Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer.

It will never be the popular thing to say, or person that needs to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment, rather the Unpopular thing to say.

If you guys dont agree with either Paul Joseph Watson, or even Ron Paul on any views, watch carefully to see if their contradictory viewpoints need the Freedom of Speech protections, for if you do not, it will only be a matter of time when not only will they come after you, but no one will be left to come to your aid.
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.
 
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

The irony is that people saying this are posting on a forum that can ban you for something you say. Ask Eduard0 how that protection of speech worked out for him :)
 
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.
I think it stems from a lack of basic understanding of private property rights. It's like all those progressives up in arms about the guy that got hurt because he wouldn't get off someones property. He threw a fit and it went viral on social media, and the dumbass Americans who don't understand that they don't have a right to someone else's property even if they pay them money for it if they don't consent to sale.
 
Last edited:
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

Walled gardens.

Your own home is fine. I can fully respect that. But youtube and google are way too big. This is like saying that once something has been privatized, the constitution no longer applies. Wouldnt the constitution still apply in your own home if you chose to enforce it?

Only other option I have is to add Youtube to MSM category due to all the censorship. It just doesnt leave a lot of options for a public speaking forum.
 
Walled gardens.

Your own home is fine. I can fully respect that. But youtube and google are way too big. This is like saying that once something has been privatized, the constitution no longer applies. Wouldnt the constitution still apply in your own home if you chose to enforce it?

Only other option I have is to add Youtube to MSM category due to all the censorship. It just doesnt leave a lot of options for a public speaking forum.
I think it's silly people think that Youtube or anything was free, that they aren't the product. When everyone started adblocking what do you think the companies started doing to monetize information? I don't think the answer to this is what the alt right says it is. I don't think Google or facebook should be a utility. I think we could decentralize the internet by not making them utilities, in the age of gigabit internet do I really need a third party to host and have control over my information? If there is no better alternatives to youtube or google or facebook then we should build it, we shouldn't make them utilities.
 
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

The irony is that people saying this are posting on a forum that can ban you for something you say. Ask Eduard0 how that protection of speech worked out for him :)

I think it stems from a lack of basic understanding of private property rights. It's like all those progressives up in arms about the guy that got hurt because he wouldn't get off someones property. He threw a fit and it went viral on social media, and the dumbass Americans who don't understand that they don't have a right to someone else's property even if they pay them money for it if they don't consent to sale.

Wow, the three disinfo obfuscation amigos all right in a row.

I think we have established that the internet is not a free market and they have created monopoly enterprises that are able to largely control the flow of information. I think we have established that once the low hanging fruit are out of the way, soon talking about lower taxes, small government, non-intervention will be under attack and sites like this will get shut down. Hell, Ron Paul's youtube channel already essentially got shut down, they may not be able to get the funding to continue. That means "soon" is NOW.

The big question is, will or do any of the three of you actually care? I say "do" because it already happened. Ron Paul got demonetized on youtube. Are you really going to sit back and drink lemonade and not complain, or are you going to call out youtube and make a fuss about it, using your own free speech?

I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.
 
Last edited:
Wow, the three disinfo obfuscation amigos all right in a row.

I think we have established that the internet is not a free market and they have created monopoly enterprises that are able to largely control the flow of information. I think we have established that once the low hanging fruit are out of the way, soon talking about lower taxes, small government, non-intervention will be under attack and sites like this will get shut down. Hell, Ron Paul's youtube channel already essentially got shut down, they may not be able to get the funding to continue. That means "soon" is NOW.

The big question is, will or do any of the three of you actually care? I say "do" because it already happened. Ron Paul got demonetized on youtube. Are you really going to sit back and drink lemonade and not complain, or are you going to call out youtube and make a fuss about it, using your own free speech?

I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.
I am going to blame youtube for doing something I would do myself it if it was my website. Would you let a bunch of Trump suckers on your website if your were a liberty supporter? I know I would ban them.
 
I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.
The free market makes everything possible if there is enough demand. You need to believe in capitalism, and free market principles and technology before you even make arguments about this. The government controls the net that is because people like you are begging them to.
 
