quote:

YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, and the video site has long courted controversy over its handling of content centered on guns and other weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
In his book Dangerous Milo Yiannopoulos suggested attacking these left-wing, anti-gun media behemoths using class action suits for their active suppression of conservative views.

The premise for going after Youtube as a class action brought by firearms enthusiasts has as its basis three key points:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is an acknowledged CIVIL RIGHT, one explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. This is a key element of the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald.

2. Youtube's denial of equal, non-discriminatory, uncensored, and unfettered access is interference with the exercise of CIVIL RIGHTS of millions of law-abiding firearms enthusiasts.

3. Multiple courts held that the state can fine and/or force a baker who has religious objections to homosexuality to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple. The reasoning is this was unacceptable interference with the couples' civil rights (a right not enumerated in the Constitution). The same then can be the basis for a class action lawsuit to require Youtube to host video content on firearms topics. Here the case is interference with an enumerated individual right, one applied to the states via the 14th amendment.

All we need is a wealthy patron to bankroll this suit, Alan Gura and crew to represent the class members, and a willingness to use scorched earth tactics.

quote:

Isn’t YouTube a privately owned/operated entity?

Does YouTube receive any federal or state (taxpayer) funding?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
In his book Dangerous Milo Yiannopoulos suggested attacking these left-wing, anti-gun media behemoths using class action suits for their active suppression of conservative views.

The premise for going after Youtube as a class action brought by firearms enthusiasts has as its basis three key points:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is an acknowledged CIVIL RIGHT, one explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. This is a key element of the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald.

2. Youtube's denial of equal, non-discriminatory, uncensored, and unfettered access is interference with the exercise of CIVIL RIGHTS of millions of law-abiding firearms enthusiasts.

3. Multiple courts held that the state can fine and/or force a baker who has religious objections to homosexuality to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple. The reasoning is this was unacceptable interference with the couples' civil rights (a right not enumerated in the Constitution). The same then can be the basis for a class action lawsuit to require Youtube to host video content on firearms topics. Here the case is interference with an enumerated individual right, one applied to the states via the 14th amendment.

All we need is a wealthy patron to bankroll this suit, Alan Gura and crew to represent the class members, and a willingness to use scorched earth tactics.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Why is it that the fucking commies are in control of ALL OUR FUCKING MEDIA!!!!!!?????

quote:

Originally posted by dedguy:
Just read the article. In Range TV now has videos on Pornhub. So I checked it out and they do have videos there.

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:
I used r/gundeals ALL of the time. If they don't change policy and unban that sub, Ill delete my account. The platform is already overwrought with liberal BS on every single post.