Mad respect for having the guy who corrected you come on and assist on this video. It is a perfect example of how to actually handle inaccuracies in ones statements being pointed out, learn and grown rather then attack.
I really appreciate the way you're analyzing things for everybody right now. This is a really confusing time for a lot of people and I'm happy there's a knowledgeable, compassionate voice to look to in this chaos. If/When things settle down, do you think you could do a legal break-down of the movie "Michael Clayton"? It's a favorite of mine and I'd like to see how it holds up under the scrutiny of actual legal knowledge. Thanks! And keep doing what you're doing.
That, my friend, is EXACTLY the way I feel! I can clearly understand what is being talked about here and in other LE videos, but where else am I to go to get any such on-point brilliant and fair analysis? Information delivered without political bias...how refreshing!!! The CDA is not perfect, but it's what we have, and I think that for the most part, it has been effective. It really is "walking on a tightrope", where any teeter (to the left OR right) could have profound implications, and any attempts to screw with it must necessarily be examined extremely carefully. Upsetting this delicate balance could really be quite dangerous to the democracy we hold on to so dearly... We NEED channels like this, more than most others IMHO, if only to assist in helping to explain such complex ideas and laws to the less-educated masses!
@@lemondrizzlecake7766 Want a real laugh out loud.., read the orange-utan transcripts.., any one will make you laugh.., and then cry..,and you will end up scared a bit......., huh?..,so not funny at all in the end......, sh*! We are screwed!
Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down." Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides emergency powers to seize control of communications facilities if the president declares there is a "war or threat of war" or "a state of public peril" With a stroke of a pen, President Trump could invoke it. If President Trump wants to “close that internet up,” all he will need is an opinion from his Attorney General that section 606 gives him authority to do so, and that the threat of terrorism is compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns.
Chief Bigstick No, not really. There is no mechanism by which the President of the United States can unilaterally suspend portions of the Constitution. It supersedes him.
@@eddiet7228 In 2010, a Democrat majority Senate report concluded that section 606 "gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down." Although, Section 606 has never been applied to the internet, but there is nothing in the law that explicitly says it cannot be. The question is whether the government’s statutory authority over traditional telecommunications under 606 extends to the internet. The issue is similar to the question of whether the FCC can use its regulatory authority to impose “net neutrality” rules under other provisions of the statute. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld FCC’s power to impose “net neutrality” rules. Such moves aren't unprecedented in the U.S.and are not limited to Trump and Republicans. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman's 2010 attempt to create an "Internet kill switch" for the President. Sen. Lieberman pointed to China as his inspiration in giving the President such capability and capacity to say, Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from "a state of public peril" or threats of (or act of) terrorism, insurrection, war…etc. would be compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns.
Absolutely. I Can't tell you how many Americans have told me I'm "breaking the 1st amendment" because I countered their mis(dis)information with opposing views or a counter argument in a debate, or told them to stop harassing people because they are telling people to kill themselves etc. I'm not American, only the websites T&Cs apply to me not US law, and I didn't break US law even if it did apply to me. Too many people try to use laws like that as a shield to hide behind, to get away with abusing people.
@@WhatIsSanity Those people are likely uneducated (or undereducated), but it's not impossible that they know full well what they're doing and trying to pull a gotcha. Most serious free speech advocates would tell you that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from criticism of what you say. People who say shit like this don't actually care about free speech; they're just trying to pull a gotcha on people who do while silencing anyone who criticizes their indefensible statements.
@@SnabbKassa But so many can't understand that free speech isn't verbaly assaulting everyone! You can have different viewpoint like: "Is Blacklivematters racist?" and stay at a cultivated level without flaming or insulting.
Misinformation warnings are not censorship of *any kind*--it's not a matter of failing to meet the legal definition. They don't meet any defintion. Misinformation warnings are *commentary* . Not only is commentary protected by the first amendment, it's *THE REASON FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT*. This is important.
I agree with Justin. What’s to stop Twitter or any platform from putting gates upon gates of “warning labels”, thus technically saying, “the words are still there”, yet it’s not as accessible, and also paints the author in a different light than intended.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy the other issue is that their arbitrary rulings aren't applied with any kind of consistency across users on their platform by any standard. Twitter has a long history of censoring / editing / squelching, or whatever you wanna call it of right wing / conservative actors on the platform for supposed problematic posts, while for a long time largely leaving equally problematic content coming from the left wing side of the political spectrum alone. Now we're seeing the president getting special treatment, by linking his posts is a supposed "fact check" to a cnn article (super unbiased, and not constantly screwing up stories over the last 3-4 years as everyone knows #sarcasm), while not subjecting other politicians to the same treatment. Not to mention it's starting this just now leading up to an election? Tbh, you can still maintain the integrity of 230 without allowing the platforms to moderate carte blanche the content created by users because of how they've effectively become modern public town squares, or at least position themselves as such, even though they aren't technically. Trump may inadvertently be doing something good here, but I know the rabid anti trumpers out there would probably have their heads explode if they were to admit to trump ever doing anything right (even accidentally).
Twitter is just a website like any other, no matter how big it seems. They can do whatever they want with the site they host and the content held on it, much like any other website on the internet (within the constraints of what is allowed to be on there obviously). If you don't agree with the way Twitter is run, you can just... not use it. Twitter isn't a right or a requirement. It's a free blogging website. If someone wants a website they can do whatever they want with (such as lie their pants off without fear of any repercussions, as a completely random example), they can provide it for themselves. This is evident already by the endless websites out there *right now*, dedicated to publishing dangerous misinformation, and defamatory rhetoric without consequence. Surely someone like Donald could afford to host his own website to spread propaganda, instead of having to rely on a free one.
We know what it's like to be losing our right to freedom of speech. Hong Kong stands with you! Freedom of speech is the most important right, and all else follow.
@@Number1Irishlad I think China has now started making laws directly for Hong kong. The US government no longer counts Hong Kong as independent. And the UK (where I'm from) has said that there is a path to citizenship for refugees from Hong Kong
Number1Irishlad they kinda slowed down when Covid-19 hit, but have been starting back up. However, the National People's Congress is drafting a national security law for Hong Kong to be promulgated, and the National Anthem Law was passed through the third reading on June 4th and will come into effect when the next Gazette is published, around the end of June.
I’m embarrassed to admit how little I knew about the laws regulating internet communication having been online almost every day for 20 years. You do good work, thank you
@safe space 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 so you just went from asserting that social media platforms are public utilities and being so confident that certain mysterious laws are not being applied, whatever that means, to backtracking and speculating that you believe they will be considered public utilities in the future. Literally as soon as you were called out on your comment you abandoned it.
"They should let the free market handle it." "It will regulate itself." "Create a company and comepete against it" Suddenly I don't hear these arguments anymore.
Conservatives didn't learn to code. [/reference] No politician on any side wants to be consistent, instead they want to enforce their viewpoints through carving out exceptions to all their principles any time a stated principle belief conflicts with their own self-interests.
I've had this basic argument with my conservative friends, you would be amazed at how hard it is for them to grasp that the first amendment ONLY applies to the government. Yet they understand that the Bill of Rights as a whole is simply limitations on the government.
Your friends are probably annoyed with the fact that you can't grasp that this situation is unique and that public media platforms are acting as a public place wherein they have usurped government authority and attempt to enforce their own laws and restrictions on speech. Making the argument that the first amendment only applies to government is completely missing the point. Absolute idiots in these comments. Not surprising considering the video is made by an idiot too.
They are "acting as a public place" but they are not, and they are not governed by the US government, therefore the first amendment (nor any of the bill of Rights) applies. There are arguments that they should be declared public space, and thus the 1st amendment would apply, but that is a separate argument. I was specifically referring to the people that say "they can't do that because 1st amendment." NOT the people that say "they shouldn't be able to do that" which has valid arguments for both sides, but as of right now, they can.
The last question killed me. "Does he understand the first amendment?" No sir. He does not understand anything or how any of these works. Nada. That brain of his is empty.
I’m from Canada. A video on some of the major differences between the US and the rest of the world. What works (or doesn’t) in other parts of the world that could/should be applied in the US.
Why do people keep hitting this drum? He does understand well enough, he just wants to tear down anyone that he disagrees with him. This isn't ignorance.
If s230 is repealed or amended, it will take a week max for the various big companies to find an appropriate jurisdiction overseas and register their company there, one with the protections and less taxes.