The free market makes everything possible if there is enough demand. You need to believe in capitalism, and free market principles and technology before you even make arguments about this. The government controls the net that is because people like you are begging them to.
In the Drumpf Column, free market principles are considered "disinfo." :rolleyes:
 
didn't read everything anyways YouTube is a government funded monopoly. Why not stop funding them with government money and let the free market handle everything else. More regulations isn't the answer. Its a private company.
 
didn't read everything anyways YouTube is a government funded monopoly. Why not stop funding them with government money and let the free market handle everything else. More regulations isn't the answer. Its a private company.

What? where did u read that youtube is a govt funded company? link please
 
What? where did u read that youtube is a govt funded company? link please

It doesn't look like they get any federal subsidies (not that they don't get federal funding that I don't know about); but a quick search shows that they have gotten $736,408,607 in state/local subsidies. And $63,964,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance.

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=alphabet-inc

[h=1]CIA Funding of Tech Companies[/h]http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/cia-funding-of-tech-companies.html

Government funding of companies provides a steady stream of support for tech developing innovations. One vehicle for facilitating this relationship can be found in an entity called, In-Q-Tel. IQT describes their function as:
In-Q-Tel is the independent, not-for-profit organization created to bridge the gap between the technology needs of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and emerging commercial innovation. We invest in venture-backed startups developing technologies that provide ready-soon innovation (within 36 months) vital to the IC mission. These technology startups are traditionally outside the reach of the IC; in fact, more than 70 percent of our portfolio companies have never before done business with the government.

A Fox Business article, “In-Q-Tel: A Glimpse Inside the CIA’s Venture-Capital Arm,” lists some of the companies and agencies that are involved.
Founded in 1999 as a way for the U.S. to keep up with the rapid innovation in science and technology, In-Q-Tel has been an early backer of start-ups later acquired by Google (GOOG), Oracle (ORCL), IBM (IBM) and Lockheed Martin (LMT).
While IQT originally catered largely to the needs of the CIA, today the firm supports many of the 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.
Their focus on Startups Backed By The CIA is still a prime objective.
In-Q-Tel issues a press release every time it funds a new company, but it discloses neither the amount of the investment nor the product it’s focused on. It’s believed that the relationship can lead to the development of off-market products tailored specifically for the CIA. A spokesman for one company funded by In-Q-Tel told Forbes that their investment was focused on a specific project with a yearlong deadline, declining to provide further details.
In keeping with the corporatocracy economy, government direct funding or indirect assistance has become the model for startups to chase. Whatever happened to the capitalist formula of raising money from private sector investors for an equity interest in a venture?

The rules of the playfield seem to be very different when the end-user and customer for the technology is some government agency. Examine the case experiences described in “25 Cutting Edge Firms Funded By The CIA.”
It’s no secret the Central Intelligence Agency has an investment firm that funds startups that could have a big impact for the Agency.
If there is a company out there doing intelligence research, it’s likely that, the CIA’s personal investor, either looked them up or made a check out to them.
It’s all to ensure that the Agency remains on the forefront of tech. Not long ago, In-Q-Tel invested heavily in a company called Keyhole. Never heard of them? Maybe you know their work, a little project eventually known as Google Earth.
So, want to know what’s next for technology? Keep an eye on these 25 companies.
Note the acknowledgement that the AGENCY maintains an investment stake in companies. Guess the keyhole into the world of high-tech dominance has a code to unlock the fruits of the applications residing in Langley, VA.
An important analysis of “How the CIA made Google” is a prime source of documentation.
In 1994 — the same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA — two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
With the revelation of the role that the Highlands Forum has in the process of development, it would be important to research their activities. However, that proves difficult, since a login account is required, and no way of registering to access is available. So look at the info on the Highlands Group, for publicly disclosed information on the organization.

More at: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/cia-funding-of-tech-companies.html
 
So, how big does my house have to be before my property rights cease?

I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.
 
I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.

Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.
 
I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.

Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again."
#imssrabgitya
 
Last edited:
Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.

Lets try to get to the root of the problem here. What we are ending up with appears to be a Conflict of Rights. And not trying to pick a side, but either way, it appears to me to be a lose / lose situation.

