3 ms·
>Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to con
by redog 7y ago
>Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right.
Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to connect between the two. You have no right to my property and all the right to say what the hell you like. Just because I offer my property as a place to speak doesn't mean I have to offer my property without restrictions, how about bearing arms? Why then could a church or school prevent my being armed?
If an individual can change the terms of our property use agreement by saying anything he wants on my property when I object then cannot I change terms by kicking him and his "publication/broadcast" off of my property? Seems a pretty straight forward contract dispute to me. You may enjoy your rights on your property.
- ameister14 7y agoI'd agree with you if Youtube was classified as a publisher, with all the restrictions that entails. They are not.
- redog 7y agoWhat makes them not a "publisher"? A publisher is a person or company that prepares and issues books, journals, music, or other works. Their site literally prepares recordings and streams for issue over the public(?) network.