Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Conservative Lee Stranahan Has YouTube Account Taken Down for DISCUSSING Radical Islam

  1. #1

    Conservative Lee Stranahan Has YouTube Account Taken Down for DISCUSSING Radical Islam

    He was intensively promoting #firemcmaster and was 'mentioned' by Jake Trapper a few days ago.





    Conservative Lee Stranahan Has YouTube Account Taken Down for DISCUSSING Radical Islam
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...radical-islam/



    This morning Lee Stranahan had his YouTube Channel taken down for his videos discussing radical Islam.
    Lee had over 1,000 videos posted over the last 10 years.

    Lee Stranahan is an American journalist and talk radio host.
    Lee has a long history of reporting in depth investigations on subjects
    like the violent #Occupy movement, immigration and radical Islam for Breitbart.com and Sputnik News.

    He previously wrote for Huffington Post and Daily Kos.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    more...


    When I was the lead investigative journalist at Breitbart News,
    I did a series of stories that exposed the danger of the explosion in Sunni extremism around the world.
    Part of that exposure included showing scenes from the recruitment videos
    that groups like Al-Shabaab are using in American cities.

    These terrorist recruitment videos are frightening in their bluntness and expose the lie –
    currently being perpetuated by people like National Security Advisor HR McMaster –
    that terrorism is somehow an aberration from Islam.

    The words of the terrorists themselves make it clear that they are the devoutist of the devout
    and that they see this is a battle against Western civilization.

    In order to let people see this for themselves,
    I used short excerpts from some of these videos in various Breitbart News stories.

    None of these clips contained graphic violence

    but simply the terrorists speaking in their own words,
    in videos that were being distributed on an underground network of terror recruitment
    operating in the United States.

    As a result of posting these frightening clips
    that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,
    I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
    that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.

    Despite the fact that the videos exposing the danger of terrorist recruitment
    were posted for a journalistic purpose,
    published on one of the most trafficked new sites in the country,
    and clearly serve the public good by allowing citizens to see the danger they face,

    they were used as a means to take down all of my videos.

    My appeal to Google was denied.


  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    more...
    As a result of posting these frightening clips
    that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,

    I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
    that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.
    Haven't seen his vids, but-

    Not sure what that paragraph means, but it looks like he has been promoting the "evils of Islam" and not particularly just terrorists, which is a contradiction since that is also what the "establishment media narrative" is about.

    And, I don't trust Breitbart anymore than the MSM.
    There is no spoon.

  5. #4
    Mainstream Islam has nothing to do with the Islam found in the Quran. Let alone the "radical" version of what is already retrograde.

    I recommend this video:

    The Qur'an alone without Traditionalist Islam?

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=zZtcIwMlURk

    In summary, the Islam today cannot be found inside the Quran. Instead it is found in the Hadith and sunnah al nabi, which were written two hundred years after Prophet Mohammad's death.

    Peace

  6. #5
    I try not to discuss mainstream or radical islam publicly at all .

  7. #6
    Youtube seems to have a conditional free speech policy.

    This forum in contrast is different, have frequently seen here discussions about "founding father of radical Islam (ISIS)". But to be fair hard to not discuss the founding father of radical Islam when he has become the "gift that keeps on giving". He just called for "introspection" today, and now there will be more discussion.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Haven't seen his vids, but-

    Not sure what that paragraph means, but it looks like he has been promoting the "evils of Islam" and not particularly just terrorists, which is a contradiction since that is also what the "establishment media narrative" is about.

    And, I don't trust Breitbart anymore than the MSM.
    I'm familiar with his work and videos.
    To be clear...
    his focus was primarily on domestic politics and current events not Islam.
    He's freelance. He and his sons are very active in developing/teaching a 'grassroots' school of investigative journalism.

    These were 3 'cherry picked' videos by Youtube.
    You'd have to search far and wide within his archive to find ANYTHING (else) on Islam.

