Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
npr.org
npr.org
Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.
>1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
>"They oppose government censorship."
The example use calls out government censorship as a specific type of censorship. If "censorship" meant "the government censoring things" you would not need to specify "government censorship" in that sentence.
Yes, I know that dictionary definitions are not necessarily the final word on what something means, but they're absolutely correct here. It is a broad word and it is widely used in other contexts. People other than the government can censor things.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship
define censor - https://www.google.com/search?q=define+censor
1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
2. (in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.
3. examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
So, Youtube and others are indeed censoring you when they do not allow you to publish certain videos.
A private platform saying "You cannot say whatever you want on my microphone" is not censorship in any meaningful sense when you are free to pick up your own microphone.
No one says you have a right to the users on a specific platform. I can't go on CNN and start ranting, so why should I be able to say anything I want with Youtube not able to moderate the content?
It doesn't make sense. You cannot force private platforms to accept views against their economic interests and call that freedom.
If someone says you will go to jail for saying something, that is censorship.
Except YouTube does not prevent you from publishing your videos. They only prevent you from publishing them on YouTube. You can publish them on another platform, or self-publish them.
Censorship is usually taken to mean suppressing or attempting to suppress a work from being published at all across some reasonably large population, which is generally something only governments have the power to do.
One might make a case that a private organization that has acquired a monopoly or near monopoly could do so, but YouTube is not yet there.
That is what is happening. You do not get to force your voice on another person's platform.
How is that justice?
I have had to explain why it is a category error so many times that I have it down to a quick patter now, in a couple of forms - one for quick explanation, one as a socratic QA. The latter seems to work better for people who shout loudly about their Constitutional rights.
Going all well-actually and giving people the verbal equivalent of xkcd 1357 lets everyone know you're one of those people.
If I'm bullshitting over a beer, no I don't do that. If I'm having a serious conversation about real things, yes; I prefer to talk about reality. I take it you don't?
The problem here is that Google's critics feel like the exact opposite is happening.
edited to add: From the article
> It then posted links to YouTube videos on synthesizing meth and other illicit acts.
Kind of hard to imagine that meth instructional videos are good for YT advertising revenue.
>The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
But the reality is that censorship is not all, or even mostly, bad. YouTube censors snuff videos. And porn. Is that bad? How about videos showing how to make bombs? What about nuclear bombs? What about anthrax? What about biological weapons?
Clearly, YouTube and other platforms must and will draw lines on what does and doesn't constitute acceptable content.
The question isn't about censorship. It's about where the line should be drawn.
For whatever reason, there's a lot of people who think that instructional videos on guns should be in-bounds rather than out-of-bounds. To the extent people are talking about "censorship" writ-large it is a distraction from having to justify making specific kinds of content widely available.
At least in theory, the government is an extension of the people, and a private corporation is not. We should decide as a society what topics should and should not be censored. Then we can defend minority viewpoints and make moral judgements, rather than financial ones.
If you fully ramify your position, you're advocating that the government tell me that if I host videos, I can't prevent people from posting videos that I don't like. E.g., if I make a cat video hosting platform, and someone uploads a dog video, I can't stop them.
Again, this is a debate about where to draw the line. It just happens to be the case that there are some people who are fierce advocates for maximizing the amount of gun stuff that is readily available online.
No, I'm not arguing that YouTube should be legally required to permit all legal content. I'm arguing that I ethically expect them to. Or, at least, expecting them to is a valid position.
Or do the ethics have to do with YouTube's utility like status?
I personally am happy that YouTube can and does censor/ban porn, obscene videos, and videos depicting humans dying.
It is a great comparison to printing pamphlets. Google is basically paying the bills to print alt-right pamphlets and to me that is wrong.
There's also a conversation to be had about free speech as a cultural norm. I'm within my rights to shout down everything you try to say in a public forum but I think we've seen that society suffers when that's commonplace.
I don't know. Can you explain, why should private companies be not allowed to discriminate, but allowed not to have free speech? In both cases you can say, well, if you're discriminated by a private company, you can always go to a different one.