I have heard the Third Amendment being thrown around lately. It’s an amendment that gets looked over. Even I don’t discuss it in my Constitutional Law course. Could you discuss how it works and why it is relevant now?
Simple: no american during peacetime HAS to offer their home up to soldiers. We can refuse them. No quartering. So the mayor of DC is totally in the right for kicking the troops there out of her city. Hotels are part of that clause.
Reality is an illusion, I think you’re off base here. Hotels aren’t being forced to house soldiers on temporary duty (TDY) assignment. They were issued government travel cards in order to pay for their housing. The third is about forcibly quartering military in civilian homes. Not private hotels that are being paid for.
The right to protest isn't unlimited despite how good the cause is. There are a lot of good reasons why even peaceful protests can be shut down. I just want get it out I'm not justifying what our idiot in chief did in DC. Just that right to protesting isn't as broad as we think.
I remember like 3 states thought about making it legal to run over protesters back during the more peaceful black lives matter protests a few years ago
I'm a lawyer, and I find your analyses accurate and engaging and oddly relaxing...like hiking a very familiar mountain path, with occasional sidetrips into new areas. $3 for a 1 month trial of Nebula and Curiositystream seem well worth it.
I will always remember what my 10th grade government teacher said: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for opening your mouth. As a kid, some of the sites I was on didn't permit foul language, discussion of politics, religion, or medical issues, begging for free stuff, spamming, etc. (in various combinations). If you don't like that, then you have a very special right in regard to those rules: the right to not use that platform.
I will always remember what my 10th grade government teacher said: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for opening your mouth.Yeah yeah. Just because we give you free speech doesn't mean you're free from the erm, consequences of going to jail if you voice dissent.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 it's obviously a vast oversimplification. The "consequences" in question are social consequences, not legal. The government can't legally prosecute you for free speech... outside of state secrets and some other things. Which is where the 4th Amendment comes in: the right to privacy means that you can leak state secrets if they're doing something unconstitutional without being prosecuted. See the Snowden revelations and the Pentagon Papers for examples.
The problem with that is big tech have a monopoly on that market and it's not like you can just "not use that platform" because social media is the biggest form of public discourse. It's just like back in the 1960's when people said "it's a company's right to pay their workers whatever they want" in response to complaints of unequal pay. It infringes on the rights on the public and it's practically unavoidable so it doesn't matter that the government can't infringe on them because these private corporations basically are their own government in this domain.
@@austinbyrd4164 - except that they're not. You can put up a video web server or a social media forum by yourself. In fact, DJStone did that himself - he advertised it right at the end of this video (nebula, via CuriosityStream. That is literally a video platform that he and a few other content creators put up.) That's the whole "this doesn't affect just big media companies" idea - I spend just as much time on small forums (such as Spacebattles) as I do on Facebook. They exist; you can put one up in a half hour or so, if you know how to. What large media companies have is easy access to built-in consumers. And THAT is something you aren't gaurenteed. To add to the original poster's 10th grade instructor's phrase: 1. You have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from consequence. (and) 2. You have the right to say what you want: not the right to an audience.
The issue is one of monopolies. As long as there is meaningful competition that offers differing alternatives, sure. There is no realistic competitor to Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing in very bad faith, seeing as these platforms survive entirely on community engagement.
Wait wait wait... If they get rid of this Section 230 thing, does that mean I can go on any content platform website, post horrible hateful bile, then sue them for hosting the content I posted?
Well yes the website would be able to get sued, but you always had the ability to get sued as well for posting horrible hateful bile. The problem is most internet keyboard warriors are broke living in their parents basement and have no money, and aren't worth the effort to sue. A massive billion dollar platform like google does have the money to go after, and that's why they would get sued instead of you. In fact, all internet chat capability would be gone within a year and we would be back to the stone age.
@@rawdawg15 So all the capability to make playground insults, refusals to admit that one is wrong, strawman arguments, pedofilic advances etc etc would all be gone within a year & this would take us "back to the stone age"?
One of my favorite quotes that I think is relevant to much of your recent content. "The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged." - Jean-Luc Picard
It's like most other fields, mechanical engineering is boring for the most part (probably not as much law) but when you look at that video on why the Koenigsegg Gemera has such a fascinating engine it is not so boring anymore.
21:05 and therin lies my personal issue with the Republican party. When your philosophy is generally to keep the government out of your life as much as possible, it seems that they are very interested in doing the opposite. No fan of the Democrats either but thats not relevant here
You have to remember the republicans today were the democrats of yesterday. Democrats as I understand are for pushing new things and those things get done and become the norm. Republicans are about trying to keep things traditional and the same. So by the logic of things passing eventually the new stuff will become the traditional thing to keep.
The social media companies were given special protections from lawsuits by the government under the understanding that these website would be neutral platforms, but with Facebook and Twitter removing and shadow banning political positions they don’t agree with, they are actively breaking the agreement. Donald trump is simply enforcing a law that hasn’t been enforced like it should have been.
@@jackbitcoin3264 first off there is no proof that those companies have a political bias. They moderation, mostly, is done through and ai. And it never said they had to be neutral.
Republicans will harp all day about anti-conservative bias in media, but don't care at all about anti-liberal bias in conservative media. Basically the way they see it is that anything that goes against their views is wrong, and thus comes from a place of bias, but anything that supports their views is correct, and thus objective and not biased.
@@jacobbellamy7640 not just conservative media, all media. A truly left/progressive presence in media is pretty much nonexistent, regardless of what Fox "News" says.
LegalEagle, you have my utmost respect. Prior to this, I just watched your videos on movie/TV lawyers. After watching your comments about on current situation, I went from a fan to a subscriber and avid follower. Your passion almost brought me to tears at one point my dude, so thank you for your content!
Legal Eagle's biggest issue with promoting his presence in Nebula is that the adds here are actually quite entertaining. I trully enjoy how well he manages to squeeze the adds in wathever topic he's discussing. It's always a treat to imagine "oh, how, I wonder how will he be able to spin this one"
@@tek87 Well, not really a win for him, a compromise at best... considering that yeah, he would get what he wants, but at the same time he would also lose one of his biggest propaganda outlets. He would lose a ton of influence over People if that were to happen, so im pretty sure he would only shoot himself in the foot with this, one way or another.
I'm pretty sure in order to create his account, either he or whoever runs it had to agree to the EULA. They reserve the right to delete an account at will, don't they?
Thomas Ray well since the EULA was written under the pretense that it was a platform and not a publisher, that means that it probably will need to get rewritten unless they want to get sued for everything they “publish” on their site.
Actually, that is a good way to know if something is unfair. The other side will let you know. Twitter should listen and change. I do not support govt regulation proposals of it.
I'm strongly in favor of freedom of speech. Using someone else's property/service isn't your right, it's a privilege. What is clearly freedom of speech is gathering in a public place peacefully and protesting. Guess he didn't care for freedom of speech on that case...
Thank god you didn't have this chanel 7 years ago when I quit law school... I actually might had started finding law interested. I'm so much better as a history graduate. *Cries in unemployment*
I also left law school. After a year, I found that it was not for me. It's just not for everyone. It's not the law I find uninteresting, but rather law school. That being said, I had a BS CompSci to fall back on. Much easier to make these choices as employable. Hope you find work soon.
I don't normally thank content creators for sharing their sponsor with us, but in this case I'm really happy you shared Nebula with us. I also love how well the idea of supporting a small fresh broadcaster fits in with the poignant message of this video. Thank you for every part of this video
Hence the drift toward lawlessness I guess. No longer able to reconcile their wretched ideals with the society they live in, have to resort to any tactics to stay relevant.
I was thinking the same thing. They were upset both viewpoints had to be presented so they abolished the law. Now they are being shunned because their "viewpoint" is simply false statements. Or as Kellyanne Conway claims, "alternative facts". What they really want is no accountability for lying and not be questioned.
@@danachase8083 "Do as I said and don't ask any silly questions! Whole unit will run twenty miles because of your stupid mouth!" Bootcamp for everyone is such a dream. :-(
@@danachase8083 It's the same with their 'religious freedom' laws. Basically they want Christians to be able to discriminate against whomever, but they scream foul if someone says a Christian's beliefs violates their morals and refuses service
@Timefliesbye Companies that make and moderate their own private message boards do not have to comply with the first amendment, or really any level of free speech if they choose not to. That's what this whole video was about. You don't have a right to say what you wish on someone else's platform, you only have that right in respect to speaking freely in your country, specifically to the effect that the government cannot suppress that speech. The first amendment protects your speech in the broadest of senses, but not in all respects.
