Covideos

[SGO]

Dr Vernon Coleman | Brand New Tube

These had been deleted from youtube.

 

[Baptist Believer]

These had been deleted from youtube.

For good reason.

I am embarrassed that Baptist Board has become a hotbed of anti-vax, anti-fact, anti-compassion nonsense.

 

[Roy]

For good reason.

I am embarrassed that Baptist Board has become a hotbed of anti-vax, anti-fact, anti-compassion nonsense.

I wonder if Hank Aaron and Marvin Hagler would still be living had they read some of these posts?

 

[JonC]

We just have to remind people that Vernon Coleman also claimed AIDS was a hoax and never existed. Later he claimed AIDS cannot be transmitted sexually between heterosexual.

He is a discredited nut.

 

[Aaron]

For good reason.

I am embarrassed that Baptist Board has become a hotbed of anti-vax, anti-fact, anti-compassion nonsense.

I'm embarrassed that you're a Baptist.

 

[Aaron]

We just have to remind people that Vernon Coleman also claimed AIDS was a hoax and never existed. Later he claimed AIDS cannot be transmitted sexually between heterosexual.

He is a discredited nut.

If kooks don't have the freedom of speech, then neither does anyone else.
Youtube was and is taking down videos from respected, hitherto unimpeachable medical doctors for saying things that didn't fit the Leftist narratives.

 

[JonC]

If kooks don't have the freedom of speech, then neither does anyone else.
Youtube was and is taking down videos from respected, hitherto unimpeachable medical doctors for saying things that didn't fit the Leftist narratives.

Today the Right is just as much socialist as the Left, but for different reasons. They believe private companies should belong to the state - i.e., YouTube has no right to determine content because of freedom of speech (which does not apply to private companies).

To complain the removal of the videos is a freedom of speech issue is nothing but thinly hidden socialism. The government has no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our private resources.

That said - the problem is not freedom of speech but responsibility for one's speech.

Today people want rights but shy away from responsibility.

Idiots should be able to speak freely. That quack could (and has). We are not dependent on youtube.

I do not mind the videos being out there. I do think it is wrong to force private organizations to share his videos. But they are fun to watch once you know the guy is a fool. I enjoy reading conspiracy theories and quackery. But at least let people know the source.

 

[Salty]

Lets talk about about freedom of speech.

Do individuals have freedom of speech?
Yes, we do.

And so does You Tube. They have the freedom to speech as to what goes on their site.

Any person can start their own version of a "you tube" and set their own rules.

And likewise, I admin several Facebook pages - I have certain rules as to what can and cannot be said.
If someone complains - I simply tell them to start their own FB page.

 

[atpollard]

And likewise, I admin several Facebook pages - I have certain rules as to what can and cannot be said.
If someone complains - I simply tell them to start their own FB page.

... unless Facebook or the ISP becomes the content police for you.

 

[Salty]

... unless Facebook or the ISP becomes the content police for you.

and that has happened - thus the reason, I have started pages over at mewe.com

 

[Aaron]

Today the Right is just as much socialist as the Left, but for different reasons. They believe private companies should belong to the state - i.e., YouTube has no right to determine content because of freedom of speech (which does not apply to private companies).

To complain the removal of the videos is a freedom of speech issue is nothing but thinly hidden socialism. The government has no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our private resources.

That said - the problem is not freedom of speech but responsibility for one's speech.

Today people want rights but shy away from responsibility.

Idiots should be able to speak freely. That quack could (and has). We are not dependent on youtube.

I do not mind the videos being out there. I do think it is wrong to force private organizations to share his videos. But they are fun to watch once you know the guy is a fool. I enjoy reading conspiracy theories and quackery. But at least let people know the source.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell all that to the phone companies, most which are private corporations. Bell Telephone wasn't a pubic utility until it was.

 

[Aaron]

Lets talk about about freedom of speech.

Do individuals have freedom of speech?
Yes, we do.

And so does You Tube. They have the freedom to speech as to what goes on their site.

Any person can start their own version of a "you tube" and set their own rules.

And likewise, I admin several Facebook pages - I have certain rules as to what can and cannot be said.
If someone complains - I simply tell them to start their own FB page.

Let's talk about YouTube and FB. As long YouTube and Facebook can be shielded from liability for tortious content posted by their users, then they are, in effect, operating as public utilities.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell all that to the phone companies, most which are private corporations. Bell Telephone wasn't a pubic utility until it was.

If you have only one choice in telephone service then maybe. It is still anti-Capitalism.

What you advocate is that the government extend the right to free speech into the private sector and essentially strip away private control of these companies.

You are as much a socialist as the Left, just with a different agenda.

 

[JonC]

Let's talk about YouTube and FB. As long YouTube and Facebook can be shielded from liability for tortious content posted by their users, then they are, in effect, operating as public utilities.

Except they are not utilities. No person is restricted to those services either.

 

[Aaron]

If you have only one choice in telephone service then maybe. It is still anti-Capitalism.

What you advocate is that the government extend the right to free speech into the private sector and essentially strip away private control of these companies.

You are as much a socialist as the Left, just with a different agenda.

It's not cut and dried as you might think.

Marsh v. Alabama,

(1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

...

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

<i>Marsh v. Alabama</i>
​

It will come down to whether or not the unilateral actions were an attempt to silence political dissent and influence an election, and whether or not they were powerful enough to do so, and that would likely be argued on the basis of whether the results of the action had a public effect that could only be achieved normally by force of law, which is the exclusive domain of government.

 

[JonC]

It's not cut and dried as you might think.

Marsh v. Alabama,

(1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

...

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

<i>Marsh v. Alabama</i>
​

It will come down to whether or not the unilateral actions were an attempt to silence political dissent and influence an election, and whether or not they were powerful enough to do so, and that would likely be argued on the basis of whether the results of the action had a public effect that could only be achieved normally by force of law, which is the exclusive domain of government.

So in your opinion private companies like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Viemo, DTube, Metacafe, Vevo, Dailymotion, Crackle, Twitch, PeerTube, NewPipe, NOrdVPN, LBRY, MediaGoblin, FreeTube, SkyTube, IPFSTube, etc. are all monopolies?

I understand that sidewalks are considered a public forum because it is open to the public even if it is a privately-owned company town. But I do not see how this applies to forcing companies to carry materials they deem contrary to their own interests.

It is a matter of freedom, I suppose. I believe that a private company should not be forced to be a ward of the State. That is socialism, plain and simple.

Do you believe that BaptistBoard should be forced by the government to host anti-Christian views as well?

 

[JonC]

I also wonder what happens if people believe those videos.

What if people trusted the guy when he said AIDS was a hoax?

What if people trusted him when he later said AIDS could not be spread through heterosexual relations?

People could have died just for heeding that guys views. And perhaps people can now.

 

[Scott Downey]

Covid-19 Vaccines Are Weapons of Mass Destruction - and Could Wipe out the Human Race

Well, we will find out over the next few years.
One thing I tend to disagree with, we do have an immune system, regardless of the mRNA vaccine, our immune system will develop a full kind of immunity, not just antibodies on exposure to covid after vaccination. And what prevents people now from having a cytokine storm due to a hyped over primed immune system response to any disease they have already recovered from and then are exposed again. There seems to be a logical disconnect here.

 

[Aaron]

I also wonder what happens if people believe those videos.

What if people trusted the guy when he said AIDS was a hoax?

What if people trusted him when he later said AIDS could not be spread through heterosexual relations?

People could have died just for heeding that guys views. And perhaps people can now.

Then they're rewarded for their foolishness. The First Amendment applies to all, or no one.

 

[Aaron]

So in your opinion private companies like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Viemo, DTube, Metacafe, Vevo, Dailymotion, Crackle, Twitch, PeerTube, NewPipe, NOrdVPN, LBRY, MediaGoblin, FreeTube, SkyTube, IPFSTube, etc. are all monopolies?

I understand that sidewalks are considered a public forum because it is open to the public even if it is a privately-owned company town. But I do not see how this applies to forcing companies to carry materials they deem contrary to their own interests.

It is a matter of freedom, I suppose. I believe that a private company should not be forced to be a ward of the State. That is socialism, plain and simple.

Again, it depends on how much control the private company holds over the general public.

Do you believe that BaptistBoard should be forced by the government to host anti-Christian views as well?

Apples and oranges. The BB is not a service provider. Even so, how much power does the BB wield over the general public?