  9. #8



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Youtube seems to have a conditional free speech policy.

    This forum in contrast is different, have frequently seen here discussions about "founding father of radical Islam (ISIS)". But to be fair hard to not discuss the founding father of radical Islam when he has become the "gift that keeps on giving". He just called for "introspection" today, and now there will be more discussion.
    imo... there WILL and should be a lawsuit on Youtube's 'Terms of Service'.
    The basis will be a violation of the 1st (speech) 4th (seizure) and 5th (due process).

    Think Landlord v Tenant 'rights'.
    It's 'property'...
    Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
    but
    sufficient PUBLIC 'constructive notice' must be afforded (let's say 30 days)
    to allow (at least) the personal property to be redeemed by the owner (OR THE PUBLIC)
    who can then find another 'residence'.

    If I was an attorney I'd take the case.

    You can email Lee
    Email : Lee@Stranahan.com
    Last edited by goldenequity; 08-14-2017 at 04:50 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    more...
    When I was the lead investigative journalist at Breitbart News,
    I did a series of stories that exposed the danger of the explosion in Sunni extremism around the world.
    Part of that exposure included showing scenes from the recruitment videos
    that groups like Al-Shabaab are using in American cities.

    These terrorist recruitment videos are frightening in their bluntness and expose the lie –
    currently being perpetuated by people like National Security Advisor HR McMaster –
    that terrorism is somehow an aberration from Islam.

    The words of the terrorists themselves make it clear that they are the devoutist of the devout
    and that they see this is a battle against Western civilization.

    In order to let people see this for themselves,
    I used short excerpts from some of these videos in various Breitbart News stories.

    None of these clips contained graphic violence

    but simply the terrorists speaking in their own words,
    in videos that were being distributed on an underground network of terror recruitment
    operating in the United States.

    As a result of posting these frightening clips
    that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,
    I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
    that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.

    Despite the fact that the videos exposing the danger of terrorist recruitment
    were posted for a journalistic purpose,
    published on one of the most trafficked new sites in the country,
    and clearly serve the public good by allowing citizens to see the danger they face,

    they were used as a means to take down all of my videos.

    My appeal to Google was denied.
    I disagree with Google censorship, but this dude's "scholarship" is...well...retarded. So you find clips of people claiming to be Christians and that's proof of what Christianity is all about? Because, to be fair, that's what he is doing with Islam. So Westboro Baptist now represents all of Christianity? How about the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement? Does that represent all of Christianity? Hell, even John Hagee with his "Jesus didn't come to be the messiah" nonsense doesn't represent Christianity as I know it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    The jurisdiction on the lawsuit may be State (as well as Federal?)

    I see it as property rights (which vary State to State).
    Hell... file in both jurisdictions.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I disagree with Google censorship, but this dude's "scholarship" is...well...retarded. So you find clips of people claiming to be Christians and that's proof of what Christianity is all about? Because, to be fair, that's what he is doing with Islam. So Westboro Baptist now represents all of Christianity? How about the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement? Does that represent all of Christianity? Hell, even John Hagee with his "Jesus didn't come to be the messiah" nonsense doesn't represent Christianity as I know it.
    You have a point.
    That's why I wouldn't argue 'content'.
    It's a property rights issue.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    The jurisdiction on the lawsuit may be State (as well as Federal?)

    I see it as property rights (which vary State to State).
    Hell... file in both jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    nice. thnx.
    also the 'jurisdiction' brings to mind another point to argue:
    Has the property taken on the quality
    of being BOTH a 'public' property (aka 'historical'/National 'treasure' etc.)
    as well as 'private' property?

  17. #15
    one more thing...
    the 'property' would NOT 'just' be the video itself.
    The 'property' extends to all the feedback and comments/links & contacts that the video generated.
    (this precludes a Youtube 'defense' that it is the owner's 'obligation' to retain a copy before posting.)