I my view, the problem is that we don't want to force people (individuals) to non-discriminate or allow free speech. But institutions, it's another matter. If the institution has enough power, it can impede the rights of people.
So people asking for YT and such to respect freedom of speech are asking for them to be treated as institutions, something that is potentially more powerful than individuals. And they understand that freedom of speech (just like non-discrimination) is beneficial (for society) in any institution, not just government. After all, you can select a government too, by emigrating into a different country.
However, we have made laws that prohibit certain kinds of discrimination against "protected classes", e.g. based on sex and race.
Being an advocate of gun rights is not a protected class.
Companies are not allowed to do that, but individuals are allowed to discriminate even "protected classes". I can freely choose not to associate with black people, for instance. And that is a good thing. So even today there is a legal distinction between individuals and institutions.
And in a certain sense, "advocate of gun rights" is a protected class, because you have also non-discrimination (I would assume, like most civilized countries) on the basis of political opinion.
Actually, political opinion is not protected against discrimination. Otherwise I could create a political party that advocated, say, the extermination of a particular group, and then if you refused to hire me (because I'm obviously an asshat if I hold this view) I could sue you.
This is decided in court anyway, so the scenario you point out, while plausible, is only theoretical.
In any case, there isn't yet a gun-rights-maximalist party against which YouTube could be prohibited from discriminating.
I was born in a totalitarian country, and so I don't find "you can choose your political views" very convincing.
What about religious views? You can choose these as well.
Freedom of speech and political expression is very different from your right to not be discriminated against for expressing your political views. I will defend your right to say "poor people should not be able to get healthcare", but having this political opinion provides important information on your character, which seems very legitimate to consider when making, e.g., a hiring decision.
There aren't easy answers here, and laws and policy are blunt instruments that will usually have some unintended and undesirable consequences.
And this liberal agenda is not a monopoly of the Silicon Valley either. Citi recently did something similar, announcing that it will cease to make loans or provide payment services to businesses who do not comply with its views on gun control. Which I find more problematic than youtube given the regulatory monopoly and lack of competition in the banking industry.
I can think of 11 banks off the top of my head, some are big banks, a couple credit unions, a brokerage with banking services like Schwab. If I googled for "local banks" I would get a lot more. What is the lack of competition you are referring to?
I don't know what you mean by that. Please explain.
(EDIT: Legitimately don't understand the downvotes here.)
As for why it was downvoted I guess a number of people on both sides found it to be plain false and maybe also someone though it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.
The big tech companies (in terms of direction from the top) are mostly center-right neoliberal in orientation, straddling the US partisan divide (Microsoft has historically been attached to the Republican Party, which paid off big when the Bush Administration took over from the Clinton Administration at the end of their antitrust trial, most of the rest of the big firms have been closer to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.)
Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe. Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem?
When people refuse to describe the entities they claim to exist (again: where and what is this "liberal agenda"?) there's good reason to be skeptical of both the people and the entities. Often it's scary packaging for something that's reasonable if you take the time to look at it.
You might have noticed already but in case anyone else didn't: yes, I partly agree with you on this (and I also to some degree think this behaviour is childish.)
> Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe.
It seems to me a majority of HN thinks Youtube is even more "liberal".
> Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem?
Many of us (me included) would like more background checks etc.
The problem for me is that a number of people see background checks only as a first small step towards banning guns.
I think there is still room in USA for a European style collaboration between hunters, sports shooters and police.
That would be a win-win. But as long as everyone with a brain can see a ratchet I guess enthusiasm will be limited in the NRA/2A camp.
Would you fault Google for removing videos promoting unsafe driving practices that endanger lives, or promotional materials or sponsored videos or ads for cigarette brands, or videos demonstrating the means by which fentanyl can be mixed in with heroin? I'm not saying these are perfect analogies, but rather where do we expect massive companies to draw the line when it comes to distributing potentially harmful content?
