╌>

PragerU files 2nd lawsuit against Google, YouTube for ‘restricting and restraining’ conservative speech

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  donald-trump-fan1  •  5 years ago  •  141 comments

PragerU files 2nd lawsuit against Google, YouTube for ‘restricting and restraining’ conservative speech
Filed Tuesday in the Superior Court of California for the county of Santa Clara, this is the second lawsuit that Prager has filed against Google and YouTube, the first being filed in federal court. In this latest suit, Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;” “discriminating against PragerU (and other users) based on political, religious or...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Popular conservative YouTube channel Prager University has filed a new lawsuit against Google and YouTube, which Google owns, for unlawfully restricting and restraining speech.

Filed Tuesday in the Superior Court of California for the county of Santa Clara, this is the second lawsuit that Prager has filed against Google and YouTube, the first being filed in federal court.

In this latest suit, Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;” “discriminating against PragerU (and other users) based on political, religious or other discriminatory animus in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Section 51 of the California Civil Code;” “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair businesses practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Laws of the California Business and Professions Code,” and finally “violating YouTube’s terms of use, ‘Community Guidelines,’ and other content-neutral filtering policies and procedures.”

“Google/YouTube continue to censor, restrict, and restrain video content based on animus, discrimination, profit, and/or for any other reason ‘or no reason,’ no matter how arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory,” the lawsuit states.


The lawsuit noted these restrictions came through YouTube’s “Restricted Mode,” which is a filtering protocol used to block content deemed “inappropriate” for “sensitive” audiences; and “Advertising Restrictions,” a policy that prohibits advertisers from accessing videos deemed “inappropriate” for advertising.

“Google/YouTube use these filtering mechanisms as a pretext to justify restricting and censoring PragerU’s videos. And Google/YouTube continues to do so, even though the content of PragerU videos complies with YouTube’s written criteria,” the lawsuit argues .

In October 2017, PragerU filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing them of ideologically-driven discrimination.

A Los Angeles-based group that has over 1 million subscribers on YouTube headed by conservative radio host Dennis Prager, PragerU has found many of its videos restricted or blocked due to complaints over its content.


For example, in 2016 a PragerU video featuring a pro-Israel British Muslim was labeled "hate speech" and blocked by the video-sharing site for anyone using restricted access standards.

Last February, YouTube " restricted " a video on Planned Parenthood featuring pro-life activist Lila Rose mere hours after it was uploaded to the popular video-sharing website.

In March 2018, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed PragerU’s federal lawsuit against Google , arguing that Google and YouTube “are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website.”

For their part, PragerU has appealed Judge Koh's decision before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

“Google/YouTube continue to censor, restrict, and restrain video content based on animus, discrimination, profit, and/or for any other reason ‘or no reason,’ no matter how arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit noted these restrictions came through YouTube’s “Restricted Mode,” which is a filtering protocol used to block content deemed “inappropriate” for “sensitive” audiences; and “Advertising Restrictions,” a policy that prohibits advertisers from accessing videos deemed “inappropriate” for advertising.

“Google/YouTube use these filtering mechanisms as a pretext to justify restricting and censoring PragerU’s videos. And Google/YouTube continues to do so, even though the content of PragerU videos complies with YouTube’s written criteria,” the lawsuit argues. ”

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
1.1  Rmando  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

To be fair, easily offended liberals who can't stand the opinions of others are by definition a "sensitive audience".

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Rmando @1.1    5 years ago

Good good point.  Prager is very effective in getting his point across. He takes on the secular progressives in a powerful effective way.  He’s a great man. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago
He takes on the secular progressives in a powerful effective way.  

I want to see an example for this claim.  The few minutes that I have only convinced me that he is a BS artist who plays fast and loose with facts. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
1.2  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

384

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

Keep suing Prager, you moron, and see how far it gets you!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2  epistte    5 years ago

Dennie Prager has no constitutional rights on Youtube. It's a private site, he isn't being billed to be there and Google can do as they wish. Read the small print before you click accept.

The judge has previously ruled and it wasn't in his favor,  so why does he think that doing the same thing again will be different?  This is a very simple concept to understand. 

A judge holds that YouTube isn't a "public forum" run by a "state actor."

Google has prevailed in a lawsuit that alleged YouTube has been violating the First Amendment by censoring conservative viewpoints. On Monday, a California federal judge agreed to dismiss a complaint from Prager University, run by radio talk-show host Dennis Prager.

The plaintiff produces videos with titles like "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion." In the lawsuit, Prager's company asserted that YouTube professes viewpoint neutrality but censors conservatives by putting age restrictions on certain videos. The decision-making is far from even-handed, Prager contends, pointing to, among others, a restricted video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" compared to better treatment for a  Real Time with Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground .

Prager sought an injunction .

Since the First Amendment free speech guarantee guards against abridgment by a government, the big question for U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh is whether YouTube has become the functional equivalent of a "public forum" run by a "state actor" requiring legal intervention over a constitutional violation.