  18. #16
    Fighting Back Against CNN



    Day 296.1. Fighting Back Against CNN
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D9bPMte3B4




    Day 296.2. Giving Donny O'Sullivan a Chance To Know Me Before I Met Him
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JJjUFvy1vM




    Day 296.3 Making My Way To CNN Through By Way of Harlem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYgiVCNR6rc




    Day 296.5. At Time Warner - Home of CNN Money and Donny O'Sullivan
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVmp9ohJ64



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    imo... there WILL and should be a lawsuit on Youtube's 'Terms of Service'.
    The basis will be a violation of the 1st (speech) 4th (seizure) and 5th (due process).

    Think Landlord v Tenant 'rights'.
    It's 'property'...
    Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
    but
    sufficient PUBLIC 'constructive notice' must be afforded (let's say 30 days)
    to allow (at least) the personal property to be redeemed by the owner (OR THE PUBLIC)
    who can then find another 'residence'.

    If I was an attorney I'd take the case.

    You can email Lee
    Email : Lee@Stranahan.com
    I disagree.

    If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

    Because Property rights.

    YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

    But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    I disagree.

    If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

    Because Property rights.

    YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

    But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.
    He did say that.

    Originally Posted by goldenequity


    Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    I disagree.

    If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

    Because Property rights.

    YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

    But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.
    100% agree. It's a no brainer. Free speech means the government can't infringe your speech, not private citizens.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He did say that.
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
    yeah.... ok. "breach of contract" for a free youtube account? I think it is going to be Terms and Conditions rather than breaching a contract.

    And I imagine the T&C fine print includes something along the lines of "We can shut you down anytime we feel like it. Without notice."

    You get what you pay for.

    bottom line: I advise not spending more than about .50 cents suing YouTube for breach of contract lol
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    yeah.... ok. "breach of contract" for a free youtube account? I think it is going to be Terms and Conditions rather than breaching a contract.

    And I imagine the T&C fine print includes something along the lines of "We can shut you down anytime we feel like it. Without notice."

    You get what you pay for.

    bottom line: I advise not spending more than about .50 cents suing YouTube for breach of contract lol
    First: It is a contract.

    At bottom, many of these terms are no different from those seen in the brick and mortar world,
    and thus the basic legal landscape for enforcement is not much different.
    Indeed, Internet commerce “has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.”

    https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lick_here.html

    The legal elements of an implied-in-fact contract are the same as an express contract:
    offer and acceptance, consideration and mutuality of intent.

    These agreements govern a variety of terms,
    including software licensing,
    terms of use for utilizing a website,
    privacy policies,
    terms of sale,
    subscriber agreements,
    and credit card applications.

    The agreements have real ramifications because they can dictate a variety of terms critical both to users and website owners.
    Among other things, the agreements may govern where a lawsuit can be adjudicated,
    whether arbitration will be mandatory,
    whether a prohibition on copying a website’s content will be enforceable,
    and whether a provision limiting use of the website for noncommercial purposes will be enforceable.




    2nd: You wouldn't be suing for breach of contract.

    You would be suing that the contract is unenforceable (as written)
    and violates certain elements of property law (chattel).

    I'm using real estate contract analogy because that is what I'm familiar with.
    I held a broker license for 20 yrs.
    You can't 'fine print' your way into making a party to an agreement 'give up' certain property and protection rights.
    (landlords would love it. so would car dealers. so would banks.)
    It renders the 'agreement' (or at least that 'challenged' part) as unenforceable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    100% agree. It's a no brainer. Free speech means the government can't infringe your speech, not private citizens.
    Forget about all elements of 'content'/censorship/free speech etc. 1st/4th & 5th...
    that WOULD be stupid.. (though some may try)

    so
    not Constitutional Law case

    but Contract and Property Law case.