Does SV/Google have the right answer to reduce gun deaths? I don't know, but do I fault them for trying something when deaths are occurring minute by minute? Certainly not, something must be done to curb the tragic number of deaths we are shrugging off.
yes, yes and yes.
Problem: Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Solution: Videos about medical procedures? Get rid' of em!
and so on. Only allow cat videos.
There's no good reason to think that this step by Youtube will help with the "public health" side of the issue at all; it's fairly transparently about an animus against guns qua guns.
YouTube exists to make money. It makes money through advertisers. If advertisers don't want to use YouTube then YouTube loses money.
Politics/agenda are certainly involved.
History is repeating. As soon as they got enough power, they use it to exercise their own view of the world, deleting data//videos they don't like or reselling it to 3rd parties.
We need to come up with a better solution for non-technical users to post content outside those platforms.
With the rise of home fiber and raspberry pi type cheap boxes we can do it with data local and software free.
I’m not sure what the business model is. I’m looking to porn and privacy for early examples. This worked for the Internet. AOL chat/porn was a huge use case for early chat/messaging. Music piracy and video piracy before Netflix/Apple Music. Etc etc.
Today I have 100Mb fiber to my house. I’m pretty sure that’s enough to handle a personal video website for somebody with a modest following. Yet we live on these massive centralized platforms.
How? I would love to see some initiatives in that area (beside IPFS)
I personally really enjoyed the "Links" sections at the bottoms of everyone's Web 1.0 pages.
plex (https://www.plex.tv/) already has most of what you need. However if I put a video of my kid's first words on plex how does grandma find it?
It might be easy for us to upload a torrent, but to most others, it is extremely hard, if not impossible.
The other problem with torrents is that it relies on reseeding. Preservation of content is a problem with torrents.
[1]: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/7487775/2012_Olympics_Openi...
Largely, the TOS/“contract” doesn’t define host clearly. So you need to get real specific what you mean.
Blocking an ftp server because it’s a host would also block Apple iChat video because it’s “hosting” a video stream.
For my ISP (ATT/uverse) they prevent hosting a commercial service, otherwise they aren’t specific. And it’s not for hosting purposes, it’s for SLA purposes so they aren’t responsible for revenue loss from system outage.
Technical Restrictions:
use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1m...
itshappening.gif It started a rabbit hole
How so? This is not about blocking political speech from these platforms. It's about a specific issue: whether YouTube should make it easy for people to find instructional videos on how to make and modify firearms.
Would you be upset if platforms blocked content showing how to make bombs? Biological weapons? Why not include the blocking of firearm modification videos?
I'm not a pro-gun at all. But this is a political move as an after effect of the school shootings, pushed by a left agenda for banning guns (which on a personal level I agree btw).
The issue is that you have a private company taking a political position and therefore forbidding specific videos based on that position.
This is something we saw in the past on other political subjects. They are abusing their power as platform as they know they are the de-facto platform used for video. It is about freedom of speech.
How would you feel if they suddenly decided to remove videos about evolution and darwinism? Or videos about abortion rights ? (this will never happen as youtube leans super left, but it gives you an idea how the other side sees it)
Under what circumstances would you want to see companies revise their policies?
EDIT: missed a word
Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do not offer.
Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways.
So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to do what they want to.
I think you would have a much stronger argument if someone like Amazon said you couldn't host gun videos on AWS.
1. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website.
2. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1.
3. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Websites do not.
Also, I think you were a bit rude.
I think it’s interesting seeing these companies be emboldened in their self-censorship of legal things, in terms of guns it’s all directly linked to one nanny state billionaire who finds the entire gun control “movement”. That won’t play well at polls as it does in canned media responses.
You literally just described Reddit.
a. The cat has a gun.
b. The cat is shot at.
c. The cat is fired out of a cannon, as a circus performer.
d. It's a hunting cat. It fetches things that have been shot.
e. Cats like sitting on warm things. Guns get warm.
f. Cat fur gets into everything. Picture a cleaning video with a gun jammed up by fur.
> What are you teaching, bomb-making?
plenty of folks on there doing chemistry experiments of the variety that folks enjoy watching.
