PDA

View Full Version : EFF'INGG Amaaaazing [Alex Jones to sue Google]




rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 08:48 AM
http://www.infowars.com/obama-speech-police-shutdown-top-you-tube-videos/?


Alex Jones to sue Google for shutting down his channel (discrimination) based on false complaints.

He says now he is going to "do test cases"...ie to file fake complaints against Obama's presidential channel and see if it is taken down based on similar anonymous complaints.

This would be great.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 08:50 AM
YouTube - Obama Speech Police Shutdown Top You Tube Videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoGTCWsYr7o)


The BANNED video, uploaded by someone else

YouTube - Obama JOKER $1000 Video Contest The establishment will go nuts!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72HHN2_Bgkk)

Cowlesy
08-09-2009, 08:54 AM
Apologies if this has already been covered, but what basis does he have to sue Google over taking down his videos? Did he pay a fee to have them uploaded? If he just uploaded them for free, doesn't Google have a right to take stuff down which they find objectionable no matter what it is?

I'm sure AJ wouldn't waste his time suing if he didn't have some sort of legal footing. I am just not seeing it.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 08:59 AM
^ have you watched the video?

He talks abt that too, Youtube says his videos are racist that's where he's irked.

MRoCkEd
08-09-2009, 09:02 AM
youtube can take down any video for any reason
there isn't (and shouldn't be) anything illegal about them running their site how they choose

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
08-09-2009, 09:12 AM
youtube can take down any video for any reason
there isn't (and shouldn't be) anything illegal about them running their site how they choose

True, but there's nothing wrong with exposing them as applying their policies unfairly if that's the case.

My aplogies for not watching 9 minutes of Alex Jones before posting. (probably won't happen later, either.)

brandon
08-09-2009, 09:57 AM
Yep, youtube needs no justification for their actions. If youtube decides to take down all videos with midgets in them because they don't like midgets, then so be it.

Who owns the servers that host the videos, Alex Jones, or google?

pacelli
08-09-2009, 10:01 AM
Get the videos out for free, someone removes the videos for free from their property, & all videos are uploaded under an implied consent from the uploader that the video can be removed for any reason. What's the problem?

What's next, an infowars legal fee moneybomb?

Will Alex use the same lawyer based out of California that he used to shut down his former prisonplanet moderator who ran infowarstv.com ?

I'll bet ya dollars to donuts that something in that lawsuit is going to involve google's failure to provide AJ & Co. with revenue from their ads.

dizi24
08-09-2009, 10:57 AM
Using threats of legal action in order to coerce/punish someone for disagreeing with him? Seems like Alex isn't such a fan of liberty as he says he is.

yongrel
08-09-2009, 10:59 AM
Alex Jones is an attention-whoring hypocrite whose neurons haven't been firing synapses right for years.

Andrew-Austin
08-09-2009, 10:59 AM
Alex and his supporters can just start using another video hosting site.

RevolutionSD
08-09-2009, 11:03 AM
Why would Alex (or anyone else) think that you could get anywhere by trying to sue someone for censoring anti-government material in a court run by the government? This is why the vast majority of tax protesters lose- they are trying to fight the government using a judge that works for the organization they are fighting!

specsaregood
08-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Yep, youtube needs no justification for their actions. If youtube decides to take down all videos with midgets in them because they don't like midgets, then so be it.

Who owns the servers that host the videos, Alex Jones, or google?

In theory/philosophy I would agree with you; BUT in practice it isn't so black and white. Why? Because the government has already proven that it is willing to trample private property rights to prevent "discrimination". If we are going to allow the government to do so, they it should do so in all cases. I'm on the side of NOT allowing them to dictate private business policy; but they are already doing it.....

So is it worse for the government to only protect certain groups and individuals from "discrimination"?
OR
Is it worse for the government to protect all people from "discrimination"?
Tough choice....

Bossobass
08-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Yep, youtube needs no justification for their actions. If youtube decides to take down all videos with midgets in them because they don't like midgets, then so be it.

Who owns the servers that host the videos, Alex Jones, or google?

We ain't livin' in Wonderland, Alice. Google isn't a private club and their policy is irrelevant if it violates discrimination laws, which this country has more of than any country ever, covering everyone who ever lived or will ever live.

