James Yeager banned from YouTube

[Glocktogo]

Yeah, I'm sure that would pass First Amendment scrutiny.

I don't event think it's a 1st Amendment issue. It might be an antitrust issue, especially if all the mainstream providers are in lockstep to deny access to certain categories of users. It seems to me that for the most part, antitrust has been gathering dust for quite a while. 1st Amendment and property rights are supreme IMO, but denying access to entire classes or categories of people who are complying with all applicable laws and regulations is distasteful in the least and IMO, downright dirty.

Could this be a case of not seeing the trees for the forest? Please, people, take a moment and think about that.

Some incredibly dumb stuff has happened under Yeager's auspices. There have been a couple of incidents that concern me with him. One was the damage to a vehicle or tire (I forget which) that happened at a class his school was conducting, and two, was the incident involving the man in the wheelchair.

Bottom line for me is that Yeager is dangerous, and people should be made aware of this when they take his class. Now, having said this, do I think he should get the ax from youtube? No.

Just the same, I don't see this as the start of a trend. The camel's nose argument is a logical fallacy in most cases. Just because Yeager is banned does not mean that youtube will ban all gun channels.

Does this situation with youtube bear watching? Of course it does; just don't panic.

Three people are on my "Do Not Want" training list, Sonny Puzikas, Gabe Suarez and James Yeager. There are just too many quality training providers to deal with discredited providers. JMO, YMMV

Gunbuffer, in case you don't know, you're a bit of an ***
Not much I want to hear from you.
Think it's best to try the ignore button.
You have something in common now with Yeager.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[gerhard1]

~snip~

Three people are on my "Do Not Want" training list, Sonny Puzikas, Gabe Suarez and James Yeager. There are just too many quality training providers to deal with discredited providers. JMO, YMMV

~snip~

Agreed. I did not know of Puzikas, but I looked him up but I am aware of the other two, and none of them sound like anything I'd take.

 

[SMS]

It’s wrong to force a baker to make a cake for a gay couple but the government needs to force YouTube, a private company, to host content they disagree with?

Good lord some folks have their logic all twisted.

 

[Dave70968]

I don't event think it's a 1st Amendment issue. It might be an antitrust issue, especially if all the mainstream providers are in lockstep to deny access to certain categories of users.

You don't see how your proposal to break them up based upon their viewpoint is not a First Amendment violation?

It seems to me that for the most part, antitrust has been gathering dust for quite a while. 1st Amendment and property rights are supreme IMO, but denying access to entire classes or categories of people who are complying with all applicable laws and regulations is distasteful in the least and IMO, downright dirty.

This isn't an antitrust issue. You're not being locked out of the market, or forced to use a particular service. Want to post your video that YouTube doesn't want? I'll be happy to provide a list of hosting companies (starting with Rackspace), and any number of web server applications.

Also, steelfingers, antitrust, and any sort of corporate breakup, would be handled by the DOJ, not Congress.

YouTube is on the internet. The internet was built and maintained by tax dollars. YouTube gets away with being a for profit on tax dollars.
YouTube has massive political influence.
Request thread closed (If it's allowed)

Built with, perhaps, in a very primitive form, but at this point, it's mostly private. Analogy: the roads are presently built and maintained almost exclusively with tax dollars; truckers and cabbies get away with being a for-profit on tax dollars. Many of them only take certain cargoes or passengers. Ditto air charter. Got a problem with that?

 

[Dr. HK]

about 50 seconds in you can see James in action

 

[druryj]

about 50 seconds in you can see James in action

...When he says: "...I'm gonna start killing people?" Really? Wow, what an idiot to say that, and even more of an idiot to say it publicly. I guess he thinks some of the folks who may listen to him, even by accident, will think he's a bad ass?...well...he's not.

 

[Glocktogo]

You don't see how your proposal to break them up based upon their viewpoint is not a First Amendment violation?

This isn't an antitrust issue. You're not being locked out of the market, or forced to use a particular service. Want to post your video that YouTube doesn't want? I'll be happy to provide a list of hosting companies (starting with Rackspace), and any number of web server applications.

Also, steelfingers, antitrust, and any sort of corporate breakup, would be handled by the DOJ, not Congress.

Built with, perhaps, in a very primitive form, but at this point, it's mostly private. Analogy: the roads are presently built and maintained almost exclusively with tax dollars; truckers and cabbies get away with being a for-profit on tax dollars. Many of them only take certain cargoes or passengers. Ditto air charter. Got a problem with that?

It's a really complex issue and I don't think the law has kept up with technology. It may not apply now and it may never apply. All I know is that what they do is skeevy as hell, and I don't like it.

 

[druryj]

Ya'll be nice now you hear? No more name calling.

 

[Dave70968]

It's a really complex issue and I don't think the law has kept up with technology. It may not apply now and it may never apply. All I know is that what they do is skeevy as hell, and I don't like it.

Again, let me recommend Rackspace (great outfit to deal with), and Apache webserver (free, and runs a substantial portion of the internet). You can host anything (legal) you want.

 

[caojyn]

“I don’t like it, so you shouldn’t be able to do it”
LOL