Posted on 10/19/2022 3:42:05 PM PDT by BusterDog
Review of Neonatal Mortality in Scotland. I think the numbers are really troubling and I don't think we know the reasons why yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
People at youtube need to go to prison.
We know the reasons why.
okay, what has changed world wide in the past few years to human’s health concerns re the mass use of a new type of chemistry that was forced upon society of an unproven and untested mRNA vaccine? There’s your answer.
Yes we do
It’s the jabs
” Youtube should not be allowed to censor people because of their position on issues. They certainly should not be able to censor people who are qualified and authoritative about medical issuess”
****
What’s funny is he is very particular about their vax guidelines, what you cannot say, and he really strives to abide by them. I think their warning to him about a past video really offended him.
What I don’t think he realizes, yet, is that it isn’t about the rules. It’s about how they will allow just so much influence on their platform to go against the approved message.
In other words, even if he doesn’t break any rules, they are going to pull him down.
Ping
That I believe, and I think we need to use the power of the government to smash any company that deals in public communications if they censor people.
Sorry their freedom of speech offends you.
No your not. You lap it up.
Correct. YouTube is Google and once they censor, they're no longer content carriers but content providers and need to lose their Section 230 liability protections.
Under Communism, the government censors people.
Under Fascism, korporations censor people at the request of government.
Their freedom of speech does not offend me at all. They may *SAY* anything they d@mn well please.
What they cannot be tolerated in doing is *CENSORING* people who have put forth legal speech.
You have this dishonesty streak where you equate censoring people on a *PUBLIC* communications system as "speech."
The very idea is absurd, and I think that Federal Judge also said that. Censoring speech is not "speech", it's censorship.
This is a well understood phenomena that it seems Semimojo is having difficulty in grasping.
It's either that, or he actually likes fascism. I don't see a middle ground.
I can recall only hearing about 1 or 2 miscarriages in my entire (as of today) 65 years, prior to COVID.
I’ve heard of 3 in the last year (not a friend of a freind, people I know)
You have this dishonesty streak where you equate censoring people on a *PUBLIC* communications system as "speech."
In what sense is it public? Government had no ownership in the socials.
It’s public in exactly the same sense FR is.
There is no such thing as "forced speech" unless you have someone with a gun pointed at you compelling you to say what they tell you.
This is another dishonest analogy.
In what sense is it public? Government had no ownership in the socials.
Government does not own people's homes, but it certainly has a duty to make sure people's civil rights are being protected, even when the violations occur on other people's land.
Americans have a right to speak and they have a right to have their speech carried on all communications systems in the nation that are open to the public.
It’s public in exactly the same sense FR is.
FR is a small restricted club. It is *NOT* a public forum. Again, a dishonest analogy.
No one is pointing a gun at Twitter telling them to censor.
Americans have a right to speak and they have a right to have their speech carried on all communications systems in the nation that are open to the public.
So say you. FR is more public than FB or Twitter. The sign-up requirements are less stringent and the terms of service contract is less restrictive.
FR is a small restricted club. It is *NOT* a public forum. Again, a dishonest analogy.
See above.
They are doing that on their own, and it needs to be stopped. It looks like Elon Musk is going to make them stop.
FR is more public than FB or Twitter.
Once you get to a significant percentage of the population, it is asinine to argue you are "private."
They can claim anything they like, but they are a defacto public communications system, while Free Republic is a small restricted club.
Wasn’t there a free speech case in the 80’s where the owners of a mall had to allow people to hand out information in the mall? Would not the same principle hold here, where disallowing free speech in a somewhat public arena was deemed illegal? Isn’t social media the meeting place of our times now?
I would think so, but nowadays we have so many crackpot judges that it is difficult to say with any certainty whether something would be decided one way or the other.
My general rule of thumb is this: If the guy was appointed by a Democrat, his rulings are going to be nonsense. If he was appointed by a Republican, he might make a rational ruling.
As it so happens, there was a recent ruling by a Federal judge which said that Facebook etc claim of censorship being "free speech" on the part of the companies, is just nonsense.
Once in awhile a Federal Judge gets something right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.