Koh agrees with Google that it hasn't been sufficiently alleged that YouTube is a state actor as opposed to a private party.

"Plaintiff does not point to any persuasive authority to support the notion that Defendants, by creating a 'video-sharing website' and subsequently restricting access to certain videos that are uploaded on that website, have somehow engaged in one of the 'very few' functions that were traditionally 'exclusively reserved to the State,'" she writes. "Instead, Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendants hold YouTube out 'as a public forum dedicated to freedom of expression to all' and argues that 'a private property owner who operates its property as a public forum for speech is subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.'”

The judge turns to precedent, particularly a 1945 Supreme Court case,  Marsh v. Alabama , that involved a Jehovah's Witness who distributed religious literature in a town that was entirely owned by a private corporation. In that decision, the high court held that the corporation acting as a state actor was required to run the town in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. But Koh then emphasizes later Supreme Court decisions that limited the reach of this holding, including one — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner — where a privately owned shopping center could prohibit anti-Vietnam War protesters from distributing literature. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  epistte @2    5 years ago

And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    5 years ago
And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

That analogy only fits if the baker was being forced to carry some other gay bakers "Gay Wedding Cake" products for resale. You cannot tell a deli it has to sell bacon or any other good, but you can require it to sell bacon to blacks, Jews or Gays if they already offer bacon to Christian heterosexuals. Why is this significant difference seemingly ignored by conservatives? It's so simple. A business open to the public cannot refuse to sell their products to specific protected classes, but it also cannot be compelled to sell or offer products or services it doesn't want to. So it would be okay for the baker to say "I don't sell wedding cakes to anyone, so I obviously won't be selling one to the gay couple". That is perfectly legal. Youtube, as company that does business with the general public, they can't say "Hey, we're not going to let conservatives watch Youtube." That would be illegal. But they can say "Hey, we're not going to resell Prager Universities content to our customer base because it's not a product we agree with or endorse". That is perfectly legal and will be seen as such when the courts throw his ass out of court. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    5 years ago
And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

Difference is he offers a service at a fee to do business with the public at large to bake.

In opening and holding that license he agreed to the terms afforded to his business.

Google has no such rules to abide by. 

Your assertion isn't even related.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    5 years ago
And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

How much is Dennis Prager paying YouTube to host his videos?

Political speech isn't a protected class, unlike a person's sexuality.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    5 years ago
And yet we have some that feel just the opposite about a baker and what he can reject in his private business. 

Apples and oranges.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.5  epistte  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.4    5 years ago
Apples and oranges.

It's amazing how misinformed many people are. I doubt that 75% of Americans could pass a high school civics or 100 level political science exam. 

Spend the $30.00 on the download to learn what the Bill of Rights protects and what it doesn't.  John Finn is a great lecturer.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
2.1.6  A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    5 years ago

The difference,Dean, is that the baker was selectively discriminating based on one religious belief while de facto refusing to recognize the tenets of others while doing business in the public space.

And if I take Praeger’s position, then the NFL had no right to tell players they couldn’t take a knee.

Can’t have it both ways; am I missing something here?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur @2.1.6    5 years ago

I’m not seeing the difference the NFL owners are instructing their employees on what to do and so is the baker. They both have a vision for what they want their businesses to be, what work they do and how it is to be done. If the player doesn’t want to do what the boss says he is free to look elsewhere for work, same with the baker. The baker is free to reject the work same as the player. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
2.1.8  A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.7    5 years ago
They both have a vision for what they want their businesses to be, what work they do and how it is to be done. If the player doesn’t want to do what the boss says he is free to look elsewhere for work, same with the baker. The baker is free to reject the work same as the player. 

Not the issue, Dean; the issue is that the baker (and his EMPLOYEES … THE BUSINESS) exert THEIR RIGHTS TO ESSENTIALLY PROTEST against a social phenomenon … the LEGAL right of individuals to practice a particular lifestyle …

… WHILE THE NFL (BUSINESS) denies its EMPLOYEES the RIGHT TO PROTEST the ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!

Can't have it both ways, Dean; either the "employer/the business," under law, permits and practices acts and expressions of protest, or, under law, disallows it.

The irony regarding the NFL … in practice, it ultimately declares/PROTESTS its right as "the employer," to PROHIBIT its EMPLOYEES from PROTESTING.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2.1.5    5 years ago

Thanks for the spam advertising on my seed.  Not!  jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.10  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.9    5 years ago
Thanks for the spam advertising on my seed.  Not!

Is learning something a problem for you?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2.1.10    5 years ago

Then perhaps I should try to persuade you to buy a product and pay your money for it here.  Just to help you learn something.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.12  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.11    5 years ago
Then perhaps I should try to persuade you to buy a product and pay your money for it here.  Just to help you learn something.