This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently.
I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expression generally - not just youtube acting alone, but many entities acting similarly, and obviously completely un-democratically or accountably.
I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.
Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your point of view.
How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?
How does your right contribute to the security of the state?
How did you come to believe you needed this capability?
At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others.
Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids.
The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless.
One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia... [2]
The Constitution encodes a value judgement about the rights it protects; these rights are presumed to be protected unless it can be shown why they aren't in some specific case. That is to say, to ask someone "how [their] right contribute[s] to the security of the state" is wrongheaded - if you wish to deprive them of their right you must first meet strict scrutiny.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
It's not that I disagree. In fact, I too believe it to be intrinsically hypocritical than not the more I've re-read it since I posed my initial question. HOWEVER, how we talk about things can be colored by our choice of words. The original poster is correct, but offers no examples from the case document. I believe when we state what we believe to be true, but don't support it directly may be somewhat counter productive to the more open discussion. I appreciate your feedback.
Devils advocate: Mincing words and dancing around language can sometimes lead us away from solutions or understanding. I'm taking a risk. :)
The plain meaning of the second amendment, in this context, is that _anyone_ is allowed to own arms, because everyone is expected to take responsibility for defending themselves and the community. There's also another layer; "militia" is as opposed to "standing army", and "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" thus means that the militia (that is, the population at large) needs to be armed well enough to resist tyrannical impositions by a standing army.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
to mean tyrannical impositions by a standing army of the same state, as opposed to a foreign state, is categorically ridiculous.
Any attempt to deny that the founders were very worried about tyranny imposed by the government of the country in question, and intended the second amendment (among other things) to allow the citizens to resist against the army of that government, is outright ahistorical.
The amendment is quite short and easy to quote; the pro-gun crowd actually hates this one little trick:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is no "obviously we mean our own government" rather than foreign invaders the militias (like the Swiss ones around since pre-revolutionary times) are typically meant to deal with.
And yes, it doesn't explicitly say in the text of the amendment what kinds of threats the militia is meant to defend "the security of a free state" from. This is why you need to make obvious deductions based on context. There's certainly no basis, either in the literal text or in contextual deduction, for the idea that the founders only meant it as security against foreign invasion.
The Supreme Court in DC. v Heller [1] determined:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"
The definition of the militia in federal law [2] is not limited to those with membership in a formal organization:
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."
> We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis.
In my opinion Arver v US was a war-time sham case and the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" clearly and unambiguously prohibits the draft.
> We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater
This quote is from Schenck v United States and was written to support the Supreme Court's decision that criticizing the draft was illegal and not protected by the first amendment. Fortunately this was later overturned.
> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?
Suppressors have a legitimate purpose in reducing hearing damage to the user by taking the volume of a firearm down from jet engine to lawnmower. As for the 51 caliber, I can only assume the previous poster simply thinks that applying a federal "tax" to barrels over 50 caliber is arbitrary and capricious.
> How did you come to believe you needed this capability?
The police not only have no responsibility to protect anyone, but also no responsibility to even actually show up when you call. We saw in the recent Florida shooting that multiple officers on the scene are perfectly willing to hide and completely ignore the murder of children. On this basis (among others) I see no reason for civilians who are not police officers to have legal access to anything less than what is available to civilians are are police officers. If there were firearm restrictions that applied to everyone I would be intrigued, but I have yet to see any legislation that does not completely exempt police (they are exempt even in absurd cases, e.g. from state laws restricting firearm ownership by people with a history of domestic violence).
[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Flame throwers have a legitimate use as a brush clearing tool. Fortunately there are straightforward and safer alternatives.
The best way to prevent hearing damage from a gun is with ear protection.
Why does equality if availability with local state institutions appeal to you?
A suppressor, aka "silencer", is a SAFETY device. If you believe otherwise, you've been watching too much TV. They don't render the weapon silent or even quiet, they bring the explosive sound down to a range that doesn't pose risk of hearing loss. I've seen the sound of a gun with a good silencer likened to slamming an unabridged dictionary onto a solid table as hard as you can. So the assassin in the next room, or even the guy out in the back yard, is still going to wake up somebody in the bedroom.