21:15 So, what I'm hearing is, if you put conservative and liberal views side-by-side people will pick more liberal views, and therefore conservative changed that so they didn't have to show liberal views. But also, if you put conservative and liberal views independent of each other, freely available to everyone, people will still choose more liberal viewpoints.
This is because almost all people are more emotional then logical. So every time an empire, country, kingdom, you name it, rises in history it will become more and more left till it collapses. There is no exceptions. This is the rule.
@@princefrizzy9451 I mean.... so many things here. But let's start off simple with some example questions. How would you characterize the Yellow Turban Rebellion of Chinese history as 'left'? Does this viewpoint allow for the fall of the Persian empire? And how would you define an empire falling to another in conquest for this view? Oh, and just so we're all clear before we begin. We'll need a clear and concrete definition of how you view what's 'left' and 'right'. I know it may be clear, but for the sake of clarity we need to define these things in a discussion.
There is an edge case in California case law, where many of these tech platforms (Twitter, Facebook, TH-cam) are located. In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) (447 U.S. 74) the US Supreme Court agreed with the California Supreme Court (23 Cal. 3d 899) that the California Constitution provided broader Free Speech rights than the First Amendment. It was found that California law, specifically trespass, could not be used by the private owner of a public area (in this case, the outside of a shopping center) to regulate peaceful expressive activity. To be fair, this was narrowed by the California Supreme Court in Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn. (2001) (26 Cal. 4th 1015), but the basic principle still stands in California. To continue the fairness, the City and County of San Francisco, where the Golden Gateway Center (and Twitter) is located, passed an ordinance that effectively nullified Golden Gateway. This is a long way to get to this question: Could California state law, current or otherwise, be used to protect the President's comments on Twitter? I should say, I fundamentally disagree with the Presidents comments.They were many things. But among them they were "peaceful expressive activity". I get concerned when ideas, even ideas I fundamentally disagree with, get suppressed. I think Twitter found a good middle ground, fact checking the speech but not removing it. There are a lot of comments here. Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. But Im interested in your view, and the views of others, on this potently far reaching point.
Unrelated to this video. I collect unicorns. After watching LegalEagle for the first time I won a unicorn out of a crane machine. He was pink and purple with a bowtie. I named him Jonathan Percy Stucklebottom; Attorney at Awww. 🙂
Well the first was an update to a video he made yesterday. He retracted it though and reuploaded it with the update with a time stamp for the update in the details.
Speaking of the first amendment, can you do a video on how “to peaceably assemble” has been interpreted? Seems highly abridged with “free speech zones” at rallies and curfews and the like.
You must remember that he does not believe in right and wrong - only winners and losers. From his perfectly amoral perspective, the "truth" and the "law" are whatever the winner says they are. He probably understands "the law" more than we give him credit for; he just doesn't care.
15:55 I forget the account's name, but I remember reading about someone who made a bot account that posted what Trump posted verbatim, and it was suspended within 12 hours.
@NOYDB If they didnt allow those kind of people to use their platform to run for presidency, there would be no kind of presidential ANYTHING on their website this election. Joe Biden is just as equally as guilty of most of those things as Trump is.
@@brandipityha9457 Except... - Biden didn't publicly request that Wikileaks (Russian based website supported by the Russian government) to meddle in a presidential election - Biden didn't try to coerce Ukraine into doing the exact same thing for the 2020 campaign - Biden isn't detaining/separating migrant families fleeing war torn countries, of which they're given sanctuary in any nation that's a member of the UN (UN regulations) - Biden never bankrupt a casino (or 3 of them I think is what Trump is up to now) - Biden never abused his power in office to promote his families personal business ventures (I'm looking at you Ivanka) - Biden never ordered the military to open fire on a crowd of peaceful protestors - Biden hasn't dipped below 75 IQ Shall I go on? I'm not a Biden fan, but I put my country above any party when it comes to elections. All it takes is looking at our national deficit to see just how successful Trump is at tanking our economy and making it easier for foreign nations to intrude on domestic affairs. Tl;dr Since most Trump supporters lack the attention span to read anything more than 5 words: Jim Jones came calling, he's invited you over for Kool-aid and snacks.
@NOYDB Except both have pretty much the same accusations. Biden hugging kids/sniffing them people think hes a pedophile just like people say trump is for "accidentally" walking in the changing room at pangeants. Biden has said probably way more racist shit. "If you dont vote forme youre not black", "you need a little indian accent to go to 7/11" on top of way more. They both have rape accusations, Trump probably more, but honestly doesnt matter if 1 has 7 and the other has 2, until 1 of them sticks.
@@dr.floridamanphd from what I've seen they don't tell him he's wrong, but they do come into the conversation to "interpret" his talking point. Many times of which involves totally dropping the direct intent of the message. But Trump stands there and says nothing I'm assuming because he at least knows they know more about the laws then himself. Trump kinda just thinks of President as, "I see thing I don't like, I change it now".
Can I just say that you have been my go-to channel for news nowadays? Especially with the riots and such. Unlike many news channels on television, you bring a real look at everything and tell us how we can help. Thank you, Devin
I know a channel currently called Jimmy Snow that did some experimenting to try and find out why his channel is constantly being automatically demonetized. He posted a small inoffensive video a bunch of times with only one thing changed, the title and found that just the word "atheist" being in the title was enough to get the video demonetized. Spin that into anti-right bias. No, TH-cam is not politically biased, it's biased against controversy it wants to be as non-controversial as possible in order to better appeal to advertisers.
I agree that this is mostly about controversy and advertising friendliness. Btw TH-cam Analyzed has a list of around 17000 words which he's tested if they trigger demonetization.
Omg, you put it into a simple statement! I've been trying to explain this to people, but it can be so complicated! But sites being anti controversy is so much easier for people to get!
*Trump:* REVOKE 230 *Social Media:* okay so we'll just be harder on everyone including The President because SURPRISE you don't get special treatment. *Trump:* THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS IT'S UNFAIR.
"...and does he understand the First Amendment?" He has issues reading the microwave instructions for a Hot Pocket, so I doubt he understands any legal document.
whenever i hear "this legislation would destroy [insert thing literally everyone does here] as we know it," i have to remind myself to translate it in my head to "not enforceable in any meaningful way due to scale." any government agency tasked with overseeing this monster would be overwhelmed in seconds. tbh, people are taking this very seriously, but it's really not workable, and we have to remember that it's entirely the product of one person who had an immature reaction to the mods and just happened to be in a position to have the angsty blackpill rant he wrote afterwards be an executive order instead of an embarrassing 4chan post.
History is full of dictators attempting to enforce unworkable rules. It usually ends in selective enforcement towards whomever they, specifically, wish to oppress.
The president is angling to find a way to silence private speech. That is something to take very seriously _whether or not_ he can actually do it. The fact that he _wants_ to do it and is _trying_ to do it can have its own ramifications aside from the eventual result.
Wouldn't be too worried either. When Google, Facebook, Apple,... think there's any threat... Well they'll just tell them to stop their efforts or they'll move their operations elsewhere. That'll be a few jobs and a bunch of tax money at risk. Republicans don't like that.
That’s exactly the problem. If our country’s system lets people like Trump get into power, then that’s a real big issue, signaling that Trump is a symptom, NOT the problem.
@@simmerke1111 dude, Jack Dorsey started developing taxicab dispatch routing software when he was like 14, he's going to destroy Trump once he's out of office. I'm pretty sure he's got an army of lawyers ready to tear Trump a new one. Zuckerburg is busy buying Giphy cuz he can't figure out how to monetize his giant bloated software suite of useless skinner box mechanics, while Jack Dorsey is picking fights with the President of the United States and entrenching Twitter as a new part of the accepted national media for generations.
You're actually a really cool guy, eh? I must say I'm glad I subscribe to you and really appreciate your opinion and the fact that you have spoken out so passionately. I'm Canadian. We're not perfect. The US isn't either. But the US benefits from you being one of its citizens. Keep up your good work.
I just became the Title IX coordinator for our higher-ed school, can you do a video about that position and the new regs? I’m overwhelmed that it’s such an intricate process for live hearings and have a full-time position in addition.
First of all, I love how Hoeg went into the (Troy McClure) you may know me from such. Second, if I'm not mistaken I believe the Supreme Court decision in 2010, Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission, expanded on corporate personhood, meaning that a corporation can have a political bias because a corporation has constitutional rights no different than an individual. It cannot be punished or persecuted by the federal government because of its political stance, ideology, or bias.
