YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos...

Someone brought up an interesting point online about this. If SCOTUS has deemed that brick and mortar businesses may not discriminate against anyone who wishes to purchase services from them, how do online services get away with not accepting all comers?

The discussion led to the pre-agreed “Terms of Service” you agree to before you do any business with YouTube or other online services, which led me to wonder if a cake baker placed a person out front with a TOS the patrons had to sign before entering the business, wouldn’t that be identical, legally?

Not arguing about who can use the “stores” here, I’m saying it’s an interesting double standard in law for the businesses. Want to discriminate? Just operate your business online and have a TOS that says you can do whatever you like.

PoA can do it. YouTube can do it. Facebook can do it.

A cake baker can’t because they have a storefront? Hmmm. Fascinating.

So how does the cake baker hand out a TOS for their business if they want to?

“No shirt, no shoes, no service?” On the door? Legal? SCOTUS says no.

“No Pilots allowed.” Legal? Also not legal per SCOTUS.

So how does an online business get away with it?
 
Gun laws are backwards. With free speech, the Federal Govt sets the restrictions. States are NOT allowed to restrict speech further. With gun laws, the Fed sets the Fed restrictions, however, states ARE allowed to restrict it further.
 
****ed up and I bet it makes it to court. A lot of the gun channels have already backed up their videos to Twitch.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Gun laws are backwards. With free speech, the Federal Govt sets the restrictions. States are NOT allowed to restrict speech further. With gun laws, the Fed sets the Fed restrictions, however, states ARE allowed to restrict it further.
Click to expand...

The topic has nothing to do with gun law.

Freedom of speech doesn’t apply between private entities.
 
denverpilot said:
“No shirt, no shoes, no service?” On the door? Legal? SCOTUS says no.

“No Pilots allowed.” Legal? Also not legal per SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I would be interested where the SCOTUS says no. My understanding that only certain reasons (not to be discussed here) are not legal. Lack of apparel, and being a pilot are not one of those reasons.
 
A more interesting argument will be the stores refusing to sell guns to someone under 21 in states where it is legal. That is clearly age discrimination.
 
Everskyward said:
I would be interested where the SCOTUS says no. My understanding that only certain reasons (not to be discussed here) are not legal. Lack of apparel, and being a pilot are not one of those reasons.
Click to expand...

All any internet community has to do is form s church to be under one of those reasons.

Can YouTube deny service to members of the First Church of the Holy .45 ACP? :)
 
DFH65 said:
A more interesting argument will be the stores refusing to sell guns to someone under 21 in states where it is legal. That is clearly age discrimination.
Click to expand...

But they can buy a cake, er gun, from the store down the street! :) :) :)
 
denverpilot said:
All any internet community has to do is form s church to be under one of those reasons.

Can YouTube deny service to members of the First Church of the Holy .45 ACP? :)
Click to expand...
It's obviously not as easy as you make it out to be or someone would have done it already. For any number of reasons.
 
denverpilot said:
So how does an online business get away with it?
Click to expand...

Maybe because the original business model for YouTube was not a "for profit" model and somehow, that 'belief' still persists in the minds of some today - though no longer true, today. YouTube's TOS could be reduced to just one paragraph:

"These are the Terms of Service. We are the sole arbiters of any videos we approve. If we don't like your video we will delete, remove, make private and/or make un-searchable said video at will. We will change the rules of this TOS without notice and we will do that very frequently, just to upset you, especially if/when you post a video that we don't like. These rules are subject to change fluidly, making this TOS absolutely pointless. Thank you for playing our game."

At the end of the day, they own the Servers.

I've thought about building something equivalent to YouTube, but using a RackSpace type of virtualized hardware environment. People would then lease Video Server Services and promote their channel. The content would be their own and management of any social dialogue platform would be their own. If they so choose, a Monetization Plugin would be provided that gives Advertisers access to the channel's videos. That Plugin would also provide the channel's owner with rights of refusal - thereby making it possible to accept/deny any specific Advertisements on its channel. There would be no Big Brother in the sky watching over a channel owner's shoulder. There would be no centralized control over video content by the company providing the service.

This would be the purest form of Digital Art Expression in the public domain. No more different than getting into your vehicle, driving into town and engaging in whatever you like to engage in while in town. You can go into any city to visit a library, coffee shop, clothing store, bar, movie theater, music hall, gift shop, mall, hotel, dance club, whore house, jewelry store, museum, massage parlor, real estate office, car dealership, grocery store, sightseeing tour office, burger joint, steakhouse, chophouse, barbershop, gun store, sporting goods store, barbecue restaurant, car wash, firearms training facility, public park, ice skating rink, sports stadium, wine tasting room, etc., etc., etc.. All without anyone restricting your access to these places. So, these restrictions should not be placed on the very same content searchable and discovered on the Web.

The web is not a virtual world. It is the real world put into digital form. If what happens in Vegas, is allowed to stay in Vegas, then why does the Web have to be different. Some say, because children can more easily access the computer than they can an airplane ticket to Vegas. To that I say, learn how to cut them off at the Firewall and the Cable/Modem Router. Easily done with password protection and password change notification. Parents would have that responsibility and parents should have that responsibility.

In fact, truth be told, this entire subject comes down to Parenting - but precious few want to hear that message let alone actually be held accountable for their Parenting. Nope. Let's not go there.
 
I don’t like their decision, I think it’s politcally motivated grandstanding tbh. However they’re a private company and they shouldn’t be made to host anything if they don’t want to.

Others will.
 
Ok. Only 'some' cities provide all those "services" and things to do.
 
cowman said:
I don’t like their decision, I think it’s politcally motivated grandstanding tbh. However they’re a private company and they shouldn’t be made to host anything if they don’t want to.

Others will.
Click to expand...

Why not? Religious business owners aren’t afforded the same rights, per SCOTUS. What’s protecting YouTube?

Like I said, all that’s needed is a “gun religion” and YT is hosed under current law.

Are we allowed to question whether a religion is “valid” in the new PC Land created by bad law?

I think not. But I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate here.

I think in a truly Free land businesses can do business with whoever they want to, or not, as you do. But SCOTUS does not agree.

The law even allows for protection by “creed” which is simply a set of beliefs a person lives by.
 
denverpilot said:
So how does an online business get away with it?
Click to expand...
As long as the business is a private venture with private cliental, the business can dictate their own Terms of Service. Only when that business denies specific groups of individuals on civil rights/disabilities/age issues then the Feds/SCOTUS get involved. The "no shirt, no shoes, no service" falls under "refusal of service" laws and applies to places open to the general public where the business can dictate how all clients act, dress, etc.
 
Bell206 said:
As long as the business is a private venture with private cliental, the business can dictate their own Terms of Service. Only when that business denies specific groups of individuals on civil rights/disabilities/age issues then the Feds/SCOTUS get involved. The "no shirt, no shoes, no service" falls under "refusal of service" laws and applies to places open to the general public where the business can dictate how all clients act, dress, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So become a protected class and you get your gun videos back.

Create a gun religion or creed and put it in writing.

:) :) :)

I mean if someone can be protected if they FEEL a certain way about themselves, then just FEEL like you are a member of a gun religion. Done.

You may not assume my gender or my religion in PC Land. You maybe may not even be allowed to ask.

You can’t ask if my service dog is trained, so you can’t ask about my service gun either. LOL.

But I don’t have any guns and certainly not any of a sort that might be labeled by some as “assault rifles”.

They self-identify as BB guns, and are also undocumented. :)
 
I'm confused about which SCOTUS ruling(s) are being referenced here. The court hasn't even ruled on the Colorado bakery case.
 
I got a new non profit idea, free helicopter rides for commies!


Who's in?!


denverpilot said:
Exactly. So become a protected class and you get your gun videos back.

Create a gun religion or creed and put it in writing.

:) :) :)

I mean if someone can be protected if they FEEL a certain way about themselves, then just FEEL like you are a member of a gun religion. Done.

You may not assume my gender or my religion in PC Land. You maybe may not even be allowed to ask.

You can’t ask if my service dog is trained, so you can’t ask about my service gun either. LOL.

But I don’t have any guns and certainly not any of a sort that might be labeled by some as “assault rifles”.

They self-identify as BB guns, and are also undocumented. :)
Click to expand...

That's actually a good idea, legit

I feel discriminated against at times when someone overhears me talk about building ARs, frankly it's less confrontational/less judged to say you're a minority transvestite, than to say you are a member of the NRA.