Go for it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2    5 years ago

Prager is appealing the federal district court to the court of appeals and he filed a separate lawsuit in state court regarding potential violation of the California state constitution.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    5 years ago

And they'll get nowhere. 

Same as the suit against SPLC....wishful fantasy.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.2  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    5 years ago

Prager uses frivolous lawsuits by the theocratic ADF scumbags to milk tons of cash from the ignorant thumpers that lap up his religious freedom broadcast bullshit. I listen to his shows whenever I feel the need to reaffirm just how ignorant and gullible some on the right truly are in America.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @2.2.2    5 years ago

Thanks for letting me know that Alliance Defending Freedom is involved in Pragers cases against the social media tech industry.  As a proud supporter of/contributor to ADF it’s great to know that they are defending a great American against the slime that operates much of social media.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    5 years ago
Prager is appealing the federal district court to the court of appeals and he filed a separate lawsuit in state court regarding potential violation of the California state constitution.

They are going to be tossed immediately because Google doesn't have to abide by the state constitution, they are not a government entity. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.3    5 years ago
 As a proud supporter of/contributor to ADF it’s great to know that they are defending a great American against the slime that operates much of social media.  

You mean wasting everyone's time and sucking money out of gullible morons? If this is what the ADF spends its time on then it is a scam, nothing more. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.1    5 years ago

Really?  The hate group already had to settle with one man they defamed with their lying list and the process will be repeated.  Oh and according to the California constitution political speech/views are a protected class and that is where the latest court case is. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.4    5 years ago

Everyone, individual and business living in or doing business in this state is bound by its constitution.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.5    5 years ago

The great and wonderful Alliance Defending Freedom is a regular arguing and winning cases before the SCOTUS.  They are one of America’s finest and premier legal groups.  They do outstanding work on behalf of outstanding people.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.7    5 years ago
Everyone, individual and business living in or doing business in this state is bound by its constitution.  

Lol oh god, get the fuck out of here with that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. But let's flesh this out really fast. So if I am bound by the constitution, then why can I kick someone out of my house for saying something I don't like and face exactly zero legal consequences? 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.2.10  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.6    5 years ago
Really?  The hate group already had to settle with one man they defamed with their lying list and the process will be repeated.  Oh and according to the California constitution political speech/views are a protected class and that is where the latest court case is. 

That concept of protected political speech only applies on government-owned property. 

YouTube is not a state actor.  Only the government can censor someone, so unless you can prove that the government told/paid YouTube to remove Prager's videos you don't have a legal leg to stand on.   YouTube is private property, just the same as you telling someone to get off your property. Allowing Prager to sue YouTube for censorship would open up a legal can of worms that weakens private property rights.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.11  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.3    5 years ago

who else would it be? when he's not pimping his listeners for ADF contributions, (matched dollar for dollar by an anonymous donor - bwah ha ha) he's trying to sell a $1000 office chair or happy pills to unamerican scum that most of which are already late for the grave. same thing with his twin brother from another mother, hugh hewitt. don't get me wrong, I got nothing against these guys selling sugar pills loaded with chemicals that eventually turn internal organs into rocks to those gullible enough to swallow that daily dose of ultra conservative swill. I wish I'd thought of it. good riddance.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2.2.10    5 years ago

My comment was in reply to one who brought up the terrorist inspiring progressive hate group, SPLC into the conversation.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.2.13  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.12    5 years ago

What terrorist group did the SPLC inspire?

 How are progressives a hate group?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.14  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.12    5 years ago
My comment was in reply to one who brought up the terrorist inspiring progressive hate group, SPLC into the conversation.  

Yep. That would be me. And I stand by that.

 The bigots drooling for a shot at getting back at SPLC for outing a fellow lynch favoring bigot will have to wait for something real.

SPLC exposing scum bigots is their mission and the fellow scum bigots hate them for this.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.8    5 years ago
The great and wonderful Alliance Defending Freedom is a regular arguing and winning cases before the SCOTUS.  They are one of America’s finest and premier legal groups.  They do outstanding work on behalf of outstanding people.

Lol! God you are so transparent I cannot believe people actually give you money! Trump, is that you? I only ask because he is the only other obvious con artist hack piece of shit I can think that is on your level. I mean, you seriously have the "balls" to tell me that I am beholden to the constitution then bitch out as soon as I pose a 100 class level constitutional question? 

I mean, you go right to a shitty talking point? Fuck you, don't talk to me. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.2.16  epistte  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.14    5 years ago
The bigots drooling for a shot at getting back at SPLC for outing a fellow lynch favoring bigot will have to wait for something real. SPLC exposing scum bigots is their mission and the fellow scum bigots hate them for this.

It seems that being held accountable via a federal hate crime is a violation of the religious freedom of these would-be theocrats. Equal rights for others is not something that these religious bigots support.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2.2.17  Rmando  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.14    5 years ago

"SPLC exposing scum bigots is their mission and the fellow scum bigots hate them for this."

