Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You do realize that the first amendment only prevents the government from infringing on your rights correct?
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.
Hell, I'm a liberal, and even I believe that the court should rule in favor of the baker on that one.
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.
Unless it was government mandated.It is not.
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?
Now for the real important stuff, is Nerf still allowed??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.
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.
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.
One that actually supports free speech and doesn't content filter based on user complaints.
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.Wait what? Gun assembly videos are actually quite useful and INCREASE safety. How stupid.
Just like their guidelines...it all depends on your interpretation.Is it something the government is forcing people/companies to do, or is it a choice being made by said people/companies?
One that actually supports free speech and doesn't content filter based on user complaints.
A platform where anyone can say and do anything sounds like a great idea. Until it's not.
With the 2nd Amendment gone or neutered, you will have a difficult time defending the 1st.Please explain how this is a First Amendment issue.
With the 2nd Amendment gone or neutered, you will have a difficult time defending the 1st.
A platform where anyone can say and do anything sounds like a great idea. Until it's not.
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.
It is great. It's called imageboards.A platform where anyone can say and do anything sounds like a great idea. Until it's not.
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/
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.
Please explain how this is a First Amendment issue.
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.
If your ISP decided to prevent you from posting or reading about certain, legal topics online, is that still not a 1st Amendment issue?
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 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..."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'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.
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.
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?
Yes, the first amendment is phrased as such: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.