Situation #1 - Free Speech wins. Problem here as is pointed out, is end of Property Rights. A person can say what ever they want, but when things are said that are in disagreement of the property owner, the property owners Rights are violated, but Free Speech is not. If Free Speech wins, then Private Property Rights lose.

Situation #2 - Property Rights wins. Problem here is the opposite, but there still exists a problem. A person has legitimate jurisdiction over who they allow to come on to their property as well as authority over behavior of people while they are on their property. Trouble here is that even if what is being said is factual and legitimate, those people do not have a Right to Free Speech while on that persons property. This also makes sense as people have equal rights, which means one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. If Private Property Rights win, then Free Speech loses.

I think this is the source of the conflict. Personally, what I would like to do is to find a reasonable balance between the two. And lets be real here. We arent talking about one persons home. What we are talking about is trying to have a discussion where the topics being discussed are controversial and are being censored by a new form of MSM, where only supporting arguments for elimination of ALL Rights of others are being systematically eliminated. They dont fight us, they get us to fight amongst ourselves. When that happens, they clamour for new regulations to be enforced and will benefit by being the enforcers. We absolutely need both Private Property Rights as well as Free Speech Rights, and as we continue to debate which one should win, they BOTH lose. Eventually, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and others continue to completely take over the entire internet, we will have NO place to speak freely and our own Private Property Rights will be subject to their approval, and when in conflict, taken away from us both.
 
Lets try to get to the root of the problem here. What we are ending up with appears to be a Conflict of Rights. And not trying to pick a side, but either way, it appears to me to be a lose / lose situation.

Situation #1 - Free Speech wins. Problem here as is pointed out, is end of Property Rights. A person can say what ever they want, but when things are said that are in disagreement of the property owner, the property owners Rights are violated, but Free Speech is not. If Free Speech wins, then Private Property Rights lose.

Situation #2 - Property Rights wins. Problem here is the opposite, but there still exists a problem. A person has legitimate jurisdiction over who they allow to come on to their property as well as authority over behavior of people while they are on their property. Trouble here is that even if what is being said is factual and legitimate, those people do not have a Right to Free Speech while on that persons property. This also makes sense as people have equal rights, which means one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. If Private Property Rights win, then Free Speech loses.

I think this is the source of the conflict. Personally, what I would like to do is to find a reasonable balance between the two. And lets be real here. We arent talking about one persons home. What we are talking about is trying to have a discussion where the topics being discussed are controversial and are being censored by a new form of MSM, where only supporting arguments for elimination of ALL Rights of others are being systematically eliminated. They dont fight us, they get us to fight amongst ourselves. When that happens, they clamour for new regulations to be enforced and will benefit by being the enforcers. We absolutely need both Private Property Rights as well as Free Speech Rights, and as we continue to debate which one should win, they BOTH lose. Eventually, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and others continue to completely take over the entire internet, we will have NO place to speak freely and our own Private Property Rights will be subject to their approval, and when in conflict, taken away from us both.

It's not about property rights versus free speech. You don't have a right to someone else's money in a business transaction that they don't consent to. I can't buy your property if you don't want to sell it to me. Youtube is trying to be a video provider now, they are trying to use all of their credibility and fame to become a premium video service. This is like netflix sueing comcast for not letting them put a netflix channel on their channel lineup.
 
It's not about property rights versus free speech. You don't have a right to someone else's money in a business transaction that they don't consent to. I can't buy your property if you don't want to sell it to me. Youtube is trying to be a video provider now, they are trying to use all of their credibility and fame to become a premium video service. This is like netflix sueing comcast for not letting them put a netflix channel on their channel lineup.

You guys are looking at the stuff being censored, right? Ron Paul himself is on the chopping block. Im not saying that Ron Paul deserves to make money from the videos that conflict with advertiser interests. But when you look at what is being said, I dont think most of us here disagree with what Ron Paul has to say. I dont think what he says is controversial at all, rather Common Sense. And THAT is what is being put on the chopping block. So, lets say Google and Ron Paul do not agree. Where else is Ron Paul gonna go that will communicate his message? And perhaps youre right, perhaps it is more so Rights of a Person vs Rights of a Corporation.
 
Back
Top