You mean bigots like Maajid Nawal, a former radical Muslim extremists who now denounces extremism? Or any of the other "scum bigots" who's only crime is not kowtowing to the far left extortion racket that is the SPLC?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.5    5 years ago

That’s why it’s (Alliance Defending Freedom) lawyers appear and argue regularly before the SCOTUS and often win there....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.14    5 years ago

SPLC are scum bigots.  They target legitimate conservative and religious groups as hate groups for daring to disagree with them on a variety of issues.  There is nothing legitimate or a objective about that money 💰 making front group for its founder, Dees, a real example of what Rush refers to as human debris. People have attacked groups and individuals on the SPLC so called hate list because they were wrongly on that list.  The armed assault on the HQ of the Family Research Council in 2012 is a prime example. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.20  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.18    5 years ago
That’s why it’s (Alliance Defending Freedom) lawyers appear and argue regularly before the SCOTUS and often win there....

Uh huh, what major cases have they argued and won? Actually, what cases at all have they argued before the SCOTUS?

BTW, nice rereg.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.21  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.19    5 years ago
SPLC are scum bigots.

thank god for organizations such as these that keep unamerican thumper scum from turning the US into a theocracy dominated by knuckle dragging religious zealots that feel the need to dictate their warped versions of morality and values upon others by eliminating free will for anyone but themselves.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.20    5 years ago

Why would I need to re reg?  

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.23  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.8    5 years ago

You are really fooling yourself.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.24  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.18    5 years ago

Not often compared to the others appearing 

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.25  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.19    5 years ago

So much bullshit so little time

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.26  Don Overton  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.20    5 years ago

AmenjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.2.21    5 years ago

The SPLC does no such thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.5    5 years ago
'If this is what the ADF spends its time on then it is a scam, nothing more.'

That's all they are - a SCAM.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.29  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.28    5 years ago

That’s why they argue and win cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.  They are an awesome organization that does great work.  The Alliance Defending Freedom does just that, it defends our religious and personal freedom. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.30  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.29    5 years ago
it defends our religious and personal freedom

... of knuckle dragging theocrats that deserve to be deported for unamerican activities. funny how Prager can't attract any major advertisers to his nationally syndicated propaganda broadcast. when teavangelicals claim to have jewish friends, it's just him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.2.30    5 years ago
of knuckle dragging theocrats that deserve to be deported for unamerican activities

In your little fantasy world, WHERE do you deport American citizens TO?

And what LEGAL reasoning, if ANY, do you use?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.2.30    5 years ago

Who are his advertisers?  My Pillow?  Those slop buckets of food that Glenn Beck and that whore monger Jim Bakker peddle now?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.33  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.29    5 years ago

Which cases have they argued and WON?

I'll wait.  

LOL.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
2.2.34  Veronica  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.32    5 years ago
My Pillow?

I am very disappointed with mine.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2.29    5 years ago
That’s why they argue and win cases before the Supreme Court of the United States

Since some seem unfamiliar with ADF wins, here are some links.

www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/empirical-scotus-supreme-court-all...

www.abajournal.com/...freedom_gains_influence_with_supreme_court_wins

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/31/adf-to-celebrate...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases_involving...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2    5 years ago
Dennie Prager has no constitutional rights on Youtube.

This case is based on the California Constitution, which tends be more protective of people from discrimination and unfairness than the federal Constitution.

The judge has previously ruled and it wasn't in his favor,  so why does he think that doing the same thing again will be different?

This lawsuit is on different grounds. The previous ruling has no bearing on the new suit.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.3.1  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    5 years ago
This case is based on the California Constitution, which tends be more protective of people from discrimination and unfairness than the federal Constitution.

Google is not a state actor and there is no fee to host videos on YT/Google. YouTube pays some people who post videos because of the advertising traffic that they generate, so there is no free speech rights. 

If you don't like the situation then create your own Conserva-Google. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2.3.1    5 years ago
Google is not a state actor

Irrelevant given the grounds.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.3.3  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.2    5 years ago

Uhh no

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Don Overton @2.3.3    5 years ago

Uhh, Yes.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.3.5  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.2    5 years ago
Irrelevant given the grounds.

The idea of state actor is crucial to what our constitutional rights are because rights are only the freedom from undo government interference.  You have claimed to be a lawyer in the past, so you should be well aware of this very basic constitutional concept. Our freedom of speech is only the right not to be fined or jailed by the government for our speech. We most certainly do not have the right of free speech on property that we don't own, the right not to suffer repercussions from other individuals for our speech such as the loss of a job, or the right not to be criticized by others. 

Google is not a state actor so there are no free speech rights on any of their platforms.  Conservatives have the right to boycott their site and to boycott their advertisers as a way to force them to change their policies but we do not have free speech rights on Google or other privately owned sites. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2.3.5    5 years ago
Google is not a state actor so there are no free speech rights on any of their platforms.