    ==========

    It can get complex.
    I can give you 'for instance':

    A farmer and a land owner enter into contract for rent or sale of a property.
    The farmer plants, then breaches the agreement.
    The land owner 'takes back' the land.

    Q. Does the farmer then 'lose' the rights to harvest his crops?
    A. No. The farmer retains his rights to his 'fruit' (by statutory law which demands 'compensation')
    The 'terms of contract' cannot violate that statute.




    A landlord and tenant enter into contract.
    The tenant breaches the contract.
    The contract 'language' says the landlord can 'take back' the property
    at 1 minute after midnite following the breach
    and does. (aka 'shuts off his channel and access to all vids)

    No he can't.
    It violates the protections afforded to the tenant.
    He must be given TIME (by law)
    and
    CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (a 'start clock' by law)

    See where I'm going?
    Maybe the lawsuit would be setting precedent. So what. I think it should be argued.
    Last edited by goldenequity; 08-14-2017 at 02:25 PM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    First: It is a contract.

    At bottom, many of these terms are no different from those seen in the brick and mortar world,
    and thus the basic legal landscape for enforcement is not much different.
    Indeed, Internet commerce “has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.”

    https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lick_here.html

    The legal elements of an implied-in-fact contract are the same as an express contract:
    offer and acceptance, consideration and mutuality of intent.

    These agreements govern a variety of terms,
    including software licensing,
    terms of use for utilizing a website,
    privacy policies,
    terms of sale,
    subscriber agreements,
    and credit card applications.

    The agreements have real ramifications because they can dictate a variety of terms critical both to users and website owners.
    Among other things, the agreements may govern where a lawsuit can be adjudicated,
    whether arbitration will be mandatory,
    whether a prohibition on copying a website’s content will be enforceable,
    and whether a provision limiting use of the website for noncommercial purposes will be enforceable.




    2nd: You wouldn't be suing for breach of contract.

    You would be suing that the contract is unenforceable (as written)
    and violates certain elements of property law (chattel).

    I'm using real estate contract analogy because that is what I'm familiar with.
    I held a broker license for 20 yrs.
    You can't 'fine print' your way into making a party to an agreement 'give up' certain property and protection rights.
    (landlords would love it. so would car dealers. so would banks.)
    It renders the 'agreement' (or at least that 'challenged' part) as unenforceable.





    Forget about all elements of 'content'/censorship/free speech etc. 1st/4th & 5th...
    that WOULD be stupid.. (though some may try)

    so
    not Constitutional Law case

    but Contract and Property Law case.

    ==========

    It can get complex.
    I can give you 1 'for instance':

    A farmer and a land owner enter into contract for rent or sale of a property.
    The farmer plants, then breaches the agreement.
    The land owner 'takes back' the land.

    Q. Does the farmer then 'lose' the rights to harvest his crops?
    A. No. The farmer retains his rights to his 'fruit' (by statutory law which demands 'compensation')
    The 'terms of contract' cannot violate that statute.
    Ok, all that is fine. But I still say that a farmer and a landowner entering a contract to rent or sale property is a whole lot different than a video-hosting website that lets you upload your videos for free. Heck, even lets you monetize it if you allow YouTube to display some ads.

    Now it sounds like you are mostly burnt about YouTube not giving him time to download his videos? Giving him 30-day notice or some such? If I were the judge I would call BS on that. You made the video to begin with. If you cared about it, make a back-up. I think it is unreasonable to think of YouTube as a personal storage space.

    Your "fruits" analogy doesn't apply because the YouTube account is free. You should have kept a copy of your "fruits" on a backup harddrive. And I wouldn't call youtube comments "fruits".

    The bottom line for me is that the video uploader is giving no compensation for the hosting.

    You get what you pay for.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    Ok, all that is fine. But I still say that a farmer and a landowner entering a contract to rent or sale property is a whole lot different than a video-hosting website that lets you upload your videos for free. Heck, even lets you monetize it if you allow YouTube to display some ads.