So the use of a silencer is to protect the hearing of everyone around you. As such, it's certainly a net-positive for society.
Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much as an indication of the perceived need over other options. When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear, then I'm hunting far away from hopefully all society and being safe about it?
Regardless, I appreciate your candor.
"real"? i don't think any of those are even available for purchase. take a look at thunderbeast arms or silencerco for what "real" suppressors look like.
they're astonishingly effective, and last for forever. (which is important when it takes 12 months to get one.)
> When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear
ugh, have you ever even stood next to someone setting off a hunting rifle?
suppressors are additive with ear protection (super useful for anyone with hearing damage), and also eliminate the whole-body experience of the blast.
The tradeoff is between the relative costs and benefits of suppressors. Given that ear protection is cheap, plentiful, and doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot, it's hard to justify the legality of suppressors for purely "safety" reasons.
If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and consequently increase the probability of the weapon's being used.
The same can't be said for ear protection.
The point is that given the availability of effective ear protection, there is no legitimate argument for civilian use of suppressors. There is no plausible argument that their existence would decrease the risk of a gun's being used illegally, and there are great reasons to believe that in some instances it would increase this risk, and/or make it more difficult to catch those who have done so.
Long range flamethrowers are illegal, but could be said to have a "legitimate use" for clearing brush. When there is no good argument for a thing to exist, and there are good safety-based arguments for it to not exist, then in the name of safety we should not have said thing.
"A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post
What do you specifically mean by "proven to make a difference"? Suppressors are known for being used by intelligence services -- presumably they're not using them to protect their agents' hearing.
It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention.
Are you claiming otherwise?
So you raise any interesting point. I'm only concerned about the law of the land since it's generally more or less the common ground we are forced to live on.
New question, and this is more open to derailment, but let's risk it.
ASSUME your current policy (liberal or conservative) is wrong, what what extent do you have the right to choose it anyways?
To answer your question, you should always have the right to be wrong (e.g., choose or prefer a wrong policy). I’m sure people would prefer to say “you have an unqualified right to be wrong, but only on matters that don’t affect others.” But I’ll go further and say everyone has the right to be stubborn and thick-headed.
I am assuming that even with a right to be wrong, I don’t have a right to be violent about it, etc. It’s more “I have a right to be a crank (if I’m in the minority), and a right to vote for bad policies and expect them to be implemented (if I win and they don’t violate civil rights).”
In a democracy, the safety valves seem to be:
* usually it’s hard to prove which answer is right or wrong (society as a whole doesn’t pay much for less-than-optimal policies that aren’t actively bad)
* for policies that are actively bad, the people generally notice the high cost and change the policy.
If you think I’m wrong, or I think you’re wrong, we don’t get to steamroll each other. We have to try to convince the other side. This can be annoying, but every alternative we’ve tried has been worse. No dictator, bureau, monarch, etc. has a perfect record of always choosing right or always correcting past mistakes. So I think it’s reasonable to assume we’ll always have some mistaken policies. The question is which mistaken policies should we live with (answer: the ones we choose to live with).
I have an old game book that includes the quote “democracy guarantees the people get the government they deserve.” I’ve also heard the statement “democracy assumes the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” I agree with both statements.
According to 10 U.S. Code § 246[0]:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, the majority of male Americans belong to the militia of the United States, and the vast majority of those belong to the unorganised militia (arguably, this section of the U.S. Code should be extended to cover women as well). Bearing private arms is simply arming oneself as a member of the unorganised militia.
> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?
A suppressor is simply a safety device to save hearing; it's not a magical silencer.
> How does your right contribute to the security of the state?
An armed populace is better able to suppress insurrection, e.g. during the LA Riots back in the 90s.
> Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
It shouldn't be. We reasonably prohibit firearms to felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill &c. Honestly, if the Second Amendment were treated like the First is, the New York Times would publish op-eds urging that concealed-carry be mandatory …
Do the people get to keep and eat food, or does a breakfast get to keep and eat food?
It's a matter of English grammar. Again:
"Well stocked libraries being necessary to the development of a sound mind, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is it only people in libraries that can keep and read books?
If you want a sentence diagram of it: https://imgur.com/vTB11TE
Several state constitutions have parts with similar structure. It wasn't uncommon.
The meaning of law should not change when common language usage changes. At the time of writing, "well regulated" meant effective/functional/working, and militia meant every male from about age 12 to 60.
Trying to reinterpret the 2nd amendment away is an attempt to bypass the proper process for making constitutional changes. There is one legitimate way to restrict guns; simply amend the constitution.
I agree completely that we should not language shiv out legal problems away lest we destroy ourselves in favorable ambiguity. My question was clearly poorly articulated (smells of irony).
The first clause established a clear goal and intent, while the second is the statement of action.
The more interesting legal question to me (my legalese is super weak, so please excuse), why is any law that would not hamper a militia be considered unconstitutional? Other than Heller seems to have set the definition militia to something frankly disturbing.
"Wolverines!" -- Hollywood movie Red Dawn
There are enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to carry one, and enough mulish stubbornness to carry on guerilla warfare for a long time. Americans shoot at each other constantly, and have been intensively studying next-generation warfare overseas for decades. We would certainly not hesitate to convert school shootings into checkpoint shootings, and random/racist bombings into vichy collaborator bombings.
Any nation with experience occupying Afghanistan should consider it before attempting to occupy the US. Those without it should consult with any allies that have it.
It doesn't contribute to the security of the state, but it does increase the security of the country. Except insofar as potential invaders decide that a standard invasion is infeasible and instead nuke every city and military base, I guess.
> I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater...
Mr. Ken "Popehat" White would like to have a word: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
The US shares land borders with only two foreign countries: Canada and Mexico. We have been at peace with the former since 1815, and strong allies since 1940. Relations with the latter have been a bit less cordial, exacerbated by racism and corruption. But there's very little risk of invasion there. So any potential direct attacker would have to come by sea, through the largest navy on Earth.
I think the only way to reasonably do it would be by subverting an entire municipal government and then buying up military hardware through the police department. The force would have to be trained to capture and use military assets already in place. But then what would they do with them? Nothing you could do would be more profitable than just sitting back and running the government you already control just like a corrupt American politician would. And the reason is that suburban Americans would NIMBY a foreign invasion just as strenuously as they would a proposed nuclear power plant, a new Wal-Mart, or some mid-rise apartment blocks. Just think how that go if everyone were allowed to shoot their guns at each other.
Most people do not own firearms. But those who don't mostly live in cities. Everyone in a rural area owns at least one, without exception (hyperbole), even if it's just the one they use for unsalvageable injured livestock and large predators. Suburbanites keep rifles for recreational target shooting and hunting, but for personal defense you're probably better off with a shotgun or a sidearm. A lot of my neighbors carry daily, for no particularly good reason that I can discern. I don't care to know who's packing and who isn't, but you can often tell by looking at the purses or clothing.
I don't have one, but I saw a neighbor shoot a snake on the sidewalk across the street once. That guy's kind of an idiot, but he didn't miss. It wasn't venomous, and he probably didn't eat it, but he didn't have to be afraid of it any more, either. So I guess it wards off the bogeyman?
I'd estimate that 98.6% of rural households own at least one gun, 20% of urban households keep some, and 50% of suburban households. Most people who own any guns at all have no more than one sidearm, one rifle, and one shotgun, and a large number of the total number of guns are found in collections of 20 or more. You have to be rich or inherit antiques to hoard guns like that. Most people would probably stop after a 1911A pistol or .357mag revolver, a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 or similar 12ga pump shotgun, and a .22LR rifle. Those guns are cheap, versatile, use cheap and widely available ammunition, have plenty of clones, and can serve most gun-owner purposes that's aren't hunting things larger than squirrels. A subset will also get a 5.56 or .223 military-inspired rifle for keeping the king of England out of your face, and a mostly disjoint subset will have one very good larger-caliber rifle and huge chest freezer for hunting deer every November. Hunters and hoplophiles tolerate one another, but they are usually more allies than friends.