Holy smokes you just do not get it, do you? Prager is not suing over a violation of the 1st Amendment. For the third? time, it doesn't matter that Google is not a state actor because of the grounds of the suit.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.3.7  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.6    5 years ago
Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;” “discriminating against PragerU (and other users) based on political, religious or other discriminatory animus in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Section 51 of the California Civil Code;” “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair businesses practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Laws of the California Business and Professions Code,” and finally “violating YouTube’s terms of use, ‘Community Guidelines,’ and other content-neutral filtering policies and procedures.”

PragerU is not a paid employee of Google, nor has he paid to host videos on their site, so the Unruh regulation doesn't apply to them. YouTube is private property and they have the right to remove content that doesn't meet their standards. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2.3.7    5 years ago

I guess we shall see what the California courts have to say on the matter.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.3.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.3.8    5 years ago
I guess we shall see what the California courts have to say on the matter. 

The courts spoke once and it wasn't in his favor so I doubt that he has a legal leg to stand on.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @2.3.9    5 years ago
The courts spoke once

On different issues. The federal court refused to hear certain claims because it felt they were more properly adjudicated in state court because they were complaints of violations of state law. It actually directed Prager to pursue those claims there, so that's what they are doing. This is not to say federal courts never enforce state law, but with the internet and all, these are matters of first impression as they pertain to state law. It's therefore more appropriate for state courts to handle them.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.10    5 years ago

That’s logical.  I hope that Prager wins.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    5 years ago

My favorite You Tube videos about Prager U are the ones that debunk all the nonsense that appears on the official videos.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @3    5 years ago

Prager U. as well as his opinion columns and radio talk show are all right on and factually correct.  He is a great Anerican and defender of 🇮🇱 Israel.  Prager is a reaffirmation of all that is good and right about America 🇺🇸.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1    5 years ago
He is a great Anerican and defender of 🇮🇱 Israel.

Who gives a shit? 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1    5 years ago
Prager U. as well as his opinion columns and radio talk show are all right on and factually correct.  He is a great Anerican and defender of 🇮🇱 Israel.  Prager is a reaffirmation of all that is good and right about America 🇺🇸.  

That statement is a confirmation bias fallacy because despite the fact that you agree with them doesn't mean that they are factual.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.1    5 years ago

You cared enough to make an angry 😡 reply. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @3.1.2    5 years ago

And the fact that your ideology disagrees with them confirms that they are in fact factual.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.5  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.4    5 years ago
And the fact that your ideology disagrees with them confirms that they are in fact factual.  

Where do you get this nonsense? Is a lie true in your eyes because I can point out its logical failure?

If you post a claim that says that 5+5=55. I tell you that the correct answer is 10, so does that mean in your eyes the answer is 55. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.3    5 years ago

That wasn't angry, that was me honestly asking who really cares.

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.7  lennylynx  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.3    5 years ago

Which is, of course, the payoff  [ deleted . ]  Enjoy! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @3.1.5    5 years ago

No, I’d be saying that 5x11=55 and it would be you trying to insist that your answer of 10 was the correct one.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.6    5 years ago

I never said you were angry.  I said that you cared enough about it to take the time to reply.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.9    5 years ago
You cared enough to make an angry 😡 reply. 

......

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.1    5 years ago
Who gives a shit? 

Nearly two million subscribers, that's who. That's probably one or two more than you have.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1    5 years ago

Makes up most, lies like trump

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.14  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.8    5 years ago

Keep trying, or do you want a shovel

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.15  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.12    5 years ago

All gop love birds

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.15    5 years ago

all secular progressive love 💗 birds 🐦 ....

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4  Thrawn 31    5 years ago
In this latest suit, Prager accuses Google of violating state law in multiple ways, namely “unlawfully restraining free speech and expression in violation of Article One, Section 2 of the California constitution;

Lol what a waste. They do realize that Google is a private entity right? And thus is not bound by either the federal or state constitutions. Unless you can prove they are in violation of the law (again, not either constitution) or their own terms of service then you have nothing. And good luck proving either of those. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    5 years ago
They do realize that Google is a private entity right?

so was the phone company and they got the shit regulated out of them by our government

in the end the big tech platforms will face the same game.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1    5 years ago

Google is not a monopoly, the Bell System was.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1    5 years ago
so was the phone company and they got the shit regulated out of them by our government in the end the big tech platforms will face the same game.

Is Google the only search engine out there? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1    5 years ago

They are effectively close enough to monopoly status that the antitrust portion of the Justice department could give them a rectal examination and make them enjoy it.  The same with Facebook since MySpace ceased  to be competitive.  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.4  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago

it is a complex question.

for instance sites like this or even facebook are not exactly like search engines.

could the phone directory refuse to list or even give out someone's phone number? 

could a phone book put one's number on the back pages because of their politics?

if I called the operator in any city and asked for bill jones on 3rd st....

 would they give me the number for bob jones on main st first?

if they had done those things would we have allowed it?  hell no.

when it comes to "search engines" I do think some lines need to be drawn.

and further access to public money/tax breaks is probably the only stick to beat them with.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.4    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.5    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.4    5 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifA very good answer.  I like it a lot!  jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    5 years ago
They are effectively close enough to monopoly status

Boy, that's a load of bullshit right there.

