4 ms·

"The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

by Steko 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago
I am saying that the White House tried to interfere with someone's 1st Amendment rights which is not in keeping with the oath to the defend the US Constitution.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall pass no law..." How did the White House try to interfere with anyone's 1st amendment rights? Did the White House encourage Congress to pass a law banning the movie? No? In that case they didn't do anything against their oath. "1st amendment rights" do not mean what you think they mean.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    This is deflective. You can interfere with free speech by the way laws are enforced, which is the role of the Executive. You can also create a hostile, retaliatory regulatory environment, or etc. So, while this point of protocol is apprexiatied its neither full enough nor central enough to the actual situation to be an effective argument.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      001sky is right and to go further, having the White House ask you publicly to do something is very much an intimidation particularly when they can make the operation of your business difficult if you refuse.
- pyoung 14y ago
  They asked Google to check if the video violated YT's terms of service. That is much different than what you are insinuating.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    No it isn't any different. It is very much like someone coming to your business and saying "Nice business you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it..." When it comes to the 1st amendment, Congress "shall pass no law" and the White House is the enforcement branch. They should, under no circumstances, say anything that could lead to censorship of something that isn't against the law. Also, I'm not "insinuating" anything, I am directly saying it.
- azakai 14y ago
  There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, YouTube itself. YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?
    - azakai 14y ago
      If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        001sky 14y ago
        And...look at this, what 48 hours later? "One of the men behind an anti-Muslim film was taken in for questioning by federal probation authorities." -- New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linked-to-film-in-protests-is-questioned.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linke...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

"The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

by Steko 14y ago

"The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

I am saying that the White House tried to interfere with someone's 1st Amendment rights which is not in keeping with the oath to the defend the US Constitution.

rayiner 14y ago
The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall pass no law..." How did the White House try to interfere with anyone's 1st amendment rights? Did the White House encourage Congress to pass a law banning the movie? No? In that case they didn't do anything against their oath. "1st amendment rights" do not mean what you think they mean.
- 001sky 14y ago
  This is deflective. You can interfere with free speech by the way laws are enforced, which is the role of the Executive. You can also create a hostile, retaliatory regulatory environment, or etc. So, while this point of protocol is apprexiatied its neither full enough nor central enough to the actual situation to be an effective argument.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    001sky is right and to go further, having the White House ask you publicly to do something is very much an intimidation particularly when they can make the operation of your business difficult if you refuse.
pyoung 14y ago
They asked Google to check if the video violated YT's terms of service. That is much different than what you are insinuating.
- protomyth 14y ago
  No it isn't any different. It is very much like someone coming to your business and saying "Nice business you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it..." When it comes to the 1st amendment, Congress "shall pass no law" and the White House is the enforcement branch. They should, under no circumstances, say anything that could lead to censorship of something that isn't against the law. Also, I'm not "insinuating" anything, I am directly saying it.
azakai 14y ago
There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, YouTube itself. YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom.
- 001sky 14y ago
  You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?
  - azakai 14y ago
    If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - 001sky 14y ago
        And...look at this, what 48 hours later? "One of the men behind an anti-Muslim film was taken in for questioning by federal probation authorities." -- New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linked-to-film-in-protests-is-questioned.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linke...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]