Political funny pictures thread, part IV. Bring on the leather!

[Phase2]

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's a HUGE difference between the two, at least according to our Constitution, which in theory I believe you support.

 

[printcraft]

There's a HUGE difference between the two, at least according to our Constitution, which in theory I believe you support.

[video=youtube;HISBol9014A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HISBol9014A[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

[video=youtube;HISBol9014A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HISBol9014A[/video]

Wait, you're serious??? It sad that you can't discern the difference. Those who don't understand their rights are destined to lose them.

 

[EPeter213]

Wait, you're serious??? It sad that you can't discern the difference. Those who don't understand their rights are destined to lose them.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but wouldn’t books and published media fall under the same category? I’m pretty sure there isn’t any reference to YouTube specifically in the Constitution.

 

[printcraft]

I am not a constitutional scholar, but wouldn’t books and published media fall under the same category? I’m pretty sure there isn’t any reference to YouTube specifically in the Constitution.

It's right there next to TV, phones and the internet. Also, the right to bear arms only applies to muskets.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am not a constitutional scholar, but wouldn’t books and published media fall under the same category? I’m pretty sure there isn’t any reference to YouTube specifically in the Constitution.

Well yes. But the question isn't "what's" being burned, but rather "who's" doing it. Government participating in the suppression free speech, is quite different than a private entity, suppressing content on it's own, privately owned, website.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Well yes. But the question isn't "what's" being burned, but rather "who's" doing it. Government participating in the suppression free speech, is quite different than a private entity, suppressing content on it's own, privately owned, website.

I'm so confused. YouTube can remove a video and demonetize anyone whenever they feel like it because they're a private company, but when a bakery refuses to bake a birthday cake topped with a rubber dong for some sick ****, it's time to lawyer up.

 

[Mongo59]

Time to invest in more muzzle loaders...

 

[Mongo59]

Well yes. But the question isn't "what's" being burned, but rather "who's" doing it. Government participating in the suppression free speech, is quite different than a private entity, suppressing content on it's own, privately owned, website.

So, if someone was to say to you "STFU" you would calmly know they are within their rights as an individual?

 

[jamil]

There's a HUGE difference between the two, at least according to our Constitution, which in theory I believe you support.

What is unconstitutional about burning books?

 

[jamil]

Well yes. But the question isn't "what's" being burned, but rather "who's" doing it. Government participating in the suppression free speech, is quite different than a private entity, suppressing content on it's own, privately owned, website.

If Jim Crow policies were only enforced by private businesses, is that constitutional? Yes. Should society allow private businesses to oppress people using the power of the market?

Social media are either publishers or platforms. If they’re publishers, then they’re liable for all the content. If it’s just a platform, then they’re not. They say they’re a platform but then are acting like a publisher. Pick one.

 

[Doug]

I'm so confused. YouTube can remove a video and demonetize anyone whenever they feel like it because they're a private company, but when a bakery refuses to bake a birthday cake topped with a rubber dong for some sick ****, it's time to lawyer up.

That is because some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Sigblitz]

'member this?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...es-discussion-thread.html?442873=#post7243137

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, if someone was to say to you "STFU" you would calmly know they are within their rights as an individual?

Absolutely.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If Jim Crow policies were only enforced by private businesses, is that constitutional? Yes. Should society allow private businesses to oppress people using the power of the market?

Social media are either publishers or platforms. If they’re publishers, then they’re liable for all the content. If it’s just a platform, then they’re not. They say they’re a platform but then are acting like a publisher. Pick one.

Yes. With only very very few exceptions (i.e. related to life/death).

 

[JettaKnight]

I agree with Printcraft:

A private business should absolutely, positively, in ALL cases be able to discriminate against doing business with anyone for ANY reason.

It's not a .gov entity.

Let the free market decide if they will still be able to operate. They will either sink or swim on their own merits.

Yes, I mean Any. ****ing. Reason.

 

[JettaKnight]

Pictures!

Best I got right now.

 

[AngryRooster]

Another thread that's gone straight to due to bickering.

Unsubscribed.

 

[printcraft]

I agree with Printcraft:

[video=youtube;vusOrVbFQnk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vusOrVbFQnk[/video]