The stockholders own their servers.

Bosso

sratiug
08-09-2009, 11:13 AM
You guys are all fucking nuts. He can damn well sue. If nothing else, they called him a racist, which is slander or defamation of character.

pcosmar
08-09-2009, 11:20 AM
He can sue. Whether he has a case or not.
He can do it just to get the story out, with no hopes of "winning" the case.

That's what he does,,, gets the story out.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 11:21 AM
^

(As MsD would have said )

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner here

:D

literatim
08-09-2009, 11:47 AM
Apologies if this has already been covered, but what basis does he have to sue Google over taking down his videos? Did he pay a fee to have them uploaded? If he just uploaded them for free, doesn't Google have a right to take stuff down which they find objectionable no matter what it is?

I'm sure AJ wouldn't waste his time suing if he didn't have some sort of legal footing. I am just not seeing it.

When you upload your videos, you sign a contract. This would bind Google as much as it does the users who are uploading.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 11:52 AM
AJ is just fulfilling his role as a Vector Leader. Obviously, this is issue is becoming a problem for Google, so he is getting out in front of it in order to control it and discredit anyone else who was thinking of suing Google and destroying their chances of victory.

If this actually goes so far as to end up in court with a judge ruling, I predict that the conclusion will result in more power being granted to Google in terms of its ability to control and filter content.

This is how COINTEL works, they grab all sides of an issue to maintain control over the space. They make sure they get their first, so someone else, like a regular member of the public, doesn't actually secure a victory and weaken the system's position of control.

This is also how controlled opposition actors can perpetually fool the public, because they can always take a position against the system appearing to be for the public's interest. But in actuality, they are simply helping to push-out the public from the battle, relegating the public to watching from the sidelines while they control all sides of every debate.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 11:54 AM
^ I see Alex Jones as a "regular member of the public".

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 11:56 AM
^ I see Alex Jones as a "regular member of the public".
Of course you would.

The actor that they put into play are not amateurs, and the techniques are developed by experts. Regular members of the public simply do not have the tools to spot the actors or their techniques, that's why they are successful.

Ever wonder how much that studio cost that AJ now brags about? If it's under $5M I would be very surprised. $15M could be a closer figure. Think he got all that bread by running a money bomb? If not, who do you think is funding his operation? Who has that kind of money, and why would they invest it in him?

Kludge
08-09-2009, 11:58 AM
I'm sure AJ wouldn't waste his time suing if he didn't have some sort of legal footing.

Sometimes you have to make news.

Romulus
08-09-2009, 12:01 PM
its not called 'infowars' for nothing. Good for him.. I say go for it.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 12:02 PM
Of course you would.

The actor that they put into play are not amateurs, and the techniques are developed by experts. Regular members of the public simply do not have the tools to spot the actors or their techniques, that's why they are successful.

Ever wonder how much that studio cost that AJ now brags about? If it's under $5M I would be very surprised. $15M could be a closer figure. Think he got all that bread by running a money bomb? If not, who do you think is funding his operation? Who has that kind of money, and why would they invest it in him?

His Obama Deception DVD and his Tees are selling good too.

btw even if you're true in a long run, awake and confused sheep are better than sleeping ones. just my opinion

Lovecraftian4Paul
08-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Good. There's no reason corporations and governments shouldn't start having lawsuits flung at them over this false racism/discrimination tripe. This is the problem with our entire culture today that breeds disrespect to liberty: the rush to silence others over real or perceived discrimination.

I don't know if this is a winnable lawsuit, but at least it might make a media splash of some sort by raising this issue. We stand on a very dangerous cliff when large entities are stomping on free speech over "hate speech" laws and policies. All organizations engaging in this should be taken to task, governments and corporations.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 12:08 PM
His Obama Deception DVD and his Tees are selling good too.

btw even if you're true in a long run, awake and confused sheep are better than sleeping ones. just my opinion
Here is where I would disagree, as I would argue that one cannot simultaneously be awake AND confused. Being confused is what I would call being asleep.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 12:15 PM
^ Dude

We who are here know that something is wrong with this world, but not exactly what..or who is doing it..and why ...that's called being awake and confused. I am listening to your views without crying 'tinfoil', or racist etc....this.


people who still trust the fake left-right are called asleep.