#BlackRiflesMatter
 
Now Citibank announced they will stop doing business with gun shops that sell to 18 year olds, sell bump stocks or sell high capacity magazines (which they haven't defined)
 
denverpilot said:
Someone brought up an interesting point online about this. If SCOTUS has deemed that brick and mortar businesses may not discriminate against anyone who wishes to purchase services from them, how do online services get away with not accepting all comers?

The discussion led to the pre-agreed “Terms of Service” you agree to before you do any business with YouTube or other online services, which led me to wonder if a cake baker placed a person out front with a TOS the patrons had to sign before entering the business, wouldn’t that be identical, legally?

Not arguing about who can use the “stores” here, I’m saying it’s an interesting double standard in law for the businesses. Want to discriminate? Just operate your business online and have a TOS that says you can do whatever you like.

PoA can do it. YouTube can do it. Facebook can do it.

A cake baker can’t because they have a storefront? Hmmm. Fascinating.

So how does the cake baker hand out a TOS for their business if they want to?

“No shirt, no shoes, no service?” On the door? Legal? SCOTUS says no.

“No Pilots allowed.” Legal? Also not legal per SCOTUS.

So how does an online business get away with it?
Click to expand...

Agreed, if privately owned yes as I see it, if publiclly allowed no. Don’t support or use said business
 
I’ve gone to YouTube more than a handful of times for a refresher on how to field strip a given handgun or rifle. Also for hands on review of a firearm I’m considering.

I hope those videos are not affected - they’re really handy.
 
Everskyward said:
It's obviously not as easy as you make it out to be or someone would have done it already. For any number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Or nobody has needed to yet. The YouTubers losing revenue and their fans haven’t decided to band together and wear knitted pink hats in the streets yet. ;)

There’s another chuckle in here. All sorts of people whine about Net Neutrality but don’t mind the trend of private companies picking and choosing who can utilize their services.

That won’t end well for anyone, and it’s no different than a brick and mortar store posting signs banning individuals with particular beliefs from coming inside.
 
denverpilot said:
Or nobody has needed to yet.
Click to expand...
Or the courts laugh at such cases as being frivolous. I would. I'm pretty sure there is a higher bar than you make it out to be. You belong to the "church of the underdressed", because you want to get into a place that turns you away because of not wearing a shirt or shoes... yeah right.
 
Everskyward said:
Or the courts laugh at such cases as being frivolous. I would. I'm pretty sure there is a higher bar than you make it out to be. You belong to the "church of the underdressed", because you want to get into a place that turns you away because of not wearing a shirt or shoes... yeah right.
Click to expand...

Belonging to the church of “I think I’m a different gender than science says I am” isn’t any less fictional. “I want to use the other gender’s bathroom.” LOL. Same diff.

Just because a majority don’t want to see a naked chest or feet, doesn’t make it right to discriminate against the so-called underdressed does it? If there’s a significant safety issue, fine. But for a typical business?

A dude walking in in nothing but a pair of shorts can’t possibly be a legitimate reason for discrimination in a culture that claims to value people’s “diversity”.

Or... a lot of people are lying about that. I’m going with that. Dr. House style. People lie.

Perhaps the courts should laugh and consider the cake case as frivolous?

Why not? It’s just someone who wants something at a store that doesn’t want to do business with them and it’s plenty fine to laugh the “underdressed” out.

Someday we will understand that the underdressed are people too, just like everyone else.

“What did the underdressed ever do to you?” ;)

What makes one scientifically unsupportable belief better than the other?

You can say gender is vague now and has been redefined, and I can say “underdressed” is a completely made up social construct, too.

What about women who want to walk around topless? Nudists? Can we discriminate against nudists?

:) :) :)

(I know a nudist couple. They laugh when they visit the States at both our prudishness and our American belief that we value Freedom. They’re free to be naked at home in most outdoor public places.)
 
denverpilot said:
What about women who want to walk around topless?
Click to expand...
I always thought that was a stupid double-standard.

denverpilot said:
(I know a nudist couple. They laugh when they visit the States at both our prudishness and our American belief that we value Freedom. They’re free to be naked at home in most outdoor public places.)
Click to expand...
LOL, remember I live in San Francisco. There are informal nude beaches. People run the Bay to Breakers nude...

But if a restaurant wants to enforce a dress code, more power to them. The religious argument in that case is stupid.
 
Everskyward said:
But if a restaurant wants to enforce a dress code, more power to them. The religious argument in that case is stupid.
Click to expand...

Why? Nature and God both sent me here naked. What if I believe that was for a purpose and holy?

What if I have an old book from a thousand years ago that says nudists back then thought so too?

You may find my nudist religion “stupid” in your eyes, but you may not discriminate against it by not selling me an apple pie to eat blissfully in my Godlike daily and always nude state I maintain to be closer to heaven.

Just like you can’t tell me I can’t wear a yarmulke into your business establishment.

It’s really too bad there’s not enough Jewish nudists with millions of dollars willing to stage protests in businesses with nothing more than said yarmulke on, and then devote their millions to screwing with our legal system when arrested.

That would be quite entertaining to watch all the rules and norms and laws implode upon itself. Would the judge make them wear suits to court?

Maybe nice powdered wigs for the barristers or hold them in contempt? :)
 
denverpilot said:
Why? Nature and God both sent me here naked. What if I believe that was for a purpose and holy?

What if I have an old book from a thousand years ago that says nudists back then thought so too?

You may find my nudist religion “stupid” in your eyes, but you may not discriminate against it by not selling me an apple pie to eat blissfully in my Godlike daily and always nude state I maintain to be closer to heaven.

Just like you can’t tell me I can’t wear a yarmulke into your business establishment.

It’s really too bad there’s not enough Jewish nudists with millions of dollars willing to stage protests in businesses with nothing more than said yarmulke on, and then devote their millions to screwing with our legal system when arrested.

That would be quite entertaining to watch all the rules and norms and laws implode upon itself. Would the judge make them wear suits to court?

Maybe nice powdered wigs for the barristers or hold them in contempt? :)
Click to expand...
Your argument falls apart when you consider that people can believe anything they want or invent. If they were able to use religion as a valid argument, we might as well not have any laws because they all could be challenged on religious grounds.
 
Everskyward said:
Your argument falls apart when you consider that people can believe anything they want or invent. If they were able to use religion as a valid argument, we might as well not have any laws because they all could be challenged on religious grounds.
Click to expand...

Religion is a protected class. Like it or not.

How do we approve specific religions for protection?
 
denverpilot said:
Religion is a protected class. Like it or not.

How do we approve specific religions for protection?
Click to expand...
Probably through the courts, but your definition is obviously a lot broader than theirs. :rofl:

You take things to the absolute extreme just for the sake of arguing. Good thing we don't have the court of Nate!
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
I think in a truly Free land businesses can do business with whoever they want to, or not
Click to expand...
Seriously. Give your cake order to someone else then who will sell it to you. Free market works. Scary world we live in.
 
Everskyward said:
Probably through the courts, but your definition is obviously a lot broader than theirs. :rofl:

You take things to the absolute extreme just for the sake of arguing. Good thing we don't have the court of Nate!
Click to expand...

It’s not just for the sake of arguing, it’s for the sake of showing what a farce it all is. Oh and you do have the court of Nate. I’ll be happy to Jury Nullify any Jury they call me for if it’s a really stupid case that nobody needed. And the one case I was called for, Ive mentioned was a capital punishment case, and I’m sure after reading what was eventually published long after I was dismissed because I had paid for airline tickets somewhere, that I’d have voted to fry the dude. Extra crispy.

Just call me “a member of the jury of your peers” if you like. LOL.

Anyway back to religion being a protected class. Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Sikhs, whatever... all “approved” religions by our courts, apparently, and protected, until one of them runs into a different protected class, and then it’s a coin toss.

And some new religion? Not approved? What if God really did reveal himself to me while I was taking a dump this morning and my new religion is the real truth? How does a Court determine that? I had a revelation while pinching a loaf, don’t’cha’know?

Why do older religions get to be called religions and not newer ones? Sounds like age discrimination to me. Haha. My brand new religion, birthed while sitting on the porcelain throne isn’t cool enough for protected status yet?

(Shall we even mention Scientology? ROFL...)

And let’s not forget Statism is a religion, too. Even has nice high priests in robes and powdered wigs. Oh wait, they got rid of the powdered wigs.

I got my taxes done. Don’t know what the point is to that mind numbing exercise other than mandatory Statist worship.

They’re spending way more than any of us are sending them money. Why bother sending it?

Sending government money they don’t need, is a worse deal than even sending Scientology a check. Scientology is less corrupt than our government, which should be utterly terrifying. They can’t authorize trillions in spending of money they don’t have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top