Thank you! So many people have missed this in other comments! Many platforms try not to (mostly trying not to lose business), but they have that right, and somehow people are trying to ignore it ugh
Great video. There's a small mistake at 11:54 though, where it should say regulation instead of reguation. It's always a nice touch to get the legal perspective to an otherwise politically charged (and thus oriented) debate
@@CWR1701 I think you failed to understand what was being said. It's not ignoring or censorship to simply state something is or is not factual. If you lie so much that everything you say gets labeled with a "false statement" warning, then that says more about you then the party labeling you.
@@jacobcottom265 I think you might be on to something.... Although I would add that the drift towards extremism and oligarchy it has become increasingly dangerous for those in power to allow the populous to be fully educated. Can't tell if you're losing your rights if you don't even know what they are.
@@dozog well.., Not haha funny.., more like: stab, stab funny. Funny because it is true, a tragical comedy....., sigh...., swear....., sigh again.., snif....
It saddens me that I wanted to share with you some really funny SNL trial sketches that I would love to see you react to, but I feel it would be out of touch to do so at the moment :( I hope things settle sooner than later and you show your good mood and vibes back again, in the meantime thanks for keeping people well informed.
Great informational video! I really liked the history of CDAC all the way back to radio and t.v. times. You also made Curiosity and Nebula sound pretty amazing so I sign up for that. Hope to see more content like this!
So, Trump was "defending" his freedom of speech by stifling someone else freedom of speech and in the same period of time clearing protesters who were peacefully assembled in protest using their 1st Amendment right of assembly. Ahhh, what a spectacularly dumb idea.
@@damnumonkeyballs You know, that's an interesting question. Trump's as close as you can get to a perfect villain. He's spent his entire time in office revealing serious corruption issues, exploitable flaws in the system of checks and balances, making obvious the systemic race bias in our country, and demonstrating exactly why proper oversight is necessary for the police and arguably the government itself. He's easy to hate, easily argued against, demonstrates the flaws in his own rhetoric, unites disparate sides on common issues, and creates a situation where we as citizens are required to take the moral high ground in order to stop him from enabling (if not directly causing) any more entirely unnecessary pain and suffering.
Dude, these dark times have giving you an opportunity to do some of your best videos. KEEP FIGHTINGNTHE GOOD FIGHT. And plz accept my greatest respects, for it is the law that separates man from beast
The BBC has a similar policy, especially during election campaign times. There was a lot of controversy around who should be included in TV debates for the last election as ultimately the top two parties received a lot more air time than the other 4 parties who held/hold parliament seats in Great Britain (Northern Ireland is a whole different ball park with different parties I don't know enough to comment on)
Another issue is that it can make one side seem to have equal weight, when it clearly is nonsense. For instance, giving equal time to creationism and evolution.
You mentioned the one thing that was making me chuckle everytime i thought abt it and this is why Trump more than ever baffles me. He is attempting to incentivize Twitter into BLOCKING him. He is too stupid, isn't there someone who tells him this🤔
Like most of his rhetoric, it is not to be assumed that he would want to remove the entire CDA. That's just his trademark way of overstating everything. Fair to assume he'd simply promote amending it.
Anything to promote the narrative that he and his party are "persecuted." Meanwhile, why is my feed filled with conspiracy videos on fb *when I never watch that kind of thing??*
If you mean flagging and removing of channels from private entity platforms, you see both camps doing this. But if you aren't a partisan hack, you have to be honest and call out the blatantly obvious: and this administration has blatantly been transgressing the constitution and civil rights.
@Matt Davis I reject both your premise and your conclusion. Your response to Torres was just plain silly though, at least you seemed to put some amount of thought into mine so thanks for that I guess.
⚖️ What should I cover next?
🚀Get CuriosityStream & Nebula to watch the best documentaries and my extended RANT: curiositystream.com/legal
Hi. Can you please react to Perry Mason court scenes. Like Season 1 Episode 39 Court scenes. Hope you see this.
Third Amendment Rights maybe!
Please cover the B is for Build Eleanor mustang story
Maybe a video for each ammendment in the bill of rights? Like a deep dive
State terror.
Mad respect for having the guy who corrected you come on and assist on this video. It is a perfect example of how to actually handle inaccuracies in ones statements being pointed out, learn and grown rather then attack.
Actually it was wrong
yup. Trump 2020 🇺🇸 👊
@@amertvyy that's just random.
@@amertvyy irrevelant but yeah I agree 😂
they're lawyers, they're only doing this to find each others weakness and exploit it at a later (trial) date....
2020: *happens*
LegalEagle: *can’t get videos out fast enough*
th-cam.com/video/6SSse90R72o/w-d-xo.html
Riiiight i can watch them enough either
Everyday I feel like I've woken up in the Twilight Zone.
Truth Through Science honestly I’m starting to get used to it. I’d be more surprised if I woke up and the world WASN’T on fire.
@@leilanidru7506 Can you imagine to wake up to a day our world wasnt burning? Sounds like a fairy tale these days
I really appreciate the way you're analyzing things for everybody right now. This is a really confusing time for a lot of people and I'm happy there's a knowledgeable, compassionate voice to look to in this chaos.
If/When things settle down, do you think you could do a legal break-down of the movie "Michael Clayton"? It's a favorite of mine and I'd like to see how it holds up under the scrutiny of actual legal knowledge. Thanks! And keep doing what you're doing.
Would you say "he is trying to analyze things for everybody"?
@@zapazap Je's putting it out on a public forum, so anyone with access could watch it
You should search for additional sources on this subject.
That, my friend, is EXACTLY the way I feel! I can clearly understand what is being talked about here and in other LE videos, but where else am I to go to get any such on-point brilliant and fair analysis?
Information delivered without political bias...how refreshing!!!
The CDA is not perfect, but it's what we have, and I think that for the most part, it has been effective. It really is "walking on a tightrope", where any teeter (to the left OR right) could have profound implications, and any attempts to screw with it must necessarily be examined extremely carefully.
Upsetting this delicate balance could really be quite dangerous to the democracy we hold on to so dearly...
We NEED channels like this, more than most others IMHO, if only to assist in helping to explain such complex ideas and laws to the less-educated masses!
A knowledgeable, compassionate voice.
You described exactly why I like him so much!
You deserve a lot of praise for saying, "Does the president understand the 1st amendment," with a straight face.
I don't think he'd be surprised at this point
That's not emotional self control
That's being mentally bludgeoned with lawlesness for 3 years
I don't think Trump understands the Constitution, period.
@@d4dr4g0n I don't think he's ever read it, to be honest.
@@lemondrizzlecake7766 Want a real laugh out loud.., read the orange-utan transcripts.., any one will make you laugh..,
and then cry..,and you will end up scared a bit......., huh?..,so not funny at all in the end......, sh*!
We are screwed!
Damn son. Someone is using their Saturday productively!
Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down."
Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides emergency powers to seize control of communications facilities if the president declares there is a "war or threat of war" or "a state of public peril" With a stroke of a pen, President Trump could invoke it.
If President Trump wants to “close that internet up,” all he will need is an opinion from his Attorney General that section 606 gives him authority to do so, and that the threat of terrorism is compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns.
This is definitely a post that took more than a day.
Chief Bigstick No, not really. There is no mechanism by which the President of the United States can unilaterally suspend portions of the Constitution. It supersedes him.
@@karencarter18042 Okay... Karen? Lol sorry, I just had to do it to someone actually named Karen. Forgive me haha
@@eddiet7228 In 2010, a Democrat majority Senate report concluded that section 606 "gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down." Although, Section 606 has never been applied to the internet, but there is nothing in the law that explicitly says it cannot be. The question is whether the government’s statutory authority over traditional telecommunications under 606 extends to the internet. The issue is similar to the question of whether the FCC can use its regulatory authority to impose “net neutrality” rules under other provisions of the statute. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld FCC’s power to impose “net neutrality” rules. Such moves aren't unprecedented in the U.S.and are not limited to Trump and Republicans. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman's 2010 attempt to create an "Internet kill switch" for the President. Sen. Lieberman pointed to China as his inspiration in giving the President such capability and capacity to say, Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from "a state of public peril" or threats of (or act of) terrorism, insurrection, war…etc. would be compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns.
"The first amendment doesn't protect you from the social repercussions of your speech" is something more people need to understand
Absolutely. I Can't tell you how many Americans have told me I'm "breaking the 1st amendment" because I countered their mis(dis)information with opposing views or a counter argument in a debate, or told them to stop harassing people because they are telling people to kill themselves etc. I'm not American, only the websites T&Cs apply to me not US law, and I didn't break US law even if it did apply to me.
