YouTube and Reddit Banning Firearms Related Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
You don't seem to understand the first amendment very well.

You are very much free to discuss these things, and according to the first amendment the government cannot prevent you from doing so.

There is - however - nothing in the first amendment that guarantees you the ability to do so using a private entity's service.

Private entities are free to moderate what they do and don't want on their sites. If that weren't the case, Kyle could never delete any spam or asshat posts here on the hardforums.

Say whatever you please, but do so on your own site.

I would add that it's true a private entity can restrict however when they are in a dominant monopolistic position, infringing of rights does come into play. Youtube needs to be broken up. And reddit "the bastion of free speach" is full of utter crap.
 
If private companies like Reddit and Youtube are this concerned about these informative videos that help people to know how to use firearms in a correct way, then maybe they should be also concerned about clips that depicts use of firearms in video games? Don't I see some kind of hyprocrsy in their thinking?

I'm less concerned in the why Youtube thought it was ok to ban certain videos based on their political position, and more concerned they thought banning videos they do not like was an acceptable action to be taken at all.

I don't know enough about Reddit or the gun sales subreddit to comment on. I would posit that facilitating personal gun sales is little more controversial than promoting sales through federally licensed firearm dealers.
 
I'm less concerned in the why Youtube thought it was ok to ban certain videos based on their political position, and more concerned they thought banning videos they do not like was an acceptable action to be taken at all.

I don't know enough about Reddit or the gun sales subreddit to comment on. I would posit that facilitating personal gun sales is little more controversial than promoting sales through federally licensed firearm dealers.

You actually said it better than I did. That is what I was meaning to say. Yet, there are many other videos that can depict same thing and they get to like them. Now, for these private company, their platform is no longer neutral one. Their agendas become more clear.
 
I agree that is a problem, but it's unclear to me how that problem might be addressed in the case of private companies, who, for better or worse, have no duty to be fair.


Perhaps that could be addressed as a breach of contract?


A normal private company wouldn't have a problem. A private company thats CEOs, public messaging and marketing purports itself as a supporter of free speech could have a legal problem if they don't actually support it and actively suppress contentious or unpopular content that is legal. Especially one that has the influence to swing an election based on how it manipulates messaging to its users.

I don't want to see social media regulated. I hope a viable alternative takes off. One that actually supports free speech and doesn't content filter based on user complaints.
 
Reddit also grouped Airsoft into actual firearms as well. Completely removed the subreddit for buying used airsoft guns and so far the other subreddits for Airsoft are still up. Guess they don't like people selling anything that looks scary now.
Now for the real important stuff, is Nerf still allowed??
 
I would add that it's true a private entity can restrict however when they are in a dominant monopolistic position, infringing of rights does come into play. Youtube needs to be broken up. And reddit "the bastion of free speach" is full of utter crap.

The problem is that when these "entities" are some of the largest corporations on planet earth that control a very large portion of what people see online ... I think we're starting to blur the line here of what constitutes our freedoms. With much smaller companies I can agree with you ... but we're not talking about a small company here. This company also has their OS running on hundreds of millions of devices throughout the world. They are very much embedded in everything we do. "Google it" is a common phrase now for simply searching for something online. They're taking over what we see and hear ... much like Facebook ... and these mega companies are picking and choosing what we can do online. This is very much beginning to infringe upon our rights as these gigantic companies continue to grow. I'm sure you can at least see the problem here. It's getting worse, not better. Whether it constitutes what the centuries old amendment states really isn't the point here. It's an issue that isn't going to go away. Private entity or not, these companies have far too much power and they are abusing it. Our freedom to express ourselves in the US is getting chipped away every day ... and we're allowing it to happen. Looking the other way because it's not personally affecting you right now is only going to make it worse.


I see your point, and I agree that this has the potential to become a real problem, but it is not one that is covered by the first amendment.

The exact text of the amendment is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


So, all it says is that congress shall make no law restricting the speech (and other things), and in this case, Congress isn't doing that.

It would seem additional legislation over and beyond what the first amendment guarantees would be necessary in order to protect speech on 3rd party sites. Maybe classifying them as public utilities would give government the power needed to enforce this?

That being said its also problematic, because if you do so, you may be forcing someone to carry content they find objectionable, which violates a whole other section of peoples rights, and usually isn't considered OK, unless you are dealing with a protected class of people who are being discriminated against.

The legal implications here are significant, and any action here would likely wind up with the supreme court one way or another to be decided by people way more knowledgeable of constitutional law than me, your humble forum arguing engineer.
 