Monopoly: noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Maybe you'll understand this if I put it in very small words for you HA.

If a Milk company bought up every milk farm and controlled virtually all milk production such that they could set whatever price they wanted for milk, then they would have monopolized milk. 

But if that milk company didn't buy up all the other milk producers, customers just preferred their brand and thus they had the highest milk sales of any company, well that's doing their job of both marketing their product and giving their customers what they want thus building a large customer base. As long as there are other competing milk companies then it's not a monopoly. 

Google gave people what they wanted in a format they enjoyed and so built a large customer base. But there are still many other search engines out there that steadily service millions still, they just happen to be less popular. If anyone feels Google isn't catering to their extremist conservative views and isn't giving them the conservative search results they want, they can go to Bing, DuckDuckGo, Wiki.com or even Gibiru (Uncensored Anonymous Search for all the wet pant conservatives who think the deep state is spying on them).

So Google isn't a monopoly, is a private company and can pick and choose what content it wants to highlight and what content it wants to censor no matter how furious a tantrum dumb ass conservatives who aren't smart enough to just use a different search engine throw.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.9    5 years ago

Thanks for the info on Gibiru.  I put it on my phone along with bing and am about to delete my google app.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.9    5 years ago

Lol you think that is HA? [Deleted]

HA welcome back! I am going to enjoy my numerous suspensions for insulting you!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.12  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.10    5 years ago
and am about to delete my google app.

Damn HA, that is cold. Google is gonna feel that one...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.13  Thrawn 31  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.4    5 years ago

It is not complex at all. Unless Google is the only search engine you can access, they are not a monopoly, period. It is literally that simple. People can use, Google, Bing, Yahoo, or whatever in the fuck else is out there. No one is forced to use google or not use the internet at all. And yeah, make an enemy out of Google, that will work out well.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.14  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.11    5 years ago

I’m the same person you’ve known since I was CornHusker4Palin on AOL, MSN, and certainly on Newsvine.  I even had it here some of the time.  Still wondering who tampered with my account settings and removed my “no one is above the law” avatar from Judicial Watch. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.13    5 years ago

Google also owns YouTube where many of the issues are coming from and that may well even be more of a monopoly than the parent company has overall.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.1.1    5 years ago
Google is not a monopoly

Pretty close. Close enough to argue it anyway.

worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines.jpg

MARKET SHARE CATEGORY  Online Video Platforms

YouTube - 77.31%

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.17  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.16    5 years ago

So what? They have a majority of market share.

Yahoo, MSN, aol, are all still out there

There are also other video sharing sites.

This is just another wet dream that will be ignored out of embarrassment shortly from now.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.18  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1    5 years ago

Totally different and if you would take the time to research it you would find that out

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.1.17    5 years ago
Yahoo, MSN, aol, are all still out there

Indeed. Yahoo has a little over 2% market share. Bing is also at 2%. I don't think MSN and AOL are considered search engines so I'm not sure why you mention them.

There are also other video sharing sites

True. Here is a list of them and their market share . They give YouTube 78.8%, but it's only that low because Netflix and Hulu are included. However, if you have seen those services, you know they don't really do the same thing as YouTube or Vimeo, their next real competitor. Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.19    5 years ago
Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

That might be because monopolies have nothing to do with market share. If you believe they do, then you need to re-read (or maybe read it for the first time) the definition of monopoly.

Monopoly: noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Where in there does it mention "market share"? No? Is Google in "exclusive possession of or in control of" the ability to search things on the internet? No? Well then it's not a monopoly. The consumer cannot make a company a monopoly, only a company can do that, buy buying out competitors, buying up all lines of access to their product or service, yet dozens of other search engines exist as has been shown.

Just because the majority prefer to use Google over Bing or other search engines does not in any way make them a monopoly. They didn't narrow down the consumers choices by eliminating all competition, they let the consumer choose, and the fact is, no matter how hard some whiny conservatives wish it, those who own and run the most popular search engine on the planet don't share their backwards conservative views and choose not to endorse their bullshit media and slimy lie filled alt-right white nationalist websites.

And let's be honest here, if Google were called "God Search" and run by conservatives who were choosing not to endorse and support liberal agenda videos or liberal conspiracy theory websites, every single one of the hypocritical conservatives screaming about discrimination, freedom of speech and monopolies would be loudly defending such a righteous Christian based company standing up for what they'd see as religious freedom.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.21  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.19    5 years ago
I don't think MSN...

Both MSN (internet explorer, bing, and edge) and aol are search engines.

aol is only still active because they have 2.1 million subscribers still on dial-up.