Maybe Ron Paul and some others are awake and 'seeing'. They know what's the real problem, or who...but can't speak openly their identities.

Sandman33
08-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Anyone that has watched the Obama Deception would know that Alex is a good man and one of the few actually fighting for the Republic.

He supports Ron Paul as well.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 12:27 PM
^ Dude

We who are here know that something is wrong with this world, but not exactly what..or who is doing it..and why ...that's called being awake and confused. I am listening to your views without crying 'tinfoil', or racist etc....this.


people who still trust the fake left-right are called asleep.

Maybe Ron Paul and some others are awake and 'seeing'. They know what's the real problem, or who...but can't speak openly their identities.
What I am trying to point out is that the controllers attack all of society, not just the fake left. But it's much harder to see the BS when you're the one under attack, 'cause it usually sounds so damn good to those inside the vector.

AJ is just our Amy Goodman... only difference is the particular set of words being spewed out.

P.S. I appreciate that your listening without attacking. That's very much appreciated. Where can I help you understand, where are you most confused? Tell me and I'll see if I can direct you to source material that will cut through all the BS. PM me if you want.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 12:28 PM
Anyone that has watched the Obama Deception would know that Alex is a good man and one of the few actually fighting for the Republic.

He supports Ron Paul as well.
His most recent Joker video is the work of a psychopathic mind.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 12:35 PM
^ To understand why he did that you need to look at it from* an advertising POV. That was he advertising.

Once AJ mentioned how he's getting calls from cops in New Zealand, when someone sprayed "911 was an inside job - INFOWARS.COM" on a water tank...he's trying to get attention of as many people as possible. Because he knows that time is ripe for his theories to be taken seriously by the public. Regardless of what his intentions are it's good to get the word out.

pcosmar
08-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Muddying the Waters.

muddy the waters
to make a situation more confused and less easy to understand or deal with The statistics you quoted didn't prove anything, they simply muddied the waters.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/hands/images/pollock.jpg

dannno
08-09-2009, 12:44 PM
Yep, youtube needs no justification for their actions. If youtube decides to take down all videos with midgets in them because they don't like midgets, then so be it.

Who owns the servers that host the videos, Alex Jones, or google?

What is your opinion on false advertising? Is it fraud?

I think that's what Alex is claiming here.. Youtube can't claim that they allow anybody to post their own views as long as they don't violate copyrights and then just take down people's videos who didn't violate copyrights..

It's an issue of fraud. If Youtube takes down any video for any reason, then they have TO SAY that they take down any video for any reason, or say nothing. Since they claim that they won't do that, then Alex has the right to sue for fraud.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 12:51 PM
^ Very Smart.

Anti Federalist
08-09-2009, 12:52 PM
Ever wonder how much that studio cost that AJ now brags about? If it's under $5M I would be very surprised. $15M could be a closer figure. Think he got all that bread by running a money bomb? If not, who do you think is funding his operation? Who has that kind of money, and why would they invest it in him?

A rented industrial park building, some cubes, phones, cameras and some high speed lines?

Oh, yeah, and some black drapes.

200k maybe.

$15M?

You're out of your mind.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 12:55 PM
^ Ya haha

but nobody asks how Amy Goodman is running her studios

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 12:57 PM
^ To understand why he did that you need to look at it from* an advertising POV. That was he advertising.

Once AJ mentioned how he's getting calls from cops in New Zealand, when someone sprayed "911 was an inside job - INFOWARS.COM" on a water tank...he's trying to get attention of as many people as possible. Because he knows that time is ripe for his theories to be taken seriously by the public. Regardless of what his intentions are it's good to get the word out.
This is a rationalization of a very sick psychology move. This is the ponerization coming through. This is not the work of humanity.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 12:58 PM
^ Ya haha

but nobody asks how Amy Goodman is running her studios
You're correct. But they should be.

Just shows you how numb the fake left is.

InterestedParticipant
08-09-2009, 01:01 PM
A rented industrial park building, some cubes, phones, cameras and some high speed lines?