Wait what? Gun assembly videos are actually quite useful and INCREASE safety. How stupid.
The key problem is that they don't know (or intentionally fail to differentiate) the difference between assembly and manufacture. The only manufacture of firearms I see is completing 80% lowers and frames.
Is it something the government is forcing people/companies to do, or is it a choice being made by said people/companies?
Just like their guidelines...it all depends on your interpretation.
 
With the 2nd Amendment gone or neutered, you will have a difficult time defending the 1st.

This is the kind of thing that sounds great in a historical context but in this day and age if someone says they're going to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and fight YouTube, well, what?
 
First it was banning ads of crypto. And I said that sets a bad precedent. Now we're banning gun stuff. You see where this going.
Youtube, twitter, facebook, etc. Have so many users, that when they ban something. Its just as bad as if the govt banned it them selves.
 
Well what about all the shows that are on youtube tv that have guns... lots of cop shows on tv these days
 
A platform where anyone can say and do anything sounds like a great idea. Until it's not.

YouTube isn't like this yet though.

man_file_1053469_MENS_Frozen_01_clockwork-orange_Photofest_clockwork_fr_1920b.jpg
 
First it was banning ads of crypto. And I said that sets a bad precedent. Now we're banning gun stuff. You see where this going.
Youtube, twitter, facebook, etc. Have so many users, that when they ban something. Its just as bad as if the govt banned it them selves.

But the size of these companies also increases their liability and exposure when stuff goes south. This isn't a zero sum game.
 
Reddit banned /r/gundeals which had like 120,000 subscribers. All it was for was links to buy firearms/accessories/ammunition from legit dealers. It did not go against there content policies. The admins simply do not like guns and want them removed from the site.
https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/

No, they banned any subreddits that conducted SALES of items like firearms/alcohol/etc. because they are unable to police that shit and make sure things are sold legitimately.

Whether or not you agree with their actions, saying they just "banned guns" is a huge misrepresentation of what happened.
 
Just thinking, is the violation of the first amendment by proxy? Government makes liability so companies have to fear free speech and thus restrict it....
 
I'm guessing they are worried about liability.

Because, if they are trying to appease people politically, they have nothing to gain from this move. Thrill some in favor of gun control, but piss off some on the other side of the issue.

There are laws on the books protecting gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits, but no such laws when it comes to websites.

Picture this. Some kid buys an AR-15 kit from 80% Arms, and follows the video on youtube to properly assemble it into good working order. The kid can do this without ID or background checks because these are technically not working firearms.

Now said kid proceeds to shoot up his school. After the shooting police search his computer or phone and in his browsing history find visits to assembly instructions on youtube.

Who do you think the parents of victims are going to sue? The little 80% Arms company, or the multi billion dollar internet giant?

Looks like classic CYA to me.

Sorry, can't be done. The kit may not be defined as a "working firearm", but there is one key piece of an AR-15 that is considered a firearm and can't be sold without a background check.

Stop the false information. Know the truth.
 
Please explain how this is a First Amendment issue.

Because public speech is a first amendment issue. And the internet is essentially the place where the bulk of public speech takes place. It is also, more than likely, to be determined to be a place of public accommodation, albeit a virtual place. That argument about "it isn't censorship if it isn't the government doing it" is a load of bullshit spewed by people who don't understand the history of the law.

Granted, this is all at the edges of the first amendment and it's protections, but it is an area worthy of debate, especially because of the scale of the entities involved. This is where you get into the notion of the internet being a utility and FCC regulation and such. It's not clearly a first amendment issue, but it's also not NOT a first amendment issue. It can be argued either way, and we all really have a vested interest in how that pans out.
 
There's an attack on free speech in this country. People are being forbidden from discussing certain topics when other people or groups don't like what's being talked about.

People who do not understand the Constitution are the problem. That includes the 1st and 2nd Amendment. You really should read up on it as you will be at a huge disadvantage otherwise. I think people have pointed your HUGE error with regard to the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Also read the Federalist Papers to understand the 2nd Amendment.
 
If your ISP decided to prevent you from posting or reading about certain, legal topics online, is that still not a 1st Amendment issue?

What part of GOVERNMENT do you not understand? Is your ISP run by the government? No? Then they are NOT restrained by the First Amendment.

This thread makes me sad. What are schools teaching?
 
Sorry, can't be done. The kit may not be defined as a "working firearm", but there is one key piece of an AR-15 that is considered a firearm and can't be sold without a background check.

Stop the false information. Know the truth.


I'm by no means an expert, and I've never tried this, but a guy at work who hunts a lot was telling me how you could buy a fixture and some sort of blanks from them and create all the relevant parts yourself using just a regular drill, thus bypassing background checks.

Once you did, you'd still be legally required to register it, I presume, but you'd still have a working firearm in your hands without having to have gone through the background checks.