Too many people try to use laws like that as a shield to hide behind, to get away with abusing people.
@@WhatIsSanity Those people are likely uneducated (or undereducated), but it's not impossible that they know full well what they're doing and trying to pull a gotcha. Most serious free speech advocates would tell you that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from criticism of what you say. People who say shit like this don't actually care about free speech; they're just trying to pull a gotcha on people who do while silencing anyone who criticizes their indefensible statements.
The president doesn't understand that but since he is allow to break the law, then he can take advantage or abuse his position.
People shouldn't be fired for any speech
@@SnabbKassa But so many can't understand that free speech isn't verbaly assaulting everyone! You can have different viewpoint like: "Is Blacklivematters racist?" and stay at a cultivated level without flaming or insulting.
Misinformation warnings are not censorship of *any kind*--it's not a matter of failing to meet the legal definition. They don't meet any defintion.
Misinformation warnings are *commentary* . Not only is commentary protected by the first amendment, it's *THE REASON FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT*. This is important.
@Justin B except it isn't "modifying" when they simply add extra info while keeping their words there still.
I agree with Justin. What’s to stop Twitter or any platform from putting gates upon gates of “warning labels”, thus technically saying, “the words are still there”, yet it’s not as accessible, and also paints the author in a different light than intended.
@@Mariomario-gt4oy the other issue is that their arbitrary rulings aren't applied with any kind of consistency across users on their platform by any standard.
Twitter has a long history of censoring / editing / squelching, or whatever you wanna call it of right wing / conservative actors on the platform for supposed problematic posts, while for a long time largely leaving equally problematic content coming from the left wing side of the political spectrum alone.
Now we're seeing the president getting special treatment, by linking his posts is a supposed "fact check" to a cnn article (super unbiased, and not constantly screwing up stories over the last 3-4 years as everyone knows #sarcasm), while not subjecting other politicians to the same treatment.
Not to mention it's starting this just now leading up to an election?
Tbh, you can still maintain the integrity of 230 without allowing the platforms to moderate carte blanche the content created by users because of how they've effectively become modern public town squares, or at least position themselves as such, even though they aren't technically.
Trump may inadvertently be doing something good here, but I know the rabid anti trumpers out there would probably have their heads explode if they were to admit to trump ever doing anything right (even accidentally).
"I should be allowed to lie. You shouldn't be allowed to call me a liar."
Twitter is just a website like any other, no matter how big it seems. They can do whatever they want with the site they host and the content held on it, much like any other website on the internet (within the constraints of what is allowed to be on there obviously). If you don't agree with the way Twitter is run, you can just... not use it. Twitter isn't a right or a requirement. It's a free blogging website.
If someone wants a website they can do whatever they want with (such as lie their pants off without fear of any repercussions, as a completely random example), they can provide it for themselves. This is evident already by the endless websites out there *right now*, dedicated to publishing dangerous misinformation, and defamatory rhetoric without consequence. Surely someone like Donald could afford to host his own website to spread propaganda, instead of having to rely on a free one.
We know what it's like to be losing our right to freedom of speech. Hong Kong stands with you! Freedom of speech is the most important right, and all else follow.
Whats happened in hong kong since your protests started? I havent heard much of anything. Were u guys successful?
@@Number1Irishlad I think China has now started making laws directly for Hong kong. The US government no longer counts Hong Kong as independent. And the UK (where I'm from) has said that there is a path to citizenship for refugees from Hong Kong
th-cam.com/video/6SSse90R72o/w-d-xo.html
Jack Griffiths-Elliott That last bit was honestly a surprising development from the Tories given their usual stance on immigration and refugees.
Number1Irishlad they kinda slowed down when Covid-19 hit, but have been starting back up. However, the National People's Congress is drafting a national security law for Hong Kong to be promulgated, and the National Anthem Law was passed through the third reading on June 4th and will come into effect when the next Gazette is published, around the end of June.
7:45 Protogy lost a case, because they hosted an anonymous whisleblower, that turned out to be right. Ouch. Feels like a classic SLAPP law suit to me.
yes it stinks. Therefore LE is wrong to say 25:00 "freedom of speech relates to a negative right against the government"
“[H]osed”, or “hosted”?
I’m embarrassed to admit how little I knew about the laws regulating internet communication having been online almost every day for 20 years.
You do good work, thank you
@safe space they do not "function as utilities"
@safe space 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 so you just went from asserting that social media platforms are public utilities and being so confident that certain mysterious laws are not being applied, whatever that means, to backtracking and speculating that you believe they will be considered public utilities in the future. Literally as soon as you were called out on your comment you abandoned it.
"They should let the free market handle it."
"It will regulate itself."
"Create a company and comepete against it"
Suddenly I don't hear these arguments anymore.
They never meant it when they said it.
That doesn't address the fact that Twitter is allowing and publishing threats of violence against individuals namely conservatives.
Conservatives didn't learn to code. [/reference]
No politician on any side wants to be consistent, instead they want to enforce their viewpoints through carving out exceptions to all their principles any time a stated principle belief conflicts with their own self-interests.
@@n4d3m4n have any sources for that claim?
Exactly
I've had this basic argument with my conservative friends, you would be amazed at how hard it is for them to grasp that the first amendment ONLY applies to the government. Yet they understand that the Bill of Rights as a whole is simply limitations on the government.
uh uh. Cool story bro. Trump 2020 🇺🇸 KAG
It certainly shows, though I admit I often forget that the bill of rights doesn't always go both ways.
Andrey why are u commenting under every comment please stop
Your friends are probably annoyed with the fact that you can't grasp that this situation is unique and that public media platforms are acting as a public place wherein they have usurped government authority and attempt to enforce their own laws and restrictions on speech. Making the argument that the first amendment only applies to government is completely missing the point. Absolute idiots in these comments. Not surprising considering the video is made by an idiot too.
They are "acting as a public place" but they are not, and they are not governed by the US government, therefore the first amendment (nor any of the bill of Rights) applies.
There are arguments that they should be declared public space, and thus the 1st amendment would apply, but that is a separate argument.
I was specifically referring to the people that say "they can't do that because 1st amendment." NOT the people that say "they shouldn't be able to do that" which has valid arguments for both sides, but as of right now, they can.
LegalEagle: The best silky-smooth transitions into ending ads on TH-cam
Man I wish I had an Indochino Suit
*whisper* IndoChino
That's his training in closing arguments shining through
The last question killed me.
"Does he understand the first amendment?"
No sir. He does not understand anything or how any of these works.
Nada.
That brain of his is empty.
This is probably a bad time to say this, but just saw you got 1 million subscribers, so congrats, you deserve it.
Ngl I have no interest in being a lawyer but like you are the most unbiased source to get this info from keep it up
I’m from Canada. A video on some of the major differences between the US and the rest of the world. What works (or doesn’t) in other parts of the world that could/should be applied in the US.
I know that the US has very different kidnapping law than the rest of the world.
That's a long list!
Canada: Constitution that evolves
US: Stick with 300-year-old words no matter what
@@lbboardingb3356 - 27 amendments say you're wrong.
How many constitutional amendments has Canada's parliament passed?
@@BradyPostma the 27th amendment was proposed some time in the late 1700's though so I'd argue that those words are pretty old...
"Does he understa-" No. No he does not.
Yup, simple answer. Of course not. Why would you think so?
Why do people keep hitting this drum? He does understand well enough, he just wants to tear down anyone that he disagrees with him. This isn't ignorance.
Daniel Amade I’m not sure if it’s he doesn’t care, doesn’t want to listen, or doesn’t know
@@shr9662 or all the above
He listens with his mouth.
If s230 is repealed or amended, it will take a week max for the various big companies to find an appropriate jurisdiction overseas and register their company there, one with the protections and less taxes.
Some companies already have.
I have heard the Third Amendment being thrown around lately. It’s an amendment that gets looked over. Even I don’t discuss it in my Constitutional Law course. Could you discuss how it works and why it is relevant now?
Simple: no american during peacetime HAS to offer their home up to soldiers. We can refuse them. No quartering. So the mayor of DC is totally in the right for kicking the troops there out of her city. Hotels are part of that clause.
Reality is an illusion, I think you’re off base here. Hotels aren’t being forced to house soldiers on temporary duty (TDY) assignment. They were issued government travel cards in order to pay for their housing.