Outside the USA most of my contacts have a yahoo address, I tend to think we are alike. I haven't used explorer in years but still keep a hotmail address. And for some, business related reasons would keep things consistant. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.22  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.19    5 years ago
Vimeo's market share is 0.8% but you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

Even more interesting is you relate "market dominence" to monopoly.

Ya think "Mono" may have thrown a clue?

The Bell System was a monopoly and heavily regulated. They broke themselves up and the market became deregulated all to the delight of stockholders because now it wasn't a utility anymore. They made a fortune off of....the internet.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.20    5 years ago
Where in there does it mention "market share"?

You're going to base your analysis of this issue on a quickie internet definition? There's a little more to it than that. Anti-trust/anti-monopoly legislation is about maintaining fair competition in the market. Extreme market share is a perfectly reasonable red flag for investigating whether or not any enterprise is a monopoly that should be acted upon by government. It also incurs special responsibilities and scrutiny.

In Europe, that happened with Google.

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine

In particular, Google:
  • has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
  • made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
  • has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

***

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.

1) Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps

2) Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search

3) Illegal obstruction of development and distribution of competing Android operating systems
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.24  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.15    5 years ago
Google also owns YouTube where many of the issues are coming from and that may well even be more of a monopoly than the parent company has overall.

No it isn't. Again if you have other options, which there are, then they are not a monopoly, end of story. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.25  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.19    5 years ago
you don't see a monopoly. Interesting.

Nope, because the competition is still operating. Now If Google or Alphabet in general tried to shut down other search engines or video sharing sites then you would have an argument. Just because they a have the best product and a majority market share does not make them a monopoly. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.26  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.23    5 years ago
You're going to base your analysis of this issue on a quickie internet definition? There's a little more to it than that.

No, in this case there isn't. In no way is Google making anyone use their search engine. Google is not the only search engine available to anyone. I can use any search engine I want, and there is nothing Google can do about it. I simply use Google because I prefer it to the others.

Extreme market share is a perfectly reasonable red flag for investigating whether or not any enterprise is a monopoly that should be acted upon by government.

Except not in this case because any other search engine is available to everyone with internet access. All someone has to do is type yahoo.com instead of google.com. See, I just did it in another tab and bam, just like that I am not using Google. Hardly seems like a monopoly to me.

In Europe, that happened with Google.

They have different laws. 

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However,dominant companies have a special responsibilitynot to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Wait, are you advocating that we here in Murica let those socialist Europeans tell us what to do? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.27  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.26    5 years ago

When it comes to our tech and social media companies perhaps the eurotrash has it right in that one regard.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

And now we know that the parent company google is manipulating search results on key topics such as abortion, putting pro abortion info into pro life searches.  They also manipulate searches and topic issues in favor of democrats on and near Election Day.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5    5 years ago

Again, private company, openly traded on the market. 

You and yours have zip, zero, nada in terms of authority, regulatory, or control of this company.

Kind of like Fox, they're on cable and as we've heard millions of times that they are not regulated by the FCC.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6  Veronica    5 years ago

So Google and YouTube are the government now?  I thought they were private companies.  Are they not allowed to run their companies like companies such as Hobby Lobby (no BC for their employees)?  Hobby Lobby should be allowed to make decisions about their company, but Google and YouTube should not be able to?

So if YouTube cannot decide what is on their site should they be forced to upload videos of people killing each other, accident scenes, house fires?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6    5 years ago
Are they not allowed to run their companies like companies such as Hobby Lobby (no BC for their employees)? Hobby Lobby should be allowed to make decisions about their company, but Google and YouTube should not be able to?

Let's get the facts straight. Hobby Lobby DOES pay for birth control through the insurance policies it carries for employees..

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 years ago

They do not cover all types of BC.  Not all women can take BC pills and if they work at HL their options are limited.

BUT ignore the gist of my comment all you want.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 years ago

Kate Pickert at Time Magazine makes an important point about what the post-Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby employees means:

Women who work for Hobby Lobby had, and still have, full insurance coverage for most types of birth control

Although the Supreme Court ruling opens the door for closely held companies to make other future objections based on religious beliefs, Hobby Lobby's individual position is less extreme than many believe. The company objects to paying for morning-after pills and inter-uterine devices, but freely provides insurance that covers tubal ligation, birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms and contraception delivered via a patch or ring inserted into the cervix. More than 80% of all contraception users in the U.S. rely on these methods.

The point of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate was to increase access not just to birth control pills or diaphragms, but also extend coverage to all types of FDA-approved contraceptives. Insurance coverage can be especially important for women making a financial decision about whether to use an IUD (which is both the most effective but has the highest upfront costs, sometimes  upwards of $500 ). Hobby Lobby is extremely unlikely to cover IUDs given the objections it voiced in court, but to say it doesn't cover any birth control is not the case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.1    5 years ago

I didn't claim they covered every kind, But they DO cover most, which is a far, FAR cry from what you claimed--NONE.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.3    5 years ago

Oh dear me, still no comment on the point behind my post. Hobby Lobby decided that for their company, so why can't Google and YouTube decide what is best for theirs?  Or are you simply here to stir the pot?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.2    5 years ago
Women who work for Hobby Lobby had, and still have, full insurance coverage for most types of birth control
Although the Supreme Court ruling opens the door for closely held companies to make other future objections based on religious beliefs, Hobby Lobby's individual position is less extreme than many believe. The company objects to paying for morning-after pills and inter-uterine devices, but freely provides insurance that covers tubal ligation, birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms and contraception delivered via a patch or ring inserted into the cervix. More than 80% of all contraception users in the U.S. rely on these methods.
The point of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate was to increase access not just to birth control pills or diaphragms, but also extend coverage to all types of FDA-approved contraceptives. Insurance coverage can be especially important for women making a financial decision about whether to use an IUD (which is both the most effective but has the highest upfront costs, sometimes upwards of $500). Hobby Lobby is extremely unlikely to cover IUDs given the objections it voiced in court, but to say it doesn't cover any birth control is not the case.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5857676/hobby-lobby-employees-get-some-birth-control-coverage

And yet, somehow, this equated to NO bc coverage for some of the most hysterical left?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    5 years ago
And yet, somehow, this equated to NO bc coverage for some of the most hysterical left?

Can you point out where I said that?

I was merely giving you some more accurate information to carry on about with V.

Carry on...sorry i tried to help.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.4    5 years ago
Oh dear me, still no comment on the point behind my post. Hobby Lobby decided that for their company, so why can't Google and YouTube decide what is best for theirs? Or are you simply here to stir the pot?

I haven't said that other companies can NOT decide those things. I am here to fact check!

But when you start out with a whopper, you must realize it damages the rest of your argument.

Personally, I don't give a damn about Google or You Tube, etc. Let them do what they want. If I don't like what they do, I won't use them. Sounds right to me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.6    5 years ago
Can you point out where I said that?

I know you didn't say that. I was referencing post 6.1.1.

Thanks for the assist!

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    5 years ago

Fact check.  That is a hoot.  Whatever.  Anybody that uses the phrase "hysterical left" has no credibility in fact checking.  DONE!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.9    5 years ago
Fact check. That is a hoot. Whatever. Anybody that uses the phrase "hysterical left" has no credibility in fact checking. DONE!

Yes, FACT CHECKING.

Your post:

So Google and YouTube are the government now? I thought they were private companies. Are they not allowed to run their companies like companies such as Hobby Lobby (no BC for their employees)? Hobby Lobby should be allowed to make decisions about their company, but Google and YouTube should not be able to?

FACT CHECK:

time.com/2941323/supreme-court-contraception-ruling-hobby-lobby

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning...

Now, you were saying?

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.11  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    5 years ago

I am saying using the phrases you use in almost all your posts & how you only "fact check" those you disagree with makes you less then credible all the way around.

Some women cannot use the BC that is allowed at Hobby Lobby therefore they have NO BC coverage.  There is some FACTS fro you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.11    5 years ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.11    5 years ago
I am saying using the phrases you use in almost all your posts & how you only "fact check" those you disagree with makes you less then credible all the way around.

What phrases do I use in almost all of my posts?

Can you point them out in the posts I have made here? Just give me the numbers of the posts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @6.1.4    5 years ago
'Or are you simply here to stir the pot?'
BINGO

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.15  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    5 years ago

I am not going to waste my time pointing out posts you know are there to have you say that there are not enough examples.  You posted one right here, so if that isn't enough, too bad.  I am sure most people here know exactly who you are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.15    5 years ago
I am not going to waste my time pointing out posts

Thus sayeth the person making inaccurate claims.

Figured as much, though.

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.17  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    5 years ago
And yet, somehow, this equated to NO bc coverage for some of the most hysterical left?

One

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @6.1.15    5 years ago
'I am sure most people here know exactly who you are.'

Yes we do.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.17    5 years ago
And yet, somehow, this equated to NO bc coverage for some of the most hysterical left?
One

Yep, people who think that Hobby Lobby denies every form of birth control are often hysterical and are woefully inaccurate.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.20  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.19    5 years ago
are often hysterical and are woefully inaccurate.

Seven

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @6.1.20    5 years ago
Seven

I will concede the point that you know what numbers are.

Good job!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    5 years ago

When the issue started vs the evil Obama regime and that Obamacare mandate, they had a list of twenty bc methods and HL was willing to cover 16 of those 20 and that wasn’t good enough for that fascist administration and they had to beat the regime in court.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7  evilone    5 years ago

More tantrums and faulty logic by the alt+right. By this logic TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) will be giving the Satanic Church equal time on it's network? I mean the righties don't want to be -

unlawfully restraining free speech and expression
 
 

Who is online






Outis
Thomas


77 visitors