YouTube banning certain firearms-related videos

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,636
6,269
136
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/youtube-bans-firearm-sales-and-how-to-videos-prompting-backlash

Will be interesting to see how it turns out. I get that they may want to limit exposure to certain firearms-related stuff, and so not promoting channels with links to firearms sales or bumps stocks - even though i disagree with it - doesn't seem totally out of the realm in a PR sense. But there's plenty of review/educational/instructional/training content that is totally worthwhile. Or even gear review - there are bazillions of accessories, all of which can be obtained perfectly legally. I mean, who doesn't love FPSrussia?

Though no matter how hard people may cry, youtube banning stuff still doesn't violate your 1st amendment rights.

Haveniceday.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,326
4,660
126
Only ever watch one related channel(Forgotten Weapons), has no yahoos and is mostly historical and technical information. Strangely, it might be affected by this change as it usually is associated with firearms auctions, largely because, I assume, that the auctions have a large selection of firearms to make videos of. Hopefully this channel isn't affected.

That said, there are probably channels that are very sketchy, perhaps even showing things that would be illegal. There are so many channels we never see due to Youtube's algorithms.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Youtube can kick or ban whomever they like. No 1A rights violation found. Most of their viewers won't care, so unless the pro gun fans make a big enough stink I don't see their policy changing. Even hickok45 had his channel "disappear" for a while.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,781
8,016
126
Though no matter how hard people may cry, youtube banning stuff still doesn't violate your 1st amendment rights.
Honestly, it should. You know why?

Think of it this way. The 14th Amendment, gives "equal protection under law", which is used as the basis for Federal Housing Equality, which DOES apply to private lenders. If YouTube (a private content hoster) can violate the user's 1st Amendment rights on their private property, then private lenders and landowners / landlords should be able to discriminate however they please. Don't want Guns? Don't want Blacks? Don't want Whites? Fine, "Private Property", feel free to make rules that violate the 14th Amendment. It's "Private", right?

Or, maybe Liberals shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, and have both "Equal Housing", and NOT "Freedom of Speech". So, therefore, content providers and hosters, MUST be FORCED to abide by the 1st Amendment, JUST LIKE private lenders and landowners and landlords, are FORCED to abide by the 14th Amendment (and offer Equal Housing).

Are you following this train of thought?

Edit: Besides "Net Neutrality",we need "Content Neutrality", for "public speech (content-hosting) services".

However, there needs to be a provision to deal with "spam", although, I think, in order to conform with the law in that sort of world, it would have to be an opt-in option to curation. The default user view would be with "spam included", and then and only then, would the user then be able to select a "spam filtered" content list. So as to prevent violations of the law.
 
Last edited:

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,925
6,704
126
I found out the other day that youtube doesn't allow videos of people smoking. So this sort of falls right in line with that. It's their site and they should be able to control the content. Don't like it, start your own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheik Yerbouti

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,781
8,016
126
I found out the other day that youtube doesn't allow videos of people smoking. So this sort of falls right in line with that. It's their site and they should be able to control the content. Don't like it, start your own.
That makes about as much sense as "If your ISP is censoring / blocking certain sites, then just... start your own ISP!"

Face it, these "content conduits", whether they be physical wiring plants (like ISPs), or virtual communities (like YouTube), they need to be subject to regulations, to permit enforce proper 1st Amendment rights.

Edit: (And if the gov't won't regulate these "private" parties, to force them to comply with the law, then they should nationalize them, yes, nationalize YouTube. Get it away from the Liberal Censorship Machine.)
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,009
7,931
146
Honestly, it should. You know why?

Think of it this way. The 14th Amendment, gives "equal protection under law", which is used as the basis for Federal Housing Equality, which DOES apply to private lenders. If YouTube (a private content hoster) can violate the user's 1st Amendment rights on their private property, then private lenders and landowners / landlords should be able to discriminate however they please. Don't want Guns? Don't want Blacks? Don't want Whites? Fine, "Private Property", feel free to make rules that violate the 14th Amendment. It's "Private", right?

Or, maybe Liberals shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, and have both "Equal Housing", and NOT "Freedom of Speech". So, therefore, content providers and hosters, MUST be FORCED to abide by the 1st Amendment, JUST LIKE private lenders and landowners and landlords, are FORCED to abide by the 14th Amendment (and offer Equal Housing).

Are you following this train of thought?

Edit: Besides "Net Neutrality",we need "Content Neutrality", for "public speech (content-hosting) services".