Individually, not much, but like vaccines and herd immunity, it works well when large number do.
>How does your right contribute to the security of the state?
"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"
>How did you come to believe you needed this capability?
History makes a fine lesson. Maybe 100 million killed by democide in the 20th century.
>Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
Yelling "fire" in a movie theater has nothing to do with "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". Neither does slander, verbal assault, etc.
Full auto etc, for what purpose?
How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument?
I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desire, which can easily be acted out in controlled areas; shooting ranges, hunting parks, gun theme parks etc.
Or better yet, you can examine your desire, understand it, dissipate it. Try meditating.
I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws.
It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers.
So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.
The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money).
Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.
We can't uninvent the gun and we can't, realistically, make them illegal.
As for shooting drones and tanks, look to our wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. It doesn't take much to bog down a well-oiled fighting force like ours.
We can't un-invent the gun, but that's not to say we can't radically restrict ownership, and of course we can make them illegal, why not? It just takes everyone to agree to compromise.
War is clearly a different situation, but the Afghans and Vietnamese didn't fight with a bunch of hand guns. Do you think they had RPG's, grenades etc, stacked up in their basements awaiting an opportunity to rebel? Of course not, they found the means with the cause.
If you want to talk about guns, make videos about shooting them (preferably from a range), or otherwise advocate, I completely support that right - but I will be swayed by your arguments, not the fact that you are waving a gun around.
I guess that's my point. Guns are not power. They belie weakness, even cowardice, and infect the rest of society with insecurity.
We do regulate where you can drive a car, though. Large swathes of cities can block off the use of cars in certain areas, and of course you're only allowed to drive them on the road, according to strict regulations. We even have a licensing and registration system for cars that says you can't drive one unless you pass a test, and that your car must meet certain specifications to be road-legal and actually get registration.
It would also be extremely difficult to impose the kind of regulation we have around cars, on guns. It's extremely unpalatable politically. While we ban certain modifications (though a lot of those bans have expired) typically there's no mandatory registration, save for some states.
I don't argue what should be, only what will be. And this is what will be: If a functionary of the State comes to take my firearms, one of us will die. Period.
If it were an action movie, one could make a case that it would always be the gun-taking bureaucrat that would die, and in a cathartically satisfying way, but in real life, they come with overwhelming force, and kill the citizens without remorse. Then they investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrongdoing.
Perhaps you imagine you're living in a sitcom instead? Does your entire family always sit on just one side of the dining table?
We remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, because a lot of Holocaust survivors emigrated to the US and made sure to tell their stories to everyone who would listen. The lesson learned was to always fight back, and to start the instant anyone tries to undermine your ability to do so. In doing so, you will likely die, but the fear you put into your killers might just save someone else. That's the honeybee defense. The bee that stings will die, but there are more bees willing to sting and die than attackers willing to feel the pain, and thus the hive is preserved.
Sometimes progress is made when old generation dies off. It's painfully slow, but hey, it's better than nothing.
This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.
If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is going to complain; if they don't, the other part will.
If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits.
I think this is implicit in content providers with extremely large audiences, and it's quite difficult (and interesting) to assess what is failure and what success, from a business perspective.
Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.
I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.
I don't follow. A full 31% of the US population, most of whom have sufficient disposable income to blow $600-$2000 on a piece of steel and polymer. How is that a bad demographic to advertise to?
How do you propose YouTube draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable? Because legal/illegal isn't going to work here.
But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and made a better algorithm to distribute their ads, it would never be am issue. Just ask your sponsors what kind of content they don't want to be associated, and then just don't show this ads in channels with this subjects. There, eberyboth is happy.