The third is about forcibly quartering military in civilian homes. Not private hotels that are being paid for.
Upvoting this comment.
@@dr.floridamanphd hotels are still private property
@@WithInfiniteSadness r/foundthereditor
you should tackle the state legislation being passed that criminalizes peaceful protests
Which states are doing that?
The right to protest isn't unlimited despite how good the cause is. There are a lot of good reasons why even peaceful protests can be shut down.
I just want get it out I'm not justifying what our idiot in chief did in DC. Just that right to protesting isn't as broad as we think.
you should give a single example of what you're talking about
violence is never the answer 😤😤😤
I remember like 3 states thought about making it legal to run over protesters back during the more peaceful black lives matter protests a few years ago
1:55 - Chapter 1 - Freedom of speech
3:40 - Chapter 2 - Communication decency act
9:25 - Chapter 3 - The communication decency act section 230
18:10 - Chapter 4 - What about publishers ?
20:20 - Chapter 5 - Neutrality & fairness doctrine
22:30 - Chapter 6 - President trump executive order
31:50 - End roll ads
I'm a lawyer, and I find your analyses accurate and engaging and oddly relaxing...like hiking a very familiar mountain path, with occasional sidetrips into new areas. $3 for a 1 month trial of Nebula and Curiositystream seem well worth it.
Heh - like stumbling across an episode of your favorite show that you've seen countless times.
that does seem like a bargain doesn't it!
I will always remember what my 10th grade government teacher said: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for opening your mouth.
As a kid, some of the sites I was on didn't permit foul language, discussion of politics, religion, or medical issues, begging for free stuff, spamming, etc. (in various combinations). If you don't like that, then you have a very special right in regard to those rules: the right to not use that platform.
I will always remember what my 10th grade government teacher said: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for opening your mouth.Yeah yeah. Just because we give you free speech doesn't mean you're free from the erm, consequences of going to jail if you voice dissent.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 it's obviously a vast oversimplification. The "consequences" in question are social consequences, not legal. The government can't legally prosecute you for free speech... outside of state secrets and some other things. Which is where the 4th Amendment comes in: the right to privacy means that you can leak state secrets if they're doing something unconstitutional without being prosecuted. See the Snowden revelations and the Pentagon Papers for examples.
The problem with that is big tech have a monopoly on that market and it's not like you can just "not use that platform" because social media is the biggest form of public discourse. It's just like back in the 1960's when people said "it's a company's right to pay their workers whatever they want" in response to complaints of unequal pay. It infringes on the rights on the public and it's practically unavoidable so it doesn't matter that the government can't infringe on them because these private corporations basically are their own government in this domain.
@@austinbyrd4164 - except that they're not. You can put up a video web server or a social media forum by yourself. In fact, DJStone did that himself - he advertised it right at the end of this video (nebula, via CuriosityStream. That is literally a video platform that he and a few other content creators put up.) That's the whole "this doesn't affect just big media companies" idea - I spend just as much time on small forums (such as Spacebattles) as I do on Facebook. They exist; you can put one up in a half hour or so, if you know how to.
What large media companies have is easy access to built-in consumers. And THAT is something you aren't gaurenteed. To add to the original poster's 10th grade instructor's phrase:
1. You have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from consequence.
(and)
2. You have the right to say what you want: not the right to an audience.
The issue is one of monopolies. As long as there is meaningful competition that offers differing alternatives, sure. There is no realistic competitor to Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing in very bad faith, seeing as these platforms survive entirely on community engagement.
Wait wait wait...
If they get rid of this Section 230 thing, does that mean I can go on any content platform website, post horrible hateful bile, then sue them for hosting the content I posted?
KaptenAmurika you vould certainly try. That would be an interesting case
They would probably remove your ability to post any content before illegal content is posted
And then sue them for violating freedom of speech when they remove it, then file a class action for discrimination against "internet patrons"
Well yes the website would be able to get sued, but you always had the ability to get sued as well for posting horrible hateful bile. The problem is most internet keyboard warriors are broke living in their parents basement and have no money, and aren't worth the effort to sue. A massive billion dollar platform like google does have the money to go after, and that's why they would get sued instead of you. In fact, all internet chat capability would be gone within a year and we would be back to the stone age.
@@rawdawg15 So all the capability to make playground insults, refusals to admit that one is wrong, strawman arguments, pedofilic advances etc etc would all be gone within a year & this would take us "back to the stone age"?
One of my favorite quotes that I think is relevant to much of your recent content. "The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged."
- Jean-Luc Picard
"I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further." - Darth Vader on the US Constitution
This is why we need to abolish borders and prisons
@@oliverwilson11 Keep dreaming.
Oliver That sounds unsafe
Trump's taken a shit on everyone.
This channel made me realize that law is actually interesting ( Never thought I’d say that) :D
Nah it's mostly reading through a paper and arguing the semantics of what a phrase means.
@@Skylancer727 Who doesn't enjoy that?
It's like most other fields, mechanical engineering is boring for the most part (probably not as much law) but when you look at that video on why the Koenigsegg Gemera has such a fascinating engine it is not so boring anymore.
same, it's pretty fascinating
found myself questioning some things never thought about before :)
Oh no, if people start taking an interest in understanding the law then how am I supposed to make a living? You've doomed us all Devin
21:05 and therin lies my personal issue with the Republican party. When your philosophy is generally to keep the government out of your life as much as possible, it seems that they are very interested in doing the opposite. No fan of the Democrats either but thats not relevant here
You have to remember the republicans today were the democrats of yesterday. Democrats as I understand are for pushing new things and those things get done and become the norm. Republicans are about trying to keep things traditional and the same. So by the logic of things passing eventually the new stuff will become the traditional thing to keep.
The social media companies were given special protections from lawsuits by the government under the understanding that these website would be neutral platforms, but with Facebook and Twitter removing and shadow banning political positions they don’t agree with, they are actively breaking the agreement. Donald trump is simply enforcing a law that hasn’t been enforced like it should have been.
@@jackbitcoin3264 first off there is no proof that those companies have a political bias. They moderation, mostly, is done through and ai. And it never said they had to be neutral.
Republicans will harp all day about anti-conservative bias in media, but don't care at all about anti-liberal bias in conservative media. Basically the way they see it is that anything that goes against their views is wrong, and thus comes from a place of bias, but anything that supports their views is correct, and thus objective and not biased.
@@jacobbellamy7640 not just conservative media, all media. A truly left/progressive presence in media is pretty much nonexistent, regardless of what Fox "News" says.
3:32 Freedom of speech, not free from consequences
Well said
the social is a big part of it.
Not free from "social" consequences. I agree with Ruben. It's important.
In the last week or so this has become my favorite channel by far! What a good way to open your mind to perspective of law and morals
LegalEagle, you have my utmost respect. Prior to this, I just watched your videos on movie/TV lawyers. After watching your comments about on current situation, I went from a fan to a subscriber and avid follower. Your passion almost brought me to tears at one point my dude, so thank you for your content!
I think we need a Legal Eagle shirt that just says "Generally Speaking..."
And "Think Like a Lawyer"
Don't forget "well...it depends"
I've been recommending your channel to everyone I can. You're using your platform and education in such a great way.
Legal Eagle's biggest issue with promoting his presence in Nebula is that the adds here are actually quite entertaining. I trully enjoy how well he manages to squeeze the adds in wathever topic he's discussing. It's always a treat to imagine "oh, how, I wonder how will he be able to spin this one"
Trump tries to repeal Section 230.
Twitter deletes Trump's account in order to protect themselves.
Trump: "Wait... that's illegal."
Oh I hope they do
They would have to delete everyone else's account as well to protect themselves, basically ending Twitter. Either way, Trump wins.
@@tek87 Well, not really a win for him, a compromise at best... considering that yeah, he would get what he wants, but at the same time he would also lose one of his biggest propaganda outlets. He would lose a ton of influence over People if that were to happen, so im pretty sure he would only shoot himself in the foot with this, one way or another.
I'm pretty sure in order to create his account, either he or whoever runs it had to agree to the EULA. They reserve the right to delete an account at will, don't they?
Thomas Ray well since the EULA was written under the pretense that it was a platform and not a publisher, that means that it probably will need to get rewritten unless they want to get sued for everything they “publish” on their site.
"It's not fair unless I say it is fair"
Actually, that is a good way to know if something is unfair. The other side will let you know. Twitter should listen and change. I do not support govt regulation proposals of it.