Oh, yeah, and some black drapes.

200k maybe.

$15M?

You're out of your mind.
Video Graphic Capable Computers. HD Decks. HD Cameras. Very fast RAID storage. Post production software. Huge bandwidth capable network infrastructure. etc ... etc.

A video television startup, with certainly more capability, raised $80M in their first round to get their setup started. And they had to get more money after the first round.

Television broadcasting is a whole other ball of wax over audio podcasts... infinitely more complex and expensive.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 01:05 PM
You are wrong abt the bandwidth....he doesn't stream his shows from there.

It's some other company he has contracted.

His computer systems are pretty basic, you can easily do all the things he does with 6he graphics in any basic 2.5GHz+ even Dual core system. You neednot setup the whole internet hardware infrastructure while using others servers for bandwidth.

TheConstitutionLives
08-09-2009, 01:06 PM
Why the hell do we have to talk about AJ so much? Damn. AJ is an ego-maniacal exaggerator.

catdd
08-09-2009, 01:10 PM
Either way, attacking people with charges of racism or bigotry is out of control and I'm glad someone is standing up to the ADL.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 01:11 PM
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net <- this is where the prisonplanet video is streamed from

owned by http://www.limelightnetworks.com/

ramallamamama
08-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Either way, attacking people with charges of racism or bigotry is out of control and I'm glad someone is standing up to the ADL.

Racist! ;)

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 01:13 PM
Why the hell do we have to talk about AJ so much? Damn. AJ is an ego-maniacal exaggerator.


:confused: That is the topic of this thread, I guess.

pcosmar
08-09-2009, 01:15 PM
Why the hell do we have to talk about AJ so much? Damn. AJ is an ego-maniacal exaggerator.

Perhaps because he was the ONLY media friendly to Ron Paul.
Perhaps because he has been exposing Government corruption for a long time.
Perhaps because he is a voice for Liberty.

Perhaps because the MSM is so useless, corrupt and biased.

Perhaps because many feel that he is on our side.

Romulus
08-09-2009, 01:18 PM
Perhaps because he was the ONLY media friendly to Ron Paul.
Perhaps because he has been exposing Government corruption for a long time.
Perhaps because he is a voice for Liberty.

Perhaps because the MSM is so useless, corrupt and biased.

Perhaps because many feel that he is on our side.

and those are facts. everything else is muddy waters.

tonesforjonesbones
08-09-2009, 01:19 PM
well..they are taking down Ron Paul's videos also..many are gone. I'm glad Alex Jones is going to do the tests and I'm glad he will sue for discrimination. tones

tonesforjonesbones
08-09-2009, 01:21 PM
Don't ya'll remember awhile back when we were all mad because youtube was hooking up with the government and they would be censoring? I sure remember it..now it's ok because a faction of you have decided Alex Jones is not "cool". Today Alex Jones, tomorrow, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and the Judge. Be careful what you ask for. TOnes

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 01:21 PM
^ The Cspanjunkie channel, that was. That same guys has opened his new Youtube channel MoxNews, subscribe to him.

catdd
08-09-2009, 01:28 PM
Racist! ;)


Bigot! :D

Anti Federalist
08-09-2009, 01:31 PM
Why the hell do we have to talk about AJ so much? Damn. AJ is an ego-maniacal exaggerator.

If that's the case, why are you in this thread?:rolleyes:

Anti Federalist
08-09-2009, 01:32 PM
Perhaps because he was the ONLY media friendly to Ron Paul.
Perhaps because he has been exposing Government corruption for a long time.
Perhaps because he is a voice for Liberty.

Perhaps because the MSM is so useless, corrupt and biased.

Perhaps because many feel that he is on our side.

That.

+1

Anti Federalist
08-09-2009, 01:33 PM
and those are facts. everything else is muddy waters.

And that^

iddo
08-09-2009, 01:40 PM
You guys are all fucking nuts. He can damn well sue. If nothing else, they called him a racist, which is slander or defamation of character.

