Westboro Baptist Church YouTube Account Sighted!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 10:44 AM GMT
    http://www.youtube.com/user/timeisupUS

    I saw it posting comments about how America is doomed and what have you... troll it for great justice.
  • kuroshiro

    Posts: 786

    Oct 14, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    If it is them, YouTube will pull the plug on them for sure. They don't take any shit.

  • Oct 14, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    kuroshiro saidIf it is them, YouTube will pull the plug on them for sure. They don't take any shit.


    Are they not allowed their freedom of speech?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 4:36 PM GMT
    Though YouTube has a somewhat of a politically correctness bias...

    (I remember for a time that anti-Islamist videos had a very short lifespan for awhile a few years back)

    ...I'd be interested to see if they keave it alone just because it has potential to draw a LOT of traffic. Plus, it's another opportunity for them to let these wahoos put Christianity in a bad light.

    At the end of the day, publicity (a "win" for WBC) and traffic (win for YT) = ???? .... PROFIT!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 4:37 PM GMT
    az_softball_guy said
    kuroshiro saidIf it is them, YouTube will pull the plug on them for sure. They don't take any shit.


    Are they not allowed their freedom of speech?


    Because Youtube is not a government agency, but rather a private organization and does not have to allow hate speech on its' network.

    The First Amendment does not apply.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 4:38 PM GMT
    BAMF said
    az_softball_guy said
    kuroshiro saidIf it is them, YouTube will pull the plug on them for sure. They don't take any shit.


    Are they not allowed their freedom of speech?


    Because Youtube is not a governmental body, but rather provate property and does not have to allow hate speech on its' network.


    Precisely. But some people on this board can't figure out these differences -- time and time again.
  • kuroshiro

    Posts: 786

    Oct 14, 2011 4:40 PM GMT
    az_softball_guy said
    kuroshiro saidIf it is them, YouTube will pull the plug on them for sure. They don't take any shit.


    Are they not allowed their freedom of speech?


    Freedom of speech does have it's boundaries. When you denigrate a group of people with derogatory terminology (fag, etc) it becomes defamation. The problem with Westboro is that they're trying to get their message across in the wrong way. More people would probably listen if they weren't so... hostile (and retarded).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 5:58 PM GMT
    WBC - and it's leadership in particular - are professional trolls AND lawyers

    They say inflammatory shit and do things like protest funerals and weddings in the hopes that somebody or some group or some government will do something to them that they can litigate against.

    It's been their modus operandi from the day little Freddie Phelps crawled out of law school.
  • kuroshiro

    Posts: 786

    Oct 14, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    I kinda wanna interview Margie... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    The Islamist whacko vs. the whacko "Christian" fundies was choice comedy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    kuroshiro saidI kinda wanna interview Margie... icon_eek.gif
    Fuck that! I wanna belt her a few times!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2011 6:46 PM GMT
    I use the "outdoors" versus "indoors" analogy regarding free speech in the US. Outdoors you can say all kinds of stuff, on your own or public property, pursuant to not infringing on the rights of others, and with some other restrictions, most famously not falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a crowd.

    But indoors in my home, you are my guest by my permission. And if I don't like your speech, or even the color of your shirt, I can require you to leave. You have no recourse, and no Constitutional right to remain under my roof and continue speaking, on any topic.

    So it is with Internet online social sites. We visit them with the owner's permission.

    At the same time, if you kick me out of your home because you say in front of other people I'm a thief, and I'm not a thief, then there may be grounds for charging you with slander, or defamation of character, or whatever is the appropriate charge in that jurisdiction. Likewise on the Internet, if you also boot me from your site on a false claim of my being a thief, and allow other site members to learn of that, slander charges may also apply. But First Amendment free speech rights would not be involved in either the home or Internet situations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2011 6:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidLikewise on the Internet, if you also boot me from your site on a false claim of my being a thief, and allow other site members to learn of that, slander charges may also apply.



    Unless your real name is known (or easily accessible) by site members, your above statement is incorrect (acknowledge the use of the "may also apply.")

    That's an area of Internet law not well developed yet. We have our online virtual identities, and our real identities. That may be merged, or independent. Is it OK for you to slander Art Deco, a virtual screen name, but not the guy behind that screen name? An issue not yet resolved in US courts, to my knowledge.

    RealJock TOS/TOU says we can't slander other members, which I take to be the virtual people we are here online. So that the site can enforce what are essentially slander laws of its own creation, applicable only to this private site, that might have no comparable validity in a US court of law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 1:55 PM GMT
    This might get clarification if the Zuckerbergs (Mark and his sister who is the one driving the train) get their way and more or less and online "anonymity" by pushing thru their face recognition technology end convincing ISPs and major fora to use this tech as a means of enforcing speech accountability.

    That is to say, your online personae being tied to your FB account as is increasingly the case - and becoming less able to be a part of the great faceless Anonymous.

    In that regard, I am hoping that Anonymous may target FB.

    As a business tool it FB is useful, but for butting it's nose into becoming the moderator for an international Internet ID card, this I do not like. It is anti-freedom in my book.