“Too low? Okay, 98.6% of the market.”
Best figures I can find are from a couple years ago, but it was around 70%.
“Yes, blacks can sit at black lunch counters. There is no reason why they should have to be served at white lunch counters when they can find lunch counters meant to serve them.”
This is too ridiculous a comparison to even merit a response.
“Far too simplistic of an analysis. My thinking goes more along the lines of “Does this move us towards Nazism? Does this affect elections? Is this a threat to the very idea of “Freedom of Speech”?”
Private businesses have no responsibility to provide platforms for “freedom of speech”. Still, you’ve sidestepped my question without answering it, so I’ll have to ask again. What threshold do you think should allow government to quash the rights of the private business owner? How popular does their business get to be before their rights are stripped away?
“People immediately see the danger of government censorship of speech, but they have so long accepted this notion that private companies can do anything they wish that they are oblivious to the danger of a private monopoly controlling an essential means of communications.”
Youtube isn’t a monopoly though, and yes, that notion is accepted because it is the law, and based on a right that is just as essential as freedom of speech, which is the right to private property. Socialism and communism amply demonstrate that infringing on private property rights is just as mortal a threat to liberty as infringing on freedom of speech.
“YouTube needs to be *FORCED* and I mean with the entire mighty hammer of government, to serve *EVERYONE* who sits at their lunch counter.”
This proposal is no different than advocating that youtube be nationalized, to be controlled by the whims of whatever political party sits in power, or the demands of the left to be able to control content on talk radio and television programs. It’s a statist and authoritarian notion that would actually be poisonous to free speech.
“We cannot allow the government, or any other agency, to stop the right of Americans to be heard on all systems of communications.”
Yet you propose to do just that by putting government bureaucrats, rather than private interests, in control of judging how speech should be regulated. Nothing is stopping any private citizen with a different vision from competing with youtube, however, the same cannot be done once the government is put in charge. You cannot compete with the force of government.
“Under Nazism, the Corporations were Cronies of the Government, and there really was no line between where “Private” ended and “Government” began. We cannot allow such a system to take root here.”
Then why are you advocating moving in that direction by asking for more government control of corporations?
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...
Note that the above statement implies how any business can act towards an individual (or group of individuals). It is categorically not appropriate (or intended) to be something that is applied in a blanket manner to any group—such as Italians, Blacks, or whatever. This, I believe, is an important distinction.
I would imagine that if a business in America put a sign in their window saying "Honkeys are not welcome in this establishment", "No ni--ers allowed", etc., the invariable result would be incidents like firebombings, vandalism, civil unrest, etc. That's simply not something that is compatible with a modern open society—unless you want the enormous Police State required to prevent all the violence that would result from such inflammatory and antagonistic expressions of "free speech" by bigoted business owners.
Therefore, in America, if a business owner doesn't want to, say, serve Blacks, he can construe his business as a private entity and consequently enforce any kind of membership policy he wants. As long as his business is a public accommodation, it seems eminently reasonable to adopt this convention and thereby avoid fostering a divisive, hostile, discriminatory—and potentially unstable—civil environment.
Because the "private club" option exists, all "sides" are accommodated, and the public's ability to engage in boycotts, public shaming, and peaceful protests is preserved. If this public/private division were totally eliminated, it would be a recipe for violence and civil unrest. Hence—even though the "private club" solution might be an annoyance to a business operator—it seems like a reasonable accommodation to the ideal that "all men are created equal".
I would further note that this "solution" imposes no tangible burden on the business owner who decides to be divisive and bigoted rather than striving for the ideals set forth in the Declaration and Constitution—"all men are created equal", "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure Domestic Tranquility...Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity", and so forth.
In modern America—ostensibly a united, egalitarian, and open Republic—this public/private concept is the most viable solution, and one which fully preserves the Rights of all...
Thanks. You prove my point. Controlling 70% of the market is too much.
This is too ridiculous a comparison to even merit a response.
It is precisely a good analog. "Creed" is on the same list as "Race" when it comes to tolerating discrimination.
Private businesses have no responsibility to provide platforms for “freedom of speech”.
At one time I would have agreed with you, then I realized the consequences of accepting this principle. The first duty of government is to insure it's own survival, and anything which threatens the structural existence of our government cannot be permitted to continue, even if it adheres to some ideas which we had previously believed to be principles.
How popular does their business get to be before their rights are stripped away?
I reject your biased premise in the framing of your question. The "rights" of which you speak are contingent upon the structure of our form of government. Such rights do not exist in other governments around the world, and are merely a reflection of our system of governance. They are not "inherent" unless you accept the "Natural Law" principle of government, and if you do, you will have to accept the moral foundations that come with it. (Those would also do in your argument that they have a "right" to regulate speech.)
But to give you some form of answer, I would say that 50% control of the market would definitely qualify for regulation, and if I thought further, I might put forth an argument for regulating even lower percentages of control.
The fundamental question is "are they a threat to our form of government"?
Youtube isn’t a monopoly though...
I disagree.
and yes, that notion is accepted because it is the law, and based on a right that is just as essential as freedom of speech, which is the right to private property.
One cannot do anything one wishes on "Private Property." When you invite someone onto your "property", you do not have a right to kill them. You do not have a right to injure them. You do not even have a right to strike them. You cannot put your hand over their mouths and refuse to let them speak.
Youtube invited the public in, and many came under conditions at the time that censorship of opinions was not going to occur. Youtube built their property "value" on this premise, and now that it is valuable, they have pulled a "bait and switch." They have built their value on what has become a false premise of openness.
and yes, that notion is accepted because it is the law, and based on a right that is just as essential as freedom of speech, which is the right to private property.
Not at all. "Common Carriers" have to carry all traffic, regardless of content. Making Youtube serve everyone equally can hardly be the same thing as "nationalizing" it. Lots of prominent lawyers are now calling for Youtube to be declared a "common carrier" and required to carry all traffic.
Yet you propose to do just that by putting government bureaucrats, rather than private interests, in control of judging how speech should be regulated.
I am arguing no such thing. I am arguing that we cannot let "speech" be regulated by anyone who is in a position to control a significant portion of it. So long as the speech is not actually illegal, it should be unregulated.
Then why are you advocating moving in that direction by asking for more government control of corporations?
The "control" would consist of penalizing them for censoring speech. In other words, making them conform to the rights guaranteed by our society.