This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[PRB]

He opposed the state and also copyright protection, yet he uses DMCA to silence critics and trolls. This is different than reporting spam and harassment, it's deliberately using a fraudulent means of removing a person's videos knowing it didn't even violate copyright (which he doesn't believe in anyway).

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...copyright-abuses-dmca-to-silence-critic.shtml

now he's being sued for it, luckily for him, he doesn't live in the US.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...alist-stefan-molyneux-sued-abusing-dmca.shtml

Does this type of "libertarian using the state" sound familiar to anybody at all?

 

[dannno]

Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

 

[PRB]

Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

that would still be DMCA abuse, DMCA is not for anything that's not copyright

 

[dannno]

that would still be DMCA abuse, DMCA is not for anything that's not copyright

But the case that is being made by the author and others is that he is issuing notices to censor them for their opinion.

Do you know what that makes them? Dishonest pricks.

On top of stalking callers on his show, which is really fucked up because who is going to want to call into Stephan's show when they know people are going to start stalking them and releasing private information about them on youtube? On top of that, this person is making an intellectually dishonest case to try and attack him and his beliefs.

Whoever this guy is sounds like a complete scumbag.

 

[PRB]

But the case that is being made by the author and others is that he is issuing notices to censor them for their opinion.

And I am willing to concede that may be wrong, however, DMCA abuse is anything that isn't copyright, including privacy. So if Stefan admitted to using DMCA takedown notices for ANYTHING other than copyright, he's guilty: abuse of DMCA law and fraud/perjury.

If we assume Stefan tells the truth, that he was protecting private information, how does HE believe it should be properly done? Short of using force and using copyright protection?

Do you know what that makes them? Dishonest pricks.

On top of stalking callers on his show, which is really fucked up because who is going to want to call into Stephan's show when they know people are going to start stalking them and releasing private information about them on youtube?

Stalking may be fucked up, but it's not illegal (or at least shouldn't be) until harm is done, go ahead and cite me those cyberstalking laws, you freaking Fascist!

How lovely to see that ancaps and libertarians want to justify use of force when it suits their own agenda?

On top of that, this person is making an intellectually dishonest case to try and attack him and his beliefs.

Whoever this guy is sounds like a complete scumbag.

He may be a scumbag and a liar, but he's not a criminal. Lying isn't illegal. Of all people Stefan and his supporters should know this.

 

[idiom]

Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.

Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.

Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

He is the epitome of the worldview that the problem with 'states' or state-like entities isn't coercion or injustice, but taxes. Take away taxes and everything is skittles and unicorns.

 

[PRB]

Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.

What about fraud or scamming?

Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.

If you disavow copyright, you can't use it, PERIOD.

Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

Private defenders against privacy!!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

 

[LibForestPaul]

I am anarcho capitalist. If I can get free benies from the state, I am taking it. Don't give a damn.
So he could be a libertarian, who just doesn't give a damn.

 

[PRB]

I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

Oh, there's a difference. Currently there is no legal choice BUT to use public roads, and he'll probably admit it'll take a while before private roads are a reality, much less norm.

However, as an ancap and a person who claims he's opposed to copyright protection, he has to first explain how he'd protect private information, then explain why he used a fraudulent means of protecting when he knows there's legal and private means available.

 

[idiom]

Oh, there's a difference. Currently there is no legal choice BUT to use public roads, and he'll probably admit it'll take a while before private roads are a reality, much less norm.

However, as an ancap and a person who claims he's opposed to copyright protection, he has to first explain how he'd protect private information, then explain why he used a fraudulent means of protecting when he knows there's legal and private means available.

Private roads are an option in Australia. I opt out of them for privacy reasons, I don't like have the precise time I enter and exit a motorway logged and/or fined and stored in databases that are seriously insecure.

If you want privacy and/or freedom in travel that largely requires using public roads.

 

[dannno]

Private roads are an option in Australia. I opt out of them for privacy reasons, I don't like have the precise time I enter and exit a motorway logged and/or fined and stored in databases that are seriously insecure.

If you want privacy and/or freedom in travel that largely requires using public roads.

Sounds like somebody in Australia needs to build some pro-privacy private roads.

 

[PRB]

Sounds like somebody in Australia needs to build some pro-privacy private roads.

but there's no market for that, surprised?

 

[juleswin]

Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.

Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g

Personally, my best video of em all is this.



As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

 

[jmdrake]

Stephan had videos taken down where private information was being released about people who were calling into his show.

He wasn't doing it to censor is critics, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... do you have any idea how many critics he has had over the years?

Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I bet he even uses public roads!!! HYPOCRITE!!

:roll:

Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

That's misrepresenting what his opinion is. He uses too much psycho-babble for my taste, but he does say that parents have a certain amount of responsibility and authority over their kids when the subject comes up.

 

[juleswin]

Molyneux also said Eric Garner wasn't a victimless criminal, which is the last straw for me. I agree using public roads isn't hypocritical, nor is using government IN ALL CASES, but I think Molyneux is kind of goofy. I'm not saying he's all bad, but he's definitely not the best guy on the libertarian team.

Oh, and I don't really go for "peaceful parenting." Unlike the State, parents actually do have God-given POSITIVELY ORDAINED authority.

Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.



I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Your information isn't property, ergo nothing anyone does with it can violate the NAP.

Stalking, blackmail, slander, libel, they aren't force or coercion under the NAP.

Considering that such things can literally destroy/ruin a person's entire life; I could not possibly disagree more. Blackmail is more aggressive and harmful than a punch to the face. This position seems fit only for irrational beings who are not affected by reason. Rational beings ARE affected by reason, and information can be used to kill. I find the very notion that blackmail and slander are not aggression, absurd on it's face, and I cannot fathom how any rational person would agree with such a thing.

Even using the DCMA to enforce copyright is a wee bit of a stretch for persons who disavow copyright.

Stefan is a guy whose ideal world involve blackboxes in every vehicle transmitting non-stop to insurance/marketing companies, and $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to private defence organisations.

He is the epitome of the worldview that the problem with 'states' or state-like entities isn't coercion or injustice, but taxes. Take away taxes and everything is skittles and unicorns.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's misrepresenting what his opinion is. He uses too much psycho-babble for my taste, but he does say that parents have a certain amount of responsibility and authority over their kids when the subject comes up.

I would say that that authority includes a right to spank, regardless of whether that's a good parenting choice or not.

Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.



I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

I wouldn't put him in the same category as Hitler (lol) but we agree that his reasoning there was really freaking stupid. I honestly think I'm more intelligent than he is.

Considering that such things can literally destroy/ruin a person's entire life; I could not possibly disagree more. Blackmail is more aggressive and harmful than a punch to the face. This position seems fit only for irrational beings who are not affected by reason. Rational beings ARE affected by reason, and information can be used to kill. I find the very notion that blackmail and slander are not aggression, absurd on it's face, and I cannot fathom how any rational person would agree with such a thing.

Walter Block explains it really well.