Now for gun related content, I really don't whatch in youtube anymore, since the creators don't receive money in there. So I just watch in sites like Full30.
The problem, is that a lot a good channels today, are only in youtube, like C&R arsenal, who is currentlly doing an amazing WWI guns history in great detail.
For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level.
To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people.
Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list.
The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there).
Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with.
On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.
Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers?
Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?
Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not?
In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.
I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content.
Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so.
As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view?
Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content.
1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder.
The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in.
I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have.
Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost.
Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun
Is there any serious group of people advocating lawsuits against platforms that allow videos about guns? In the US?
I think 10 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that a federal law pushed gun enthusiasts into pornographic websites.
I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or just the slingshot channel).
Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various other content.
People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, have made videos on how to make a bullet out of mercury. It's entirely impractical for any real world usage but it's nonetheless informative and educational, especially since he explains the safety precautions taken.
I like Forgotten Weapons. It has serious historical information, and I will be pissed off if Google deletes it.
It seems to be that the principle behind net neutrality -- that of a common carrier -- shouldn't just apply to the ip layer, but should also sometimes apply to higher levels of the technology stack, especially when a provider has a large market share.
It's simply a risk that lawmakers or the company itself begin enforcing laws outside their jurisdiction (using the company as proxy) or their personal beliefs and ethics (enforcing rules that seem nonsensical to an affected culture or country)
This cultural shift just makes me feel like the old line was obscenity and the new line is appropriate for 5 year olds.
They've all been cross-posted here. https://www.full30.com/channels/forgottenweapons
> YouTube will ban videos that offer instructions on how to make firearms and accessories such as silencers and bump stocks. It will prohibit content in which firearms and accessories are sold, both directly and through other websites. Videos on how to install firearms modifications will also be barred.
> While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories, specifically, items like ammunition, gatling triggers, and drop-in auto sears.
Good, informative, and educational channels, that will problally be banned from youtube in the future.
I'm reasonably certain the same would apply for gun enthusiasts, or the people who make archery equipment out of hardware store stuff like PVC pipe and fiberglass rods.
And from that perspective, this content-based discrimination seems a lot like bullying. You don't like the same things I like, so I use my power to ban you from my social circle forever. The popular kid is uninviting the nerd kid from their party.
They are also uninviting the creepy psycho kid at the same time, of course. No one's quite sure what to do about that one yet, they just don't want to be too close--physically or emotionally--when whatever it is actually happens.
Aren't both businesses trying to make a decision about who their customer is?
People can't reasonably go to another video hosting platform and expect to get the same kind of exposure and income. Some people's income purely depends on youtube's quasi-monopoly on video hosting.
A more correct analogy would be if a baking company had 90% of the market and refused to make cakes for gay weddings and every other baker can't afford the volume prices so the cake will be more expensive and possibly of less quality.
It does. The companies have the freedom of speech to NOT host or promote speech they do not support.
But this is taking it a bit too literal :)
They may not be legally required to allow free speech, but I believe that free speech is a cultural norm that we need to work to preserve. Excusing rampant violations of free speech because it isn't technically illegal or unconstitutional right now is paving the road towards actual government tyranny. And when it comes, nobody will be able to hear you complain about it, because every platform will shut you down while technically not violating the law.
In the end porn hosts might be the savest haven for controversial content as they have become used to creating revenue models independent from image conscious clients.
Almost everything they have removed was 100% legal content that they didn’t like.
IDK about you, but I’ll chose to use sites that want to do their job of hosting, and not my job of choosing what I see/learn.
This effectively cuts off any revenue stream other than crowdfunding, as practically every sponsor would sell guns or accessories. Furthermore, direct firearm sales and instructions on how to make (and indeed, actually making) firearms are entirely legal.
Also "instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition" are expressly prohibited, even though if it is legal for you to possess a gun or ammo, it is also legal to make it for personal use (and with appropriate licence even for sale). There are plenty of gunsmithing and reloading videos that are now going away.
In before the gun channels continue exactly as they were, except for the one change that their hosts are now nude