However, there needs to be a provision to deal with "spam", although, I think, in order to conform with the law in that sort of world, it would have to be an opt-in option to curation. The default user view would be with "spam included", and then and only then, would the user then be able to select a "spam filtered" content list. So as to prevent violations of the law.
I don't entirely disagree with you in principal, but I imagine much of the 14th's necessity was based on the fact you can't avoid living in a house, so discrimination on that substantially impacts a citizen's life. Youtube is a little different, as it's not necessary for life + livelihood, so I don't really know that the Govt would step in and dictate how they need to behave.

That may be splitting hairs and irrelevant to many though depending on their view. I personally feel that all orgs should be beholden to 1A (and other A) freedoms, but I understand that this could potentially cause issues in Real People World
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,677
5,400
136
That makes about as much sense as "If your ISP is censoring / blocking certain sites, then just... start your own ISP!"

Face it, these "content conduits", whether they be physical wiring plants (like ISPs), or virtual communities (like YouTube), they need to be subject to regulations, to permit enforce proper 1st Amendment rights.

Edit: (And if the gov't won't regulate these "private" parties, to force them to comply with the law, then they should nationalize them, yes, nationalize YouTube. Get it away from the Liberal Censorship Machine.)

What a topsy-turvy world. Traditionally it was the left pointing out the absence of real free speech when people like Murdoch own most of the media, and calling for such media empires to be subject to state control. And it tended to be the left that complained about the public street being replaced by private shopping malls, with their private restrictions on what sort of political activity could be allowed there. And the right responded by insisting that was Stalinism and that private media should be able to carry whatever it chose.

I think you have _a bit_ of a point (I'm unsure how things like YouTube and Facebook should be regarded, legally), but where were you when it was the right who controlled most of the media?

What was your opinion when "Clear Channel" and their radio stations boycotted the Dixie Chicks for bad-mouthing Bush, for example?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,925
6,704
126
Freedom of speech is negated by terms of service/use. It's no longer applicable. Businesses have a right to protect themselves. People have a right to not use businesses they don't agree with. That's how our country works. This forum is a perfect example. We have terms of use and forum rules that prohibit certain behavior, topics, and posting types. This is to protect the company that provides the forums and an attempts to foster positive community interactions.

It's the same for Youtube. They are trying to minimize legal risk and provide an environment that they feel is more appropriate to encouraging community growth. That is their legal right.
 

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
552
211
116
Honestly, it should. You know why?

Think of it this way. The 14th Amendment, gives "equal protection under law", which is used as the basis for Federal Housing Equality, which DOES apply to private lenders. If YouTube (a private content hoster) can violate the user's 1st Amendment rights on their private property, then private lenders and landowners / landlords should be able to discriminate however they please. Don't want Guns? Don't want Blacks? Don't want Whites? Fine, "Private Property", feel free to make rules that violate the 14th Amendment. It's "Private", right?

Or, maybe Liberals shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, and have both "Equal Housing", and NOT "Freedom of Speech". So, therefore, content providers and hosters, MUST be FORCED to abide by the 1st Amendment, JUST LIKE private lenders and landowners and landlords, are FORCED to abide by the 14th Amendment (and offer Equal Housing).

Are you following this train of thought?

Edit: Besides "Net Neutrality",we need "Content Neutrality", for "public speech (content-hosting) services".

However, there needs to be a provision to deal with "spam", although, I think, in order to conform with the law in that sort of world, it would have to be an opt-in option to curation. The default user view would be with "spam included", and then and only then, would the user then be able to select a "spam filtered" content list. So as to prevent violations of the law.
Lousy comparison. Federal housing protections were designed to solve a specific problem - people were being blocked from certain housing and financing simply because of their race. These protections apply to very specific inherent characteristics that are recognized under the Constitution as being particularly important such as race and national origin. There’s nothing inherent about advertising guns.

Plus freedom of speech simply doesn’t apply to private companies like YouTube unless there’s some specific statute I’m not aware of. If anything, mandated “content neutrality” would be an infringement on YouTube’s freedom of speech.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,781
8,016
126
Plus freedom of speech simply doesn’t apply to private companies like YouTube unless there’s some specific statute I’m not aware of. If anything, mandated “content neutrality” would be an infringement on YouTube’s freedom of speech.
So, you would likewise be against "Net Neutrality", and all for the ability of ISPs to censor / block content, as they see fit? After all, ISPs are private companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,925
6,704
126
So, you would likewise be against "Net Neutrality", and all for the ability of ISPs to censor / block content, as they see fit? After all, ISPs are private companies.
Don't conflate net neutrality with censorship. They aren't the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chocu1a

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
552
211
116
Don't conflate net neutrality with censorship. They aren't the same.
And you could make a case that their unique position warrants limitations. The limits on commercial speech are wider than individual speech.

Basically I just don’t think the two issues of rights are directly comparable. I’m not taking a position on whether it’s good or bad.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech protects you from being punished by the government for speaking out against it. There are a lot of other limitations and protections, but it does not, in any way, force a third party to facilitate your speech. You can't force a newspaper, YouTube, another person or entity to facilitate or provide a platform for your speech. You can stand on a street corner and spout your drivel, so long as you comply with all applicable laws, but you can't force YouTube to publish it and the First Amendment doesn't force them to.

And I don't understand anyone who thinks putting the government in charge of any venue would increase the "fairness" of speech exercised across those platforms. A government owned YouTube would become as political and tainted as everything else the government touches.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
828
126
Honestly, it should. You know why?

Think of it this way. The 14th Amendment, gives "equal protection under law", which is used as the basis for Federal Housing Equality, which DOES apply to private lenders. If YouTube (a private content hoster) can violate the user's 1st Amendment rights on their private property, then private lenders and landowners / landlords should be able to discriminate however they please. Don't want Guns? Don't want Blacks? Don't want Whites? Fine, "Private Property", feel free to make rules that violate the 14th Amendment. It's "Private", right?

Or, maybe Liberals shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, and have both "Equal Housing", and NOT "Freedom of Speech". So, therefore, content providers and hosters, MUST be FORCED to abide by the 1st Amendment, JUST LIKE private lenders and landowners and landlords, are FORCED to abide by the 14th Amendment (and offer Equal Housing).

Are you following this train of thought?

Edit: Besides "Net Neutrality",we need "Content Neutrality", for "public speech (content-hosting) services".

However, there needs to be a provision to deal with "spam", although, I think, in order to conform with the law in that sort of world, it would have to be an opt-in option to curation. The default user view would be with "spam included", and then and only then, would the user then be able to select a "spam filtered" content list. So as to prevent violations of the law.
I don't see how it has anything to do with 1st amendment. It's a private website who's rights are to limit whatever content they want. Same as this place. I'm all for free speech, but the precedent has been set for ages that if you are using someone elses stuff to voice something they find offensive then you have no rights.

You are taking an interesting perspective on it, but content providers are not exactly the same thing as housing. Housing rights have more to do with someone not dying of exposure (more about kids) than free speech.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
531
126
What a topsy-turvy world. Traditionally it was the left pointing out the absence of real free speech when people like Murdoch own most of the media, and calling for such media empires to be subject to state control. And it tended to be the left that complained about the public street being replaced by private shopping malls, with their private restrictions on what sort of political activity could be allowed there. And the right responded by insisting that was Stalinism and that private media should be able to carry whatever it chose.

I think you have _a bit_ of a point (I'm unsure how things like YouTube and Facebook should be regarded, legally), but where were you when it was the right who controlled most of the media?

What was your opinion when "Clear Channel" and their radio stations boycotted the Dixie Chicks for bad-mouthing Bush, for example?
Ironic isn't it how when FOX news and Murdoch were the scary threat to free speech and "something must be done about it" was the mantle of many liberals,

now that the internet is the leading media distribution medium along with a smartphone in every hand our so called liberals are all for big business corporate rights, as long as their sacred cows are protected.

But there is a bright side to this, thanks to liberals defense of adult entertainment as a constitutional right.

You have to google it because the over restrictive filters prevent a link from being posted, on a liberal leaning site no less.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,781
8,016
126
You are taking an interesting perspective on it, but content providers are not exactly the same thing as housing. Housing rights have more to do with someone not dying of exposure (more about kids) than free speech.
What if no-one wants to "house" your thoughts and ideas? Housing and internet content conduits have a lot more in common than at first glance. One is just more "Meta" than the other. But both are important.

Edit: From another perspective, these places (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) are "virtual public spaces".

If it's not legal to discriminate real public spaces, then why should it be legal to discriminate virtual ones?
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Ironic isn't it how when FOX news and Murdoch were the scary threat to free speech and "something must be done about it" was the mantle of many liberals,

now that the internet is the leading media distribution medium along with a smartphone in every hand our so called liberals are all for big business corporate rights, as long as their sacred cows are protected.

But there is a bright side to this, thanks to liberals defense of adult entertainment as a constitutional right.

You have to google it because the over restrictive filters prevent a link from being posted, on a liberal leaning site no less.
Not everyone argues issues with partisan politics in mind looking to score points against the other side. Some of actually argue based on right vs wrong or legal vs illegal.

