arbitrary interpretation of vague rules, YouTube is not a "group" it is a private business, and they don't secretly remove video's. The alternative would be making an announcement every time someone had a video deleted. Hundreds daily.. This isn't broad control, YouTube regulations exist within YouTube and no where else.

[collegeteddybear23]

I agree! You cant complain about getting videos taken off maybe if he would have taken the time to read the term of use he would have seen what he can and cant do.

[ThisisJohnGalt]

You can complain! However a change in the service provided might entail a change in the service charges handed out. An injustice is still being done to Nick Gisburne but it's being carried out by intolerant Muslims trolling the site instead of engaging in debates.