You are right, under current laws AJ can sue youtube over slander or defamation of character. As a tactical choice it might be a good idea to sue them under the current system, but I'm not completely sure. What I am sure about is that if someone defamed my character I wouldn't sue them and would consider such a lawsuit to be frivilous, out of libertarian principles. And if we had enough libertarian congressmembers, hopefully we could get rid of this notion that someone can use the power of the state to sue others just because he doesn't agree with their actions.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Here is a sample

YouTube - "It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic") (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA)

PaulaGem
08-09-2009, 01:50 PM
His most recent Joker video is the work of a psychopathic mind.




The psychopathic mind has been known to be very creative and produce great works of art.

tonesforjonesbones
08-09-2009, 01:59 PM
terrible...but it's so obvious to me. The best thing is to ignore it and keep on speaking truth. t one s

Sandman33
08-09-2009, 02:28 PM
His most recent Joker video is the work of a psychopathic mind.

Just because he's eccentric doesnt mean that his message is wrong.

Most of the most brilliant minds in history and outstanding characters in history were arguably insane...Hell Joan of Arc had syphlis and was batshit crazy.

almantimes2
08-09-2009, 02:29 PM
You are right, under current laws AJ can sue youtube over slander or defamation of character. As a tactical choice it might be a good idea to sue them under the current system, but I'm not completely sure. What I am sure about is that if someone defamed my character I wouldn't sue them and would consider such a lawsuit to be frivilous, out of libertarian principles. And if we had enough libertarian congressmembers, hopefully we could get rid of this notion that someone can use the power of the state to sue others just because he doesn't agree with their actions.

Alex should sue them for fraud instead.

rpfan2008
08-09-2009, 02:30 PM
1000+ 5* ratings
~5000 views

Spread this video.

catdd
08-09-2009, 04:09 PM
Here is a sample

YouTube - "It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic") (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA)



Yeah, and the sad part is the general public is now using the same technique to slit their own throats. It's been bored into them through the education system.

Optatron
08-09-2009, 04:41 PM
false what complaints? DMCA?

False DMCA can be countered and are criminal to file.

also, Alex Jones is getting better at these publicity stunts, good job

SimpleName
08-09-2009, 05:57 PM
youtube can take down any video for any reason
there isn't (and shouldn't be) anything illegal about them running their site how they choose

Yeah...seems more just for publicity reasons, not that anyone besides us is paying attention anyway.

Optatron
08-09-2009, 05:59 PM
youtube can take down any video for any reason
there isn't (and shouldn't be) anything illegal about them running their site how they choose

exactly

why do so many so called libertarians seem to think that because a company has offered your convenience, they somehow now owe you their consistency of service?

Deborah K
08-09-2009, 06:32 PM
Why would Alex (or anyone else) think that you could get anywhere by trying to sue someone for censoring anti-government material in a court run by the government? This is why the vast majority of tax protesters lose- they are trying to fight the government using a judge that works for the organization they are fighting!

This is why jury nullification is so important. And the only way to accomplish it in the case of tax protests, is through education on the subject. I have info cards I give out called 'The Independent Thinker's Income Tax Fact Sheet'. You can get them here: www.notincome.com


Apologies to the OP for the digression.

Optatron
08-09-2009, 06:39 PM
This is why jury nullification is so important. And the only way to accomplish it in the case of tax protests, is through education on the subject. I have info cards I give out called 'The Independent Thinker's Income Tax Fact Sheet'. You can get them here: www.notincome.com


Apologies to the OP for the digression.

tell that to the people who were lynched under Jim Crow and juries let them off.

Peace&Freedom
08-09-2009, 06:52 PM
Libertarians are opposed to introducing force OR FRAUD in human transactions. If a site prominently promotes itself in its terms of service as one that removes member content based on criteria A, but in fact removes it for reasons B-Z, or for no reasons, libertarians should be rightly concerned about such fraudulent representation, and breach of private contract.

Not all exchanges have to involve money in order for a party to be injured. By the logic of some of the posters, if youtube received uploads depicting child porn or other clear crimes, they would have to go on posting it, because after all, it was also provided to them for free. Whether the service provided involved a fee or not, it did involve a value (widespread, ongoing distribution of uploads as per specific terms), and received inventory of value (the uploaded videos) from members for the promised service.

This is a two-way 'free' exchange under specific terms, that should be honored in both directions. Members should not be able to post anything under the sun, and youtube can not have the ability to take down anything for 'any reason,' because they established contracted terms limiting the reasons for removing posts. The site can't have it both ways---limiting their stated basis for removing, and then removing posts on an unlimited basis. Their members get to have rights too.

iddo
08-10-2009, 05:31 AM
I think that it's fraud in the sense of false advertising, not breach of private contract, because there isn't any private contract here.
And how exactly was one party injured? He is still in possession of all the videos that he created, youtube let him use their servers for free for some time, until they changed their mind. So in what sense is this an injury?

Suppose I advertise that next week at location such and such I'll give away free cookies for everyone. You arrive at the location next week and discover that there are no free cookies.
question1: did I commit fraud according to the dictionary definition? answer: yes.
question2: were you injured? answer: yes, you wasted energy etc.
question3: can you sue me for fraud under the current laws? answer: I'm not sure, can someone provide an answer please?:)
question4: should you be able to sue me for fraud, assuming the laws were devised according to libertarian principles? answer: I don't think so, what's next, suing Santa Claus because he defrauded you at the mall? You can advertise that I'm a liar in response to my fraudulent advertisement about free cookies, but I don't think that you should expect compensation for injuries via the justice system, it's your mistake that you believed in the free cookies...

qwerty
08-10-2009, 06:14 AM
:)

rpfan2008
08-10-2009, 06:20 AM
Yeah...seems more just for publicity reasons, not that anyone besides us is paying attention anyway.

Are you sure?

Go and check Statistics and Data section for YouTube - Obama Speech Police Shutdown Top You Tube Videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoGTCWsYr7o&feature=channel_page). And these all honors are in one day. :cool:

rpfan2008
08-10-2009, 07:36 AM
Some members said this was psychopathic, but this is what the results look like

http://i25.tinypic.com/9pymj8.jpg

Bradley in DC
08-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Alex Jones to sue Google for shutting down his channel

So much for respect for private property rights. :(

rpfan2008
08-10-2009, 08:30 AM
^ Alex Jones isn't a libertarian, is he?

iddo
08-10-2009, 08:37 AM
I think that Alex Jones is pretty much a libertarian, and even some pure libertarians may think that this lawsuit is tactically a good idea, in the sense of using available means in the current system in order to bring down the system...

idirtify
08-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Just because he's eccentric doesnt mean that his message is wrong.

Most of the most brilliant minds in history and outstanding characters in history were arguably insane...Hell Joan of Arc had syphlis and was batshit crazy.

And it's VERY difficult to overcriticize government.

Deborah K
08-10-2009, 10:30 AM
tell that to the people who were lynched under Jim Crow and juries let them off.

Point taken. Although I doubt there is a jury anywhere in this country right now that would get away with that kind of nullification.

Todd
08-10-2009, 10:39 AM
Alex Jones is an attention-whoring hypocrite whose neurons haven't been firing synapses right for years.

That may be entirely true, but he's a freedom lover. And as crazy as owl crap as he is, I can tolerate people like him in a movement for freedom more than I would want to tolerate establishment weenies at my local Republican meetings.

Anti Federalist
08-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Point taken. Although I doubt there is a jury anywhere in this country right now that would get away with that kind of nullification.

And juries also nullified prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act.

It cuts both ways.

Danke
08-10-2009, 11:20 AM
tell that to the people who were lynched under Jim Crow and juries let them off.

My understanding of Jim Crow laws is that they dealt with discrimination. How do does that pertain to lynching? Jim Crow laws made lynching illegal and the juries nullified that law?

NewEnd
08-10-2009, 08:23 PM
Video Graphic Capable Computers. HD Decks. HD Cameras. Very fast RAID storage. Post production software. Huge bandwidth capable network infrastructure. etc ... etc.

A video television startup, with certainly more capability, raised $80M in their first round to get their setup started. And they had to get more money after the first round.

Television broadcasting is a whole other ball of wax over audio podcasts... infinitely more complex and expensive.

LoL... You don't know wtf you are talking about. $15 million!!??? LoL!!