So does YouTube have the right to decide which content they allow on their platform or not?
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,982
4,243
136
Ironic isn't it how when FOX news and Murdoch were the scary threat to free speech and "something must be done about it" was the mantle of many liberals,

now that the internet is the leading media distribution medium along with a smartphone in every hand our so called liberals are all for big business corporate rights, as long as their sacred cows are protected.

But there is a bright side to this, thanks to liberals defense of adult entertainment as a constitutional right.

You have to google it because the over restrictive filters prevent a link from being posted, on a liberal leaning site no less.
Are you talking about something specific there, or just projecting? Because I think you're just claiming people were saying something while not understanding what they were actually saying.

And we can see exactly why they were warning people about Murdoch's media (FYI, people are mad because a certain political party has been using it as a propaganda machine for their claims, which often have been alarmingly not for freedom). Although, I haven't seen much of people saying anything more than FOX is trash and people should know better than to watch it, or that they hate the bullshit that they spread, so I think you're grossly mis-representing people's actual points. That and when they knowingly have touted lies (which they have also been critical when other media has done the same). Which plenty of times has gotten far enough that legal action got them to retract it (because unsurprisingly them knowingly spouting lies, kinda ends up being illegal).

No, that's not an accurate depiction of what Net Neutrality is. In fact, every person I know of that pushes for it, says its specifically so that everything isn't controlled by giant corporations. Kinda baffling that you're also trying to spin people being critical of and calling for sites to be policing their users, like Twitter doing (or rather were critical of Twitter for not doing) something about the harassing trolls and people on there only to stir up shit (that then bitch whenever that happens to them), as being "pro big business". Just because people defend their right to do that does not make them big supporters, it just means people view it as a private service that should get those rights.

Its bizarre that people like you are acting like these companies should be beholden to government protections for individuals, whilst ignoring that the 1st Amendment you keep claiming these sites are trampling on, actually has been legally defended by the Supreme Court to do what these sites are doing (that is to say, if people are using their "free speech" to threaten another individual, that is not protected). Generally people who are posting hatefilled garbage on there, have been known to be sending threats (they often do it in private though, which is why I just roll my eyes at the assholes that cry about getting banned when they're almost always not being honest about what they were all up to).

Yes, I know there's more to it than just the threat stuff, but its not like the 1st Amendment is a total free for all even with regards to the government's regulation of it.

What if no-one wants to "house" your thoughts and ideas? Housing and internet content conduits have a lot more in common than at first glance. One is just more "Meta" than the other. But both are important.

Edit: From another perspective, these places (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) are "virtual public spaces".

If it's not legal to discriminate real public spaces, then why should it be legal to discriminate virtual ones?
To very simply answer your analogy. The government doesn't own or operate the websites in question. They are not "public" places. You need to stop trying to claim they are.

To address your other point about this being no different from Net Neutrality, you're again, just simply put, wrong on your analogy. In fact I can't even fathom how you're making such analogies since Net Neutrality is specifically about defending the right of people being able to start their own alternatives should they not be happy with how other sites operate. That's why based on website's guidelines, its not censorship or a 1st Amendment issue. But it quickly will become one if ISPs are allowed to discriminate.

The reason ISPs should not be allowed to is because they are expressly given specific rights by the government. That's why ISPs doing it becomes an issue, but private websites doing it wouldn't. One has been expressly given control by the government (and is also expressly oversaw by the government, via the FCC, and agency specifically created to regulate communications). Websites are wholly independent private entities (with obvious exceptions to those expressly operated by government). Net Neutrality and freedom to do something about websites go together. There's also the issue that you can very easily choose what websites you use, but you typically have little choice about ISPs, because of the government's method of handling them.

Also, I take it you people missed how they're waiting President's signature to pass a law that makes websites liable for content posted by their users?
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
21,982
4,243
136
With regards to the OP, I feel like banning firearm/weapon ads, and maybe requiring disclaimers (like ones telling people to seek help should they feel the urges to harm others or themselves), would be a better avenue than outright ban of the channels themselves. Maybe offer incentives to do "proper use/safety" videos. Like have FPSRussia call out conspiracy bullshit and say that anyone touting crisis actors or threatening/harassing victims/family of victims of shootings are wrong and need to STFU.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,781
8,016
126
So does YouTube have the right to decide which content they allow on their platform or not?
If the gov't can force a baker to make a cake for a gay couple, against their wishes, then sure as shooting, it can force YouTube to carry content that the owners of YouTube may not agree with, as long as it is legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz

ASK THE COMMUNITY