Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "" video.

  1. This is not a newspaper, Simon, nor a publisher, according to them and US Federal law. It is a social media "platform," supposedly used for "hosting user content," which is video and commentary (a hosting platform). The comment section is here for the same reason as those that write into a paper to complain or agree. Censorship: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." In the US, there is law that forbids censorship of the politically unacceptable, and even the obscene on free speech grounds, by the state, though these platforms are separate corporate entities, and that law doesn't apply. Thus, hosting sites like this were granted exemptions from discriminatory civil suits, by Congress, under Sec. 230, to "host" media, as a hosting platform, that might be unacceptable and objectionable to some. The problem, and by what Congress noted is, that they gave them an exemption to host media under protection, as a hosting platform, yet, they are censoring (deleting) media and comments that only a select group finds objectionable, thus, making them act a publisher, and leaving the author, or commentators for that matter, no legal civil recourse to sue over discrimination. It would be the same as a book store (host) refusing to place your authored book on the shelves, over them finding it politically unacceptable, even though what you authored was factual, and yet, you were blocked, by law, from suing them over discrimination if you so wished. Stating this, I believe that Congress is headed down a very slippery slope, which will open the door to hosting any and all content, the very worst of it, over a suit, and I believe that this is what these "hosts" really want. Remember what happened over the civil suit for "Deep Throat" over free speech?
    1