Trump campaign lawyer Jesse Binnall says YouTube removed his Senate hearing opening statement
"Why is Google so afraid of the truth?" Binnall tweeted.
Censored
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
That is how the left operates. Anything they don't want to hear needs to be suppressed. Why? Because they want to change the narrative, and truth has no place in their desired narrative. It's always been like that. Why? Because the devil is a liar and the father of lies. Marx was a Luciferian and had zero use for Christianity. He hated it.Trump campaign lawyer Jesse Binnall says YouTube removed his Senate hearing opening statement
"Why is Google so afraid of the truth?" Binnall tweeted.justthenews.com
A lot of people are making the move to Rumble. Personally I'd rather not go to a Canadien server but. . .
Here's an interview with Viva Frei, a Quebec lawyer I like to follow.
rumble.com
Here's an interview with Viva Frei, a Quebec lawyer I like to follow.
My Interview with Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble - Talking YouTube, Censorship, and Business
Chris Pavloski, CEO of Rumble, and I talking business, YouTube, censorship, and the future of Rumble.
This "censorship" is a problematic issue. Since the corporations involved aren't government organizations, one would like to say- it's their business what they allow or don't allow. You wouldn't want somebody from 'above' dictating what TOL will allow or not. The problem arises when the organizations become so large and in such common use that their decisions effect everybody.
Let me ask this: should Youtube or Facebook censor anything at all? Hate videos? Porn? Communist propaganda?
Let me ask this: should Youtube or Facebook censor anything at all? Hate videos? Porn? Communist propaganda?
Marx wasn't religious, and certainly not Christian. "Luciferian"?- prove it.
The problem isn't with controlling content per se, its doing so with a clear political bias that is so pronounced and obvious that no rational person could begin to deny that it exists.
Not only that but these big social media giants aren't merely controlling the content on their websites. They are making efforts to effect and mold the society into something it was never intended to be. They are, in fact, intentionally trying to move this country away from the freedoms granted us not only by the constitution but by God Himself. They fully understand the power that these websites have over how the public perceives current events and how they think about social issues and they are wielding that power with a particular intent in mind. As such the society has as much right to censor them as they have to censor content on their website. In other words, a society has an interest in making sure that no one party has an undue influence over that society. This is the United States of America, not the United States of Google. This is why monopolies ought not be permitted to persist. Monopolies, when permitted to exist for too long become too powerful and can overwhelm what this nation was founded to be, a nation of laws that are passed by elected representatives of the people. Such a nation cannot exist for long if there is not an effective outlet for dissenting points of view. When the press (not to mention the education system and pretty nearly the whole of the popular entertainment industry) becomes purveyors of propaganda rather than simple conduits for information from all points of view then self-governance becomes impossible. Hosea 4:6
As for your question, the answer would depend on many factors but the short answer is that anything that either is illegal or advocates illegal activity should be censored. The question then becomes whether such things should be legal which is an entirely different discussion.
Clete
No.
Marx wrote odes praising Lucifer and how he had made his deal with Lucifer to oppose God. You'd deny the evidence if I gave it to you so go find it yourself. It's so easy to find on the internet that I found it the first time in a matter of seconds. Less than a minute.
Marx created a religion. I've posted the evidence of this multiple times here. Max Eastman, one of Marx's greatest supporters in the early 20th century, was buddies with Lenin and given free access to Russia by Lenin during the Russian revolution, was the first editor of The Masses socialist magazine, explains it in great detail in one of his books. Go do some research.
Why should it make a difference if it is a political bias, a moral bias, or a religious bias?
Yup. His religion is based upon opposing God and destroying Christian morality.
It is not okay to be anti-American in America. That isn't okay. It's called sedition and it is not okay.
Moral bias is fine so long as your bias is in fact moral and not immoral. It is not okay to advocate the harm of others.
Religious bias is fine as well so long as that bias doesn't have as it's aim, or even it's unintended result, the infringement of the religious liberties of others. Freedom of the press is not the freedom to suppress freedom of religion. Freedom of the press is also not the freedom to suppress freedom of speech.
