You tube fire arm ban.....

[toadmeister]

Phone companies, power companies, etc are consider public utilities so we don’t have 8 million phone towers and power lines in every town and city in the US which is a far stretch from what YouTube is.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed and on point. That said one might make that argument of the internet. Some groups are pushing the Internet as "a right".

In the case of YouTube, you can live without it as its an entertainment provider like Netflix or a TV station.





Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[GrantMan]

I am seeing that this is a complex issue the more I think about. If the government categorized the phone, electric, tv, sewer, trash and water companies as public utilities in part to simplify the shared infrastructure. How do they get away with mandating a private telephone to not interfere with free speech? How do they get away with regulating hiring and safety policies of a rail road company.

Is the infrastructure for the internet considered a public utility? If it is not what makes it any different from a telephone company? Could youtube be viewed as the same sense of private telephone company using public infrastructure? What makes a phone company so different than a data hosting site?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I ask them because it seems to me that many people think its cut and dry that "youtube is a private company and can do what they want." The same argument could be made for the phone company. Youtube is a massive video library that cannot be compared to anything else in the history of mankind and I think we should be very cautious of the suppression of ideas in a society. Sure those ideas could be hosted on another site but what if it is more data than the host can handle?

I think the biggest concern people have with regulating youtube is that all hosting sites such as Rokslide could be regulated in the same sense. This is a very serious concern and something worth thinking about.

 

[CorbLand]

I am seeing that this is a complex issue the more I think about. If the government categorized the phone, electric, tv, sewer, trash and water companies as public utilities in part to simplify the shared infrastructure. How do they get away with mandating a private telephone to not interfere with free speech? How do they get away with regulating hiring and safety policies of a rail road company.

Is the infrastructure for the internet considered a public utility? If it is not what makes it any different from a telephone company? Could youtube be viewed as the same sense of private telephone company using public infrastructure? What makes a phone company so different than a data hosting site?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I ask them because it seems to me that many people think its cut and dry that "youtube is a private company and can do what they want." The same argument could be made for the phone company. Youtube is a massive video library that cannot be compared to anything else in the history of mankind and I think we should be very cautious of the suppression of ideas in a society. Sure those ideas could be hosted on another site but what if it is more data than the host can handle?

I think the biggest concern people have with regulating youtube is that all hosting sites such as Rokslide could be regulated in the same sense. This is a very serious concern and something worth thinking about.

People regard YouTube as a private entity because it is a private entity.

The internet is like a road system. The road system is public, anyone can use it. YouTube is a private business, they can dictate their own regulations. The public road system, leads you to the private business. That’s where the ability for regulation ends. Just because you use a public means to get somewhere doesn’t mean it leads to a public entity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrushyHillGuide]

Much as I’d like for Google to be a public utility, so there’d be a good legal argument against this bs....it just isn’t. If it were, there would already be lawsuits filed against this nonsense, by legal scholars far beyond any of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toadmeister]

Pretty sure Google = Skynet

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Downeaster]

^^^Yes...yes...and yes

 

[Molon Labe]

Grant I am enjoying your viewpoint and it is a good discussion.
Fun to think about this sort of thing and distracts me from my normal grind!

Government regulation is not a bad thing if it protects the well being of the people its supposed to serve.

How do we know the regulation is protecting people and not extinguishing the rights of those very people?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I ask them because it seems to me that many people think its cut and dry that "youtube is a private company and can do what they want." The same argument could be made for the phone company. Youtube is a massive video library that cannot be compared to anything else in the history of mankind and I think we should be very cautious of the suppression of ideas in a society. Sure those ideas could be hosted on another site but what if it is more data than the host can handle?

I think the biggest concern people have with regulating youtube is that all hosting sites such as Rokslide could be regulated in the same sense. This is a very serious concern and something worth thinking about.

When you say we need to be "very cautious of suppression of ideas in a society"...that could be applied to private entities. If the government forces youtube to publish certain content...who is to stop them from forcing youtube to suppress certain content? Or just deciding that youtube is a "public utility" and nationalizing the youtube unit from google? And then when the government runs youtube they could just require everyone to have "telescreens" in their homes. Pretty soon we are all watching Big Brother propaganda films and listening to newspeak. haha!

This is a extreme example of why it is important to let youtube do what they want...the market will adjust. Just think about the Microsoft antitrust deal from back in the 90s...I'm pretty sure IE is not even in the top 3 browsers now.

 

[GrantMan]

Grant I am enjoying your viewpoint and it is a good discussion.
Fun to think about this sort of thing and distracts me from my normal grind!



How do we know the regulation is protecting people and not extinguishing the rights of those very people?

If new regulations are created they would have to follow existing laws we have in place that protect our rights.

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

When you say we need to be "very cautious of suppression of ideas in a society"...that could be applied to private entities. If the government forces youtube to publish certain content...who is to stop them from forcing youtube to suppress certain content? Or just deciding that youtube is a "public utility" and nationalizing the youtube unit from google? And then when the government runs youtube they could just require everyone to have "telescreens" in their homes. Pretty soon we are all watching Big Brother propaganda films and listening to newspeak. haha!

This is a extreme example of why it is important to let youtube do what they want...the market will adjust. Just think about the Microsoft antitrust deal from back in the 90s...I'm pretty sure IE is not even in the top 3 browsers now.

Again I am pretty confident existing laws would prevent the government taking over a private company unless I am missing something.

I hope you are correct that the free market will correct itself and that is something I will be following because I find this to be an interesting topic.

 

[CorbLand]

If new regulations are created they would have to follow existing laws we have in place that protect our rights.

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).




Again I am pretty confident existing laws would prevent the government taking over a private company unless I am missing something.

I hope you are correct that the free market will correct itself and that is something I will be following because I find this to be an interesting topic.

Those same existing laws are the ones that protect a private business from having the government tell it they can’t not allow certain content. Thus, if you where to tell YouTube they can’t do this, those laws no longer apply. You can’t cherry pick when it comes to laws.

The thing your missing with freedom of speech is it applies in public places not private. You can’t go into a local sporting goods store and protest hunting or firearms sales but you can on the street corner as long as it’s a public place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Molon Labe]

If new regulations are created they would have to follow existing laws we have in place that protect our rights.

I think we fundamentally disagree on the purpose/effects of regulation on the economy and standard of living for US citizens. That does not stop us from sharing ideas and having a discussion. Even though everything I say is right and everything anyone else says is wrong!

When I said "How do we know the regulation is protecting people and not extinguishing the rights of those very people?" it was more of a rhetorical question...years and years of innovation have been suppressed by regulation. This impacts my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Currently the 70 some odd regulatory bodies in the US are only serving their own purpose. There is a lack of checks and balances...which allows special interest groups and partisan politics to exercise control over industry. Your company not as innovative as another? Call your lobbyist and have him work his mojo on the regulatory body in your industry...now you are competitive!

Our economy is consistently throttled down by roughly 2% of GDP growth a year because of regulation...some is good but majority of it is bad. They exclaim any new regulation has to go through cost-benefit analysis and therefore does more good than harm...hmmm...really? The costs of regulation gets passed down to consumers in the form of lower wages, fewer products and higher prices...this has the biggest impact on the poor because they end up spending a larger portion of their income. And typically the regulators thump their chests as champions of the poor. Oh how ironic!

Sorry about the 1984 references...just read it again a few months ago and youtube/censorship parallel with telescreens was just too funny not to try to make the connection. It would never happen in our lifetime. Our govt only likes to nationalize banking, transportation, auto industry, railroads, mortgage lenders, large retailers...they would never do anything with the ISPs or service providers with net neutrality or anything. haha!

 

[GrantMan]

Those same existing laws are the ones that protect a private business from having the government tell it they can’t not allow certain content. Thus, if you where to tell YouTube they can’t do this, those laws no longer apply. You can’t cherry pick when it comes to laws.

The thing your missing with freedom of speech is it applies in public places not private. You can’t go into a local sporting goods store and protest hunting or firearms sales but you can on the street corner as long as it’s a public place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand the connection of rights between public and private places and was going down the rabbit hole of trying to link the connection of a phone company with youtube. What I was trying to understand was how free speech is protected through a private telephone company and now I understand that the speech is protected through the infrastructure that carries the speech. I also understand that youtube is not blocking videos from being uploaded on the internet but rather than refusing to host them on their server. I appreciate what you have brought up for discussion.