Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "YouTube Bans Another Political Channel By Mistake" video.

If any channel transmits practically all of the content of a channel that was properly banned for cause, what is the argument against banning that channel, too? So the content can stay up if someone on it pretends to "disapprove?" Oh brother! Think this through.
1
Monopolies that provide essential communucations should not have the power of prior restraint. Removing material that violates terms of service is fine. Removing people is a different matter. There has to be a compelling reason. For example, if just about everything they ever post is a TOS violation, to the point where monitoring is futile, that may be compelling. See Nadine Strossen on hate speech.
1
If it were up to me, I'd ban first-person shooter video games for minors, and put warnings on it for everyone else. It's not up to me.
1
Monopolies that provide essential communications should not have the power of prior restraint. Removing material that clearly violates terms of service is fine. Removing people is a different matter. There has to be a compelling reason. If any channel transmits practically all of the content of a channel that was properly banned for cause, what is the argument against banning that channel, too? So the content can stay up if someone on it pretends to "disapprove" of it? Oh brother! Think this through.
1
Monopolies that provide essential communications should not have the power of prior restraint. Removing material that violates terms of service is fine. Removing people is a different matter. There has to be a compelling reason. For example, if just about everything they ever post is a TOS violation, to the point where monitoring has been shown to be futile, and much of the material is not protected by the First Amendment, that may be compelling. See Nadine Strossen on hate speech. If any channel transmits practically all of the content of a channel that was properly banned for cause, what is the argument against banning that channel, too? So the content can stay up if someone on it pretends to "disapprove?" Oh brother! Think this through.
1
Happens ALL the time. I had an anti-Hitler joke removed that had no bad words or risque imagery.
1
I'm surprised this wasn't removed. When I mentioned that an anti-Hit ler post I made, not equivocal, not obscene, was re moved, that post was immediately re moved. LOL
1
Where First Amendment protected free speech is concerned? No, intent does not matter. For example, if you repost revenge porn ostensibly to show how terrible it is, or you issue what any objective person would identify as a genuine threat and claim you were just kidding, and posted it to show how ridiculous it is, your avowed intent does not matter. Even if true, it does not matter.
1
Of course lying simpliciter is protected speech. Lying to defraud people, or to foment a riot, or to defame someone, or in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, etc., is not protected speech.
1
@karenfitzpatrick6256 Not unfortunate at all. Read Nadine Strossen on hate speech.
1
@karenfitzpatrick6256 NO, the founders of the country were not stupid. They knew people lied. They fought a war for independence and had to deal with turncoats and spies.
1