And therein is where the real rub is on this whole issue. Companies like Google want to be immune from any liability in connection with the things presented on their websites while at the same time having full editorial control over what is on their websites. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to editorialize and selectively sensor the content based on your own agenda then you ought to be held responsible for the content that you permit on the site.
In a proper justice system, a person that was kicked off, or shadowbanned, or demonotised, or whatever censoring they do could take YT to court for breach of contract. YT didn't, and still doesn't, say they are biased. And since money is involved with the contract that allows people to be on YT, a judge should, if we had a just system, find in favor of the content creators. Two to five times damages would be awarded to the creator, and if the judge found the situation constantly repeated he could have those responsible wipped in public. He would also expose the system to the public.
Although it would never get this far because YT does have businessmen running it despite what our current predicament would suggest.
And, BTW, this would not allow porn on YT because propagating porn would be illegal in general, no matter what any private business said. Same with death/abuse threats.
Oh, I don't know if you think there is such a thing as hate speech, but if you do could you define what it is? I've asked that a lot and have never once gotten a logical answer. I think it's because there isn't a definition, and a judge faced with a TOS that calls for a ban on "hate speech" would find in favor of the content creator because "hate speech" can't be defined and can therefore not be part of a contract.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If you drew a Venn diagram of the three, I think you would agree that there would be a great deal of overlap.
Can you describe any issue that WOULDN'T overlap?
The overlap is a problem, but even the individual biases are problematic. One person's idea of 'moral' is different than the next persons. You can swear up and down that homosexuality is immoral- but there are plenty of others who will claim it is. So who decides?
Yeah, like you said. OK says homosexuality is immoral and there are plenty of others who agree with him. Odd way to phrase it, but it's your post not mine.
The only objective standard the world has ever had of morality is that found in scripture. It's called the 10 commandments. Look at our world today and try to tell me destroying people's trust in the Bible and it's standard of morality is making the world a better and safer place. Our governments are completely corrupt. Our societies are completely corrupt. The glue that ties together successful societies like honor, duty, honesty, loyalty, decency, self-control, self-discipline, are disappearing under leftist indoctrination in the school systems.
Morality cannot be judged by individual choices of morality. All you have then is a mass of shifting sand. It's like Jesus said, build upon the rock, not the sand if you want the house of your life to stand when the stresses and storms of life hit you. If you build on the kind of sand you put forward your life will fall apart. The rock is the only solid place upon which to build. Only a fool builds their house on sand. Only the wise build their houses on solid rock.
Billions will not agree that "the only objective standard the world has ever had of morality is that found in scripture. It's called the 10 commandments." Jews will tell you that there is a lot more in the Bible besides the Ten Commandments. Also- there is nothing at all about homosexual behavior in the 10C's- so is it moral?
You want a theocracy, as long as it fits your idea of what proper religion is.
LOL. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore any sexual relations between man and man and woman and woman are immoral by definition for only inside marriage is sex not immoral.
Do you think at judgement day God will accept the argument that homosexuality is OK? Do you really think He will be convinced by the devil and his allies that good is evil and evil is good and that what He once said is an abomination He will now bless? Judgment day is coming soon. You really need to get right with God as soon as possible instead of standing in direct rebellion against Him. That leads only to your destruction. The only way to life is to follow God.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. That has nothing to do with a theocracy here and now. God has authority over everything on earth, and when sin is no more because God has destroyed it, He will rule over everything in the universe once more. It's His word that will rule, and every form of rebellion against His law will be destroyed. Your only choice and my only choice is about who we will support and follow. Follow Lucifer and his agenda and you end up being destroyed. That's the final consequence of sin. Follow God and live forever in a place where there will be no death, sorrow, sin, suffering. Be destroyed along with sin or live forever in righteousness. That's your choice.
Please pay attention to what I am saying, instead of to the voice in your head.
I did not say that homosexuality is moral. I said that some people think it is moral. And I said that it is not listed in the Ten Commandments. Both of those statements are correct.
Right Divider
Body part
God!