    Now it sounds like you are mostly burnt about YouTube not giving him time to download his videos? Giving him 30-day notice or some such? If I were the judge I would call BS on that. You made the video to begin with. If you cared about it, make a back-up. I think it is unreasonable to think of YouTube as a personal storage space.

    Your "fruits" analogy doesn't apply because the YouTube account is free. You should have kept a copy of your "fruits" on a backup harddrive. And I wouldn't call youtube comments "fruits".

    The bottom line for me is that the video uploader is giving no compensation for the hosting.

    You get what you pay for.
    'Price' is immaterial.
    It's not even arguable in front of a judge.
    It can be 'free'.
    It still doesn't matter what 'matters' is: Is there a contract or not.

    One of the pivotal elements to ANY contract is
    that there must be 'consideration' between the consentor and the consentee.
    I gave you a link to the Bar Association article
    that declares that online 'terms of service' agreements are in fact contracts.
    (btw.. Price and Consideration are NOT the same thing.)

    It is Prima Facia for purposes of a lawsuit.

    'Fruit' may be relevant also.
    Beyond the video (copy or no copy) there is (as I said above) the 'fruit' of the comments/links/contacts that the video generated.
    There is NO question that Stranahan has suffered loss by their actions.
    Are their actions LEGAL... do they violate PROTECTIONS afforded by law.

    IS he already 'protected' by law? (which the ToS has violated?)
    That is ALL the case would be about whether free or a million pesos.
    Last edited by goldenequity; 08-14-2017 at 02:55 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    'Price' is immaterial.
    It's not even arguable in front of a judge.
    It can be 'free'.
    It still doesn't matter what 'matters' is: Is there a contract or not.

    One of the pivotal elements to ANY contract is
    that there must be 'consideration' between the consentor and the consentee.
    I gave you a link to the Bar Association article
    that declares that online 'terms of service' agreements are in fact contracts.

    It is Prima Facia for purposes of a lawsuit.

    'Fruit' may be relevant also.
    Beyond the video (copy or no copy) there is (as I said above) the 'fruit' of the comments/links/contacts that the video generated.
    There is NO question that Stranahan has suffered loss.

    IS he already 'protected' by law? (which the ToS has violated)
    That is ALL the case would be about whether free or a million pesos.
    meh. I advise you not spend more than .50 cents on it.

    Wait. What loss has Stranahan suffered? I would say zip. He doesn't have any claim to compensation. He doesn't have any claim to the comments about his videos. He's an idiot if he doesn't have a backup of his videos. What loss?

    How did YouTube violate the ToS?
    Last edited by Jamesiv1; 08-14-2017 at 02:53 PM.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    To all your points see above.
    You have the right to any opinion you want to hold.
    cheers.

  30. #26
    Stranahan: Connection Between Charlottesville, Soros, CIA


  31. #27
    Alex Jones Joins Diamond & Silk In Massive Lawsuit Against Google / YouTube Discrimination
    http://investmentwatchblog.com/alex-...iscrimination/






    Like I said above... let the lawsuits begin.
    I think the 'Constitutional' road (1st/4th/5th), discrimination/Civil Rights is going to be tough.. i.e.
    'Private' vs 'Public' ... baking 'wedding cakes' problem.

    'Property' is a the better argument. imo.
    chattel: 'moveable' 'tangible' 'personal' property protected against 'confiscation' by statutory laws affording notice and time periods for removal/transfer.
    Last edited by goldenequity; 08-16-2017 at 08:24 AM.



Similar Threads

  1. Radical Islam in Washington
    By Penners in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2017, 05:38 PM
  2. Hillary supports radical Islam
    By PoliPsy in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 04:59 PM
  3. Radical Islam and the war against Christianity
    By Rad in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-20-2015, 08:46 PM
  4. Rand Paul and “Radical Islam”
    By green73 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-08-2013, 10:29 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 12:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •