Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "" video.

You don't have a right to free speech on privately owned web pages and servers, any more than you have a right to come into my restaurant and preach about the apocalypse to my customers. If you don't like it, ditch private ownership.
2
Seriously? If I kick an apocalypse preacher out of my restaurant, because he's screaming at my customers, it's not because I fear what he says, it's because I fear the moron will drive away my customers and because I personally find him annoying. If you think getting kicked out of one privately owned web server is anywhere close to being analogous to ripping someone's tongue out, then you likely have an addiction problem.
2
Steven Moore What are you talking about? Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, ....
1
@rupommahmud3255 No. He's a grifter.
1
It's actually private property rights, that gives tech companies the right to edit, delete, or ban, whatever, and whoever, they want, from their privately owned web pages and servers. You gave up your right to free speech, the minute you signed up, because free speech doesn't apply on someone else's private property.
1
@DonnConn They don't make whatever the apocalypse preacher who enters the restaurant shouts, or whatever any other customer says. The only thing wrong with their recipe seems to be that it causes addiction, to the degree that people think they're being harmed, if they can't have more.
1
@Nunyabizness321 Sure it does. Owners can have security, or call the cops, to have you removed from their private property, if they don't like the way you're behaving. You don't have a right to be on Facebook, Twitter, or any other privately owned servers.
1
@Nunyabizness321 Me choosing not to stock the NY Post on my News/Magazine rack, doesn't make me a publisher. Me not stocking anti-establishment books in my bookstore doesn't make me a publisher. Having a bias doesn't make you a publisher.
1
@Nunyabizness321 230 protections are based on a court decision in favor of a bookstore owner, that deemed it unconstitutional to hold him responsible for the contents of books he may be selling. So, it's almost exactly like a magazine rack.
1
@Nunyabizness321 Yeah. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d8752cb-c080-40d1-96bf-97f849dda1bc
1