22 Replies to “A Most Interesting Lawsuit on Free Speech in America”

  2. Google isn’t even bothering to defend against the lawsuit (which they WILL lose) … they are just shopping for a Federal Judge to overturn the lower court’s decision. Wake me up, if and when, this case makes it to MY President’s Supreme Court.
    Until then, I will boycott anything and everything “Google” and Youtube. What’s that you say? Google/YouTube are soooooo embedded into every website and every click I make that it is impossible to BOYCOTT “Big Google”? Thank you then, for confirming their status as a “Public Utility” and therefore subject to regulation.

  3. Of course they can restrict, just as that bakery was able to restrict selling a wedding cake to a gay couple…religious grounds (moral grounds due the age of viewers) are all protected rights of a business..aren’t they? /sarc

  4. Tucker Carlson has best news/opinion show on tv.
    “Our sources tell us…” he’s a beauty

  5. “Google/YouTube is a private company, not the government.”
    Google is a publically traded company on the stock market in the business of serving the public. As a result they are bound by government regulation as any other company in the business of serving the public which includes discrimination regulations.

  6. I’m not happy about having my voice squelched but this is a minefield.’
    The ‘other side’ is going to point at us and call us hypocrites for saying merchants should be able to turn away clients with whom they disagree (gay wedding cakes and officiating at gay weddings for example), while calling for unrestricted access to social media.
    i realize they’re not the same thing, but it’s not me you need to convince.

  7. There is NO convincing STUPID. Demanding GAY baked products has NOTHING … NOTHING … to do with “Free Speech”.
    And … I am STILL waiting for the Gaysteppo to find a Muslim Bakery to harass

  8. Well, if a Christian baker has to bake wedding cakes for any and all, make them live up to their own standards.
    Welcome to lawfare.

  9. Kenji; having the right to practice your religion as you see fit, and everything to do with Big Brother interfering in your life and freedoms. I’m on the baker’s side, even if that means he won’t do a Bar Mitzvah cake. That should be his right, to do business with whoever he feels comfortable with. I’ve turned down lots of business over the years for no other reason than I had a bad feeling about doing business with the potential client.
    So now the flip side; Twitter doesn’t want to ‘do business’ with me because they have a bad feeling about me. I’m having trouble squaring that circle.
    (Of course I realize they’re offering a service, not a product, but should that matter?)

  12. it perfectly fine for them to restrict content based on political ideology?
    Yes. Next question.
    GoogTwitBook are not public utilities in any sense of the term and the comparison is facile. The fact that no one involved in these debates is capable of typing “alternatives to Google” into Google is simply an example of how little anyone on the right side of the political spectrum understands the Internet.
    That Google has dropped products like Gab.ai from the Play Store for spurious reasons is a different problem; that’s anticompetitive behaviour.

  13. This is a logic bomb aimed at the left. It will force the progressives to defend behavior that the left itself has condemned. Dennis Prager may not be a conniver, but he’s a smart cookie, and one of the leading forces of the left has handed him a tremendous opportunity. Hope ut works.

  15. Re the Christian baker not wanting to make a wedding cake for gay couple: I’ve never understood why they didn’t just agree to make the cake and then do a really bad job of it. Problem solved, even if they didn’t get paid. Maybe they’d even end up on Judge Judy. I think she’d render a fair decision.

  16. You were so close but ya acrewed it up.
    Google has the right to do as it pleases. This lawsuit should be thrown out at once, assuming contracts weren’t violated.

  17. So, where does discrimination start, or end? Can I turn away a white person from service in a restaurant because I don’t like the colour of their skin? How is that different than turning away a video because I don’t like its content. You can’t have one without the other. If YouTube is able to discriminate against conservatives then bakers can tell gays to pound sand and make their own cake. The restaurant in the deep south can put out the signs again “no blacks allowed” etc. You can have it one way, or you can have it the other way, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time.

  18. I think some are missing the point:
    If Google/youtube are claiming the content is offensive to children Prager U can wipe them with their own silly mop…have you seen the crap available on Youtube?

  19. Exactly, Dwayne.
    It’ll be interesting if someone claims they’re a ‘utility’ like your tel or electrical suppliers.

  20. Actually I am pretty sure UnMe can suck and blow at the same time… 😉 Which is why I generally skip xer’s comments…

  22. I don’t believe the dichotomy is between “goods and services” as it it between “beliefs and speech” or “religious values and speech”. The refusenik baker is doing nothing to deny the Free Speech rights of the Gay couple. And in fact, the Gay couple retains the right to go on Yelp and savage the bakery as bigoted against Gays. So my argument for the bakers rights has no “flip side” of Google’s denying “speech and opinions” posted by Prager.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation