Court’s final ruling against Patreon opens legal avenue to defend against deplatforming

BUT YOU SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST POLICY OF TELLING PRIVATE BUSINESSES WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO ON THEIR PROPERTY

GOT IT

SO THAT MEANS THE GOVT CAN TELL TRINITY HE CAN NO LONGER BAN USERS BECAUSE HE AND HIS MODS WANT TO BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT CERTAIN USERS POST

THAT IS WHERE THIS IS HEADING....COMMUNISM... THAT STATES PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO SECURE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS TO WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM

CONGRATS, YOU ALL ARE SLIPPING DOWN THE COMMUNIST HILL INTO TOTAL LOSS OF YOUR RIGHTS

SAME AS PAYPAL OR PATREON OR YOUTUBE OR FACEBOOK

READ THE TERMS OF USE YOU FUCKING DICK

You're an idiot, the legal language TRUMPS everything else you see there.

because the cia owns those -

AND WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE TERMS OF USE THAT MODS OF GLP CAN BAN ANYONE FOR CHALLENGING THEM? OR FOR TALKING ABOUT WHO OWNS GLP?
OR FOR EVEN MENTIONING THE COMPANY NAME ASSOCIATED WITH GLP?

WHERE IS THAT IN THE TERMS OF USE?

Right here:

7. Account Termination Policy

A. godlikeproductions may terminate a User's access to its Website at any time without notice for any reason or no reason at all.

B. godlikeproductions reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement or privacy law, such as, but not limited to, hate crimes, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. godlikeproductions may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.

he's a janitor now

Yea but when a baker refuses to bake a gay cake, it goes to the supreme court.

SO IT IS OKAY FOR GLP TO TERMINATE A USER'S ACCESS AT ANY TIME WITHOUT OTICE FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL..... BUT NOT OKAY FOR OTHER PRIVATE BUSINESSES, LIKE PATREON OR YOUTUBE OR TWITTER OR FACEBOOK TO DO THE SAME?

GOT IT

YOU KNOW EVERY PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS HAS THE EXACT SAME RIGHT, RIGHT?

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" IS A COMMON SIGN IN MANY PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES

SO WHY IS IT NOT OKAY FOR YOUTUBE OR PATREON OR TWITTER TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS ASA ANY OTHER PRIVATE BUSINESS?

By your logic a company can go full on KKK white supremacist and say they hate black people and chosen people of G-d, and they have to be accepted because "muh private business"


For the record I agree but you can see how the above would not go over well at all, they would be charged with hate speech and sued into oblivion.

AGREED

A PRIVATE BUSINESS HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU SAID.... HELL GLP DOES IT DAILY, POST AFTER POST OF RACISM AND HATRED AND WISHING DEATH TO AMERICANS IN A CIVIL WAR

AND NO ONE CAN SAY THEY HAVE TO STOP.... BUT PAYPAL CAN SAY WE DON'T LIKE YOUR BUSINESS AND DON'T WANT OUR BUSINESS ASSOCIATED WITH GLP

THE PROBLEM IS IS SINCE THE INTERNET, PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SERVICES BUSINESSES PROVIDE FOR FREE

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A YOUTUBE CHANNEL, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A TWITTER FEED, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A FACEBOOK PAGE....ALL OF THOSE ARE FREE SERVICES A PRIVATE BUSINESS CHOSES TO OFFER AND CAN TAKE AWAY

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAT A BRICK AND MORTAR STORE OFFERING CUSTOMERS THE PRIVILEGE TO USE THE BATHROOM ON SITE.... BUSINESSES CAN OFFER THAT SERVICE FOR FREE, BUT CAN THEN TAKE IT AWAY AND SAY NO CUSTOMERS CAN USE THE BATHROOM ON OUR PROPERTY

IF YOUTUBE OR TWITER OR FACEBOOK OR PATREON WANT TO END SERVICE FOR CUSTOMERS, THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TRINITY HAS TO END SERVICE TO GLP USERS WHO USE GLP FOR FREE OR PAY FOR IT

I only donate to one patreon creator, he wrote a message yesterday that he wouldn’t post exclusive content anymore, instead he will just post on youtube. Wonder if this had anything to do with that decision

The thing is Facebook, Twatter, etc. have identified themselves as public platforms, not publishers, yet they want to live in both worlds. There needs to be clarity from Congress and if necessary, the courts.

[link to townhall.com (secure)]

Sorry, forgot to sign back in.

Last Edited by Cozzy on 08/01/2020 02:59 PM

Patreon is more of a business agreement where content creators sell their product. So they are shutting down a business when they ban someone.

My brand new baby granddaughter just entered the world.

A whole lot of people, with agenda's, to take away public platforms and free speech, including republican rhino's seems to not get it, no comprehendo, brain dead, when it comes to the specific laws involved.


Private companies, for the most part, ie publishing houses, etc, are responsible for their content. So they can censor. Or not publish a book.

Stores can set rules.



But twitter and facebook, youtube, and possibly more, fall under a law that protects them from individual posts and expressions just like phone companies. They are PUBLIC FORUMS. And they are NOT allowed to censor.

And they can't have it both ways.

So far, everyone has ignored this and not enforced it, because they don't want people to have access to public forums and free speech.