I have nothing to base this on other than his assertions, as I do not know enough about the innards of the AR15 to make heads or tails of the stuff I am seeing on that 80% Arms site, but he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to firearms, and seemed pretty certain this workaround was real.
 
No, they banned any subreddits that conducted SALES of items like firearms/alcohol/etc. because they are unable to police that shit and make sure things are sold legitimately.

Whether or not you agree with their actions, saying they just "banned guns" is a huge misrepresentation of what happened.
I think the banning of gundeals provided an interesting take on their own policy. "...may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services..."

That's a broad use of the word solicit. I feel they could have rephrased that to clarify they also ban any info or link to external transactions/gifts of these goods/services.
 
I'm by no means an expert, and I've never tried this, but a guy at work who hunts a lot was telling me how you could buy a fixture and some sort of blanks from them and create all the relevant parts yourself using just a regular drill, thus bypassing background checks.

Once you did, you'd still be legally required to register it, I presume, but you'd still have a working firearm in your hands without having to have gone through the background checks.

I have nothing to base this on other than his assertions, as I do not know enough about the innards of the AR15 to make heads or tails of the stuff I am seeing on that 80% Arms site, but he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to firearms, and seemed pretty certain this workaround was real.

Can be done, yes, and as soon as it is caught, the person can, and probably will, be prosecuted for manufacturing firearms without a permit, which is a sentence of 20-40 years in federal prison.

A semi-talented machine smith can manufacturer an AR upper receiver in a matter of half an hour from a block of aluminum, too. There is no avoid this aspect, with any gun. With a CnC machine, I could make an entire custom firearm. With simply a metal pipe and a pin, anyone with average intelligence could make a .22 firearm that would shoot. (A pop-gun) The same laws apply, though. Manufacturing a firearm without a license is a federally mandated minimum of 20 years in prison. If found to be done to specifically avoid background checks, it can be considered "egregious" and could end up with a sentence of up to 40 years.
 
Because public speech is a first amendment issue. And the internet is essentially the place where the bulk of public speech takes place. It is also, more than likely, to be determined to be a place of public accommodation, albeit a virtual place. That argument about "it isn't censorship if it isn't the government doing it" is a load of bullshit spewed by people who don't understand the history of the law.

Granted, this is all at the edges of the first amendment and it's protections, but it is an area worthy of debate, especially because of the scale of the entities involved. This is where you get into the notion of the internet being a utility and FCC regulation and such. It's not clearly a first amendment issue, but it's also not NOT a first amendment issue. It can be argued either way, and we all really have a vested interest in how that pans out.

Wrong. The GOVERNMENT is NOT abridging your speech. Case law is pretty clear. ONLY when a private entity is acting as an AGENT of government can the First Amendment apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
This is just yet another brick in the wall of the media agenda. Propaganda at its finest, everyone talks about North Korea being suppressed. This country is well down the road into the same thing, our freedom has eroded so far from where we once were. It must suck for those who live in fear every single day......
 
You Tube can ban you from posting ANY thing for ANY reason and you have NO recourse under the First Amendment. Period. Not even debatable. Disagree. Try posting, see it taken down,and then sue. Let's see how far you get.
 
What part of GOVERNMENT do you not understand? Is your ISP run by the government? No? Then they are NOT restrained by the First Amendment.

This thread makes me sad. What are schools teaching?

The government provides certain liability protections to large social media websites under the CDA on conditions they don't start censoring stuff.
 
Wrong. The GOVERNMENT is NOT abridging your speech. Case law is pretty clear. ONLY when a private entity is acting as an AGENT of government can the First Amendment apply.
Yes, the first amendment is phrased as such:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It applies only to Congress and the Federal government, and the agencies of that government. It does no apply to private groups, companies, or persons. It technically doesn't even apply to state governments, as phrased, but case law has expanded that to include state governments.

It's funny, too, all the amendments except the second in the first ten apply directly to the Federal government, and are only extended to state governments through case law over the next 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution. Yet, the second amendment is specifically stated "shall not be abridged", as if to state that it applies to ALL entities, including state, local, and even private parties. Technically, ALL the "gun free" zones are in violation of the second amendment, no matter if they are a matter of private property or not. It is simply that the right to bear arms "shall not be abridged".
 
Well, that's silly, and overkill. The VAST majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Gun-related vids can be very instructive, reading subreddits about guns, ditto. This is not the problem, and it won't amount to anything but the smallest of speed bumps for mentally sick people from planning their shooting sprees.
 
1st Amendment issue or not, free speech must be absolute or else there is no free speech. When private entities control all the speech platforms, what difference does it make whether or not the government is involved?

Besides that point, this was a gross overreaction to the recent passing of the FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act). Left-leaning organizations such as these just probably took the opportunity to lump firearms with their actions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top