YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate

McDonald's does not sell steak.
And the health and liability concerns caused the lack of medium rare steaks sold by food services.

 

So you agree that all government regulations against private companies should be eliminated, as should all anti trust laws against private companies - correct?

 

You said that.

 

A company who makes money off the work of others and then craps on them. But yea. Competitors will arise to fill in the voids that youtube creates.

 

no more then regulation against the way we drive, ect....

we are a nation of laws, and yes, corps have to follow them too

 

Many are working with pornhub which will gun video seekers far more options.

 

Those are different kind of guns. Those give life instead of take them away.

 

And the greatest gift of all, Sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV / AIDS !
The life giving properties, No wait !
HIV / AIDS is a fatal disease, if not treated.

 

Shooting people with those deadly bullets is only legal in California. Hopefully a person discloses the risk and mitigates it as much as possible.

 

https://thenextweb.com/google/2018/03/21/youtube-banning-gun-videos-now-theyre-reappearing-pornhub/

 

Having done clinicals in AIDS care facilities, that was not often, even ever the case.
Unprotected sex, no testing, multiple partners, high risk behaviour.

 

I forget people do that... I am starting to think Im Amish or something.

 

yes, but a restaurant has much more regulation about who they can reject, than a website.

thats cause a restaurant is a public accomodation while a website is not.

 

now, can a website that sells food refuse to sell food to customers with a Muslim or Jewish name? thats a fascinating question that the courts will someday work on

 

No, that would be discriminatory.

 

a case could be made that Whole Foods' website can discriminate against Muslims but their physical store cannot.

 

I disagree that your definition is consistent with the legal definition of 'public accommodation'.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-accommodation/

 

No, it cannot.
It is not lawful for a ( U.S. based ) website to discriminate against people's Race, Religion, Age, Gender, L.G. etc... Or practice Racism or Bigotry in any way shape or form.

 

when has a website ever been sued for discrimination?

 

How does the website know you are black? Do they require selfies?

 

stereotypical names can be used to identify Jews, blacks, Asians, Muslims, Irish, Italians, etc

 

Well in any case neither the viewers nor the vlogers are the customers on regular youtube. The advertisers are the customers since they are paying and the viewers are the product. Red tube is different because the viewers pay a subscription.

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how crushing other people's First Amendment rights equates to exercising their First Amendment Rights.....

 

Youtube is a private company, and they have the right to emphasize any political agenda they like on their website.

if they want to ban pro-abortion videos, its their right.

 

...And I have the right to not do business with them and to advocate anyone who respects the Constitution to do the same.