Democrats say that lmao
@@seanzc5230 "dems say that" see retards everywhere
@@AndTecks Dont act like both sides dont say it.
I'm strongly in favor of freedom of speech.
Using someone else's property/service isn't your right, it's a privilege.
What is clearly freedom of speech is gathering in a public place peacefully and protesting. Guess he didn't care for freedom of speech on that case...
Freedom of speech includes kneeling during the National Anthem. Firing someone for doing that isn’t illegal.
@@robertivey7644
Firing someone arbitrarily is not just exercising free speech. You need to give a reason to do so.
"I despise what you have to say, but will fight to the death for you to have the right to say it" -volitaire
Important quote, just an i too much in the name ;)
Actually, it's not by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in a Voltaire biography :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
It is a righteous quote, but misattributed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
@Иван Возяков ıf you're preaching hate, then yes. Yes, there are consequences to that
Иван Возяков freedom of speech doesn’t shield you from the social consequences of your speech.
Thank god you didn't have this chanel 7 years ago when I quit law school... I actually might had started finding law interested. I'm so much better as a history graduate. *Cries in unemployment*
This channel is keeping me in track to law school. Stay strong!
thats funny cause my dad said dont become a lawyer and also said that he would be a history teacher if he didnt become a lawyer.
But imagine what stories you'd have to tell, when you'd grow old!
I also left law school. After a year, I found that it was not for me. It's just not for everyone. It's not the law I find uninteresting, but rather law school.
That being said, I had a BS CompSci to fall back on. Much easier to make these choices as employable. Hope you find work soon.
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842 dude, let's be honest, *if.
I don't normally thank content creators for sharing their sponsor with us, but in this case I'm really happy you shared Nebula with us. I also love how well the idea of supporting a small fresh broadcaster fits in with the poignant message of this video. Thank you for every part of this video
Massive irony there regarding the fairness doctrine. Conservatives can't live with it and can't live without it.
Hence the drift toward lawlessness I guess. No longer able to reconcile their wretched ideals with the society they live in, have to resort to any tactics to stay relevant.
I was thinking the same thing. They were upset both viewpoints had to be presented so they abolished the law. Now they are being shunned because their "viewpoint" is simply false statements. Or as Kellyanne Conway claims, "alternative facts".
What they really want is no accountability for lying and not be questioned.
@@danachase8083 "Do as I said and don't ask any silly questions! Whole unit will run twenty miles because of your stupid mouth!"
Bootcamp for everyone is such a dream. :-(
@@danachase8083 It's the same with their 'religious freedom' laws. Basically they want Christians to be able to discriminate against whomever, but they scream foul if someone says a Christian's beliefs violates their morals and refuses service
"does the president understand the first amendment?"
something has to go horribly wrong before this becomes an actual question, and yet here we are
@Timefliesbye Companies that make and moderate their own private message boards do not have to comply with the first amendment, or really any level of free speech if they choose not to. That's what this whole video was about. You don't have a right to say what you wish on someone else's platform, you only have that right in respect to speaking freely in your country, specifically to the effect that the government cannot suppress that speech.
The first amendment protects your speech in the broadest of senses, but not in all respects.
@@autumn_breeze616 but is that right? If social media is the new public square should we censor people we don't agree with?
@@MrYourfavoriteguy2 Of course not!
That would be like having someone thrown in prison for saying "I don't like Chocolate" in the middle of a City!
Not really, you have to be over a certain age to post a comment and make videos and you can still be removed from the platform
@TimefliesbyeThey are private message boards, because they are not owned or operated by the government. That's what private means, in this discourse.
Your guest Troy McClured his intro, made me chuckle. You may remember Troy from the Simpsons.
21:15
So, what I'm hearing is, if you put conservative and liberal views side-by-side people will pick more liberal views, and therefore conservative changed that so they didn't have to show liberal views. But also, if you put conservative and liberal views independent of each other, freely available to everyone, people will still choose more liberal viewpoints.
This is because almost all people are more emotional then logical. So every time an empire, country, kingdom, you name it, rises in history it will become more and more left till it collapses. There is no exceptions. This is the rule.
@@princefrizzy9451 Who needs the National Enquirer when you have the internet? son, go home and play some pokemon.
@@uriahheep5665 Oh no...it seems someone is getting emotional already :(
@@princefrizzy9451 I mean.... so many things here.
But let's start off simple with some example questions.
How would you characterize the Yellow Turban Rebellion of Chinese history as 'left'?
Does this viewpoint allow for the fall of the Persian empire?
And how would you define an empire falling to another in conquest for this view?
Oh, and just so we're all clear before we begin.
We'll need a clear and concrete definition of how you view what's 'left' and 'right'. I know it may be clear, but for the sake of clarity we need to define these things in a discussion.
@@JohnSmith-bn5mi I'm not dealing with you.
My brother walked by me while I was watching this video and asked "Is that Ryan Reynolds?" 😭😂
They both even share a soooomewhat similar tone of voice. Lol
@Sohan Biswas Shut it, Sohan
Ryan Reynolds with a bit of John krasinski
My daughter also thinks he looks like Ryan Reynolds. 😄
IKR?
There is an edge case in California case law, where many of these tech platforms (Twitter, Facebook, TH-cam) are located. In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) (447 U.S. 74) the US Supreme Court agreed with the California Supreme Court (23 Cal. 3d 899) that the California Constitution provided broader Free Speech rights than the First Amendment. It was found that California law, specifically trespass, could not be used by the private owner of a public area (in this case, the outside of a shopping center) to regulate peaceful expressive activity.
To be fair, this was narrowed by the California Supreme Court in Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn. (2001) (26 Cal. 4th 1015), but the basic principle still stands in California.
To continue the fairness, the City and County of San Francisco, where the Golden Gateway Center (and Twitter) is located, passed an ordinance that effectively nullified Golden Gateway.
This is a long way to get to this question: Could California state law, current or otherwise, be used to protect the President's comments on Twitter?
I should say, I fundamentally disagree with the Presidents comments.They were many things. But among them they were "peaceful expressive activity". I get concerned when ideas, even ideas I fundamentally disagree with, get suppressed. I think Twitter found a good middle ground, fact checking the speech but not removing it.
There are a lot of comments here. Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. But Im interested in your view, and the views of others, on this potently far reaching point.
Unrelated to this video.
I collect unicorns. After watching LegalEagle for the first time I won a unicorn out of a crane machine. He was pink and purple with a bowtie.
I named him Jonathan Percy Stucklebottom; Attorney at Awww.
🙂
I liked this story
Just Looking good memories of a more innocent cannibal unicorn time
The kind of hero we need in these dark times :3
This is the kind of wholesome content I came to see.
That's incredibly cute.
Two videos, back to back! This quarantine and protest is making you very productive. (Not that was in doubt)
Well the first was an update to a video he made yesterday. He retracted it though and reuploaded it with the update with a time stamp for the update in the details.
Just because you're on the Right, doesn't mean you're right
On the left there's not much left though.
This is some high speed law-ing. I for one appreciate it immensely
Speaking of the first amendment, can you do a video on how “to peaceably assemble” has been interpreted? Seems highly abridged with “free speech zones” at rallies and curfews and the like.
"Does he understand the First Amendment?" No. No, he does not.
Oh trust me he understands but he is banking on his followers lack of understanding. He is a mob boss.
You must remember that he does not believe in right and wrong - only winners and losers. From his perfectly amoral perspective, the "truth" and the "law" are whatever the winner says they are. He probably understands "the law" more than we give him credit for; he just doesn't care.
@Miss L . Fairly certain he doesn't understand.
15:55 I forget the account's name, but I remember reading about someone who made a bot account that posted what Trump posted verbatim, and it was suspended within 12 hours.
@@williamclark4249 I can't tell when people are serious anymore. Take it how you will good sir.
@@Malithar As they say, a perfect parody is indistinguishable from the genuine article.
@NOYDB If they didnt allow those kind of people to use their platform to run for presidency, there would be no kind of presidential ANYTHING on their website this election. Joe Biden is just as equally as guilty of most of those things as Trump is.
@@brandipityha9457 Except...
- Biden didn't publicly request that Wikileaks (Russian based website supported by the Russian government) to meddle in a presidential election
- Biden didn't try to coerce Ukraine into doing the exact same thing for the 2020 campaign
- Biden isn't detaining/separating migrant families fleeing war torn countries, of which they're given sanctuary in any nation that's a member of the UN (UN regulations)
- Biden never bankrupt a casino (or 3 of them I think is what Trump is up to now)
- Biden never abused his power in office to promote his families personal business ventures (I'm looking at you Ivanka)
- Biden never ordered the military to open fire on a crowd of peaceful protestors
- Biden hasn't dipped below 75 IQ
Shall I go on? I'm not a Biden fan, but I put my country above any party when it comes to elections. All it takes is looking at our national deficit to see just how successful Trump is at tanking our economy and making it easier for foreign nations to intrude on domestic affairs.
Tl;dr Since most Trump supporters lack the attention span to read anything more than 5 words: Jim Jones came calling, he's invited you over for Kool-aid and snacks.
@NOYDB Except both have pretty much the same accusations. Biden hugging kids/sniffing them people think hes a pedophile just like people say trump is for "accidentally" walking in the changing room at pangeants.
Biden has said probably way more racist shit. "If you dont vote forme youre not black", "you need a little indian accent to go to 7/11" on top of way more.
They both have rape accusations, Trump probably more, but honestly doesnt matter if 1 has 7 and the other has 2, until 1 of them sticks.
Thank you for providing current, relevant, and reliable information in a clear and concise way. You do good work and we appreciate it!
Thank you, this was definitely needed from a legal professional
I wonder how many times people in government have to tell Trump: Mr president, that's not how it works !?
Once, then he fires them.
I think they’ve given up on trying to correct him. I’m pretty sure they’re just collecting a paycheck these days.
I bet they say that when he asks them to come up with birthday presents for Melania...
@@dr.floridamanphd from what I've seen they don't tell him he's wrong, but they do come into the conversation to "interpret" his talking point. Many times of which involves totally dropping the direct intent of the message. But Trump stands there and says nothing I'm assuming because he at least knows they know more about the laws then himself. Trump kinda just thinks of President as, "I see thing I don't like, I change it now".
Probably to many times
Can I just say that you have been my go-to channel for news nowadays? Especially with the riots and such. Unlike many news channels on television, you bring a real look at everything and tell us how we can help. Thank you, Devin
Enderious wtf is your hairstyle
@@harrisons62 It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
If this is your only go-to news source, I'd recommend broadening your media diet just a bit....
Bruh this is literally the first time someone has explained internet moderation in a way I can understand, thank you so much!!!!
I don’t think 70+ year old people should decide on legislation for the internet
Exactly 😩
Samuel Gelner ok boomer
Samuel Gelner Samuel Gelner millinials are all 25+ so it’d be weird if their parents were monitoring them...
Lindsey I felt that roast from all the way over here
@@elle3964 I was about to say that lol.
I know a channel currently called Jimmy Snow that did some experimenting to try and find out why his channel is constantly being automatically demonetized. He posted a small inoffensive video a bunch of times with only one thing changed, the title and found that just the word "atheist" being in the title was enough to get the video demonetized. Spin that into anti-right bias. No, TH-cam is not politically biased, it's biased against controversy it wants to be as non-controversial as possible in order to better appeal to advertisers.
I agree that this is mostly about controversy and advertising friendliness.
Btw TH-cam Analyzed has a list of around 17000 words which he's tested if they trigger demonetization.
Same with how LGBTQ+ content often gets demonetised
Omg, you put it into a simple statement! I've been trying to explain this to people, but it can be so complicated! But sites being anti controversy is so much easier for people to get!
I love how the fact that Trump communicates exclusively in social media tantrums is literally the only reason this has become such an issue.
@@superiorglitch8195 Who hurt you
@@tengojuevos907 who hurt you?, Trump is a great president, I'm glad to vote for him
WE elected an internet troll as president
*Trump:* REVOKE 230
*Social Media:* okay so we'll just be harder on everyone including The President because SURPRISE you don't get special treatment.
*Trump:* THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS IT'S UNFAIR.
*implements a new fact checking feature specifically for the president, treating him specially*
How could someone be on the council and NOT be a master?
*LITERALLY everyone even other countries:* _T A K E A S E A T_
Today on: Shit that never happened.
@@VermylionMusic well, it's not specifically for the president, though
The past week has been such a maelstrom of chaos and all-around awful that I'd honestly kind of forgotten about this
"...and does he understand the First Amendment?"
He has issues reading the microwave instructions for a Hot Pocket, so I doubt he understands any legal document.
Don't be absurd. His assistants heat up his hot pockets for him... He doesn't even try to read the label.
He’ll read the first couple words off the Hot Pocket instructions, then start riffing from the hip.
whenever i hear "this legislation would destroy [insert thing literally everyone does here] as we know it," i have to remind myself to translate it in my head to "not enforceable in any meaningful way due to scale." any government agency tasked with overseeing this monster would be overwhelmed in seconds.
tbh, people are taking this very seriously, but it's really not workable, and we have to remember that it's entirely the product of one person who had an immature reaction to the mods and just happened to be in a position to have the angsty blackpill rant he wrote afterwards be an executive order instead of an embarrassing 4chan post.
History is full of dictators attempting to enforce unworkable rules. It usually ends in selective enforcement towards whomever they, specifically, wish to oppress.
The president is angling to find a way to silence private speech. That is something to take very seriously _whether or not_ he can actually do it. The fact that he _wants_ to do it and is _trying_ to do it can have its own ramifications aside from the eventual result.
Wouldn't be too worried either. When Google, Facebook, Apple,... think there's any threat... Well they'll just tell them to stop their efforts or they'll move their operations elsewhere. That'll be a few jobs and a bunch of tax money at risk. Republicans don't like that.
That’s exactly the problem. If our country’s system lets people like Trump get into power, then that’s a real big issue, signaling that Trump is a symptom, NOT the problem.
@@simmerke1111 dude, Jack Dorsey started developing taxicab dispatch routing software when he was like 14, he's going to destroy Trump once he's out of office. I'm pretty sure he's got an army of lawyers ready to tear Trump a new one.
Zuckerburg is busy buying Giphy cuz he can't figure out how to monetize his giant bloated software suite of useless skinner box mechanics, while Jack Dorsey is picking fights with the President of the United States and entrenching Twitter as a new part of the accepted national media for generations.
Description: published on 6 June 2020
Me: WE'RE IN JUNE? O.o
I felt this
@@Chronicsonic23 Nothing really happened in May? That sucks
Where did May go
WOAAAAAAAAAH WE'RE HALF WAY THERE woooooOOOOOH LIVING ON A PRAYER
@@somethinunameit637 take my hand, we'll make it I swe-ear!
When you have to ask "Does the president understand the first amendment"
That's when you know what kinda of President you have on your hands
One Ill be voting for in November.
"could destroy the internet as we know it"
2020: "now this looks like a job for me"
@bichoi96 'cause we need a little controversy
Remember when the repeal of net neutrality was going to end the internet? More fear.
Go home, 2020. You're drunk.
@@Urziel99 'cause it feels so empty without me'
@@nour2146 little hellions, kids feeling rebellious, embarassed their parents still listen to elvis
Congrats on the 1 million Devin!!!
That was one SMOOTH transition to the ad!
Before I watch this I shall answer:
"Does the president understand the first amendment?"
HELLL NOOOO!!!!
Ok you may resume
I think he gets it perfectly fine. He just utterly despises it.
I don't think he understands how to tie his shoelaces.
“Does the president understand...”
Let me go ahead and stop you right there.
You're actually a really cool guy, eh? I must say I'm glad I subscribe to you and really appreciate your opinion and the fact that you have spoken out so passionately. I'm Canadian. We're not perfect. The US isn't either. But the US benefits from you being one of its citizens. Keep up your good work.
Also, you should teach a Masterclass in "the segue."
I love me some Hoeg! I appreciate that you have supported such a good-natured, militantly wholesome role model. Keep up the great work!
1:44 "and does he understand the first amendment?"
No. He doesnt. End of video.
“And does he understand th-“
No, he does not.
I just became the Title IX coordinator for our higher-ed school, can you do a video about that position and the new regs? I’m overwhelmed that it’s such an intricate process for live hearings and have a full-time position in addition.
First of all, I love how Hoeg went into the (Troy McClure) you may know me from such.
Second, if I'm not mistaken I believe the Supreme Court decision in 2010, Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission, expanded on corporate personhood, meaning that a corporation can have a political bias because a corporation has constitutional rights no different than an individual. It cannot be punished or persecuted by the federal government because of its political stance, ideology, or bias.
Thank you! So many people have missed this in other comments! Many platforms try not to (mostly trying not to lose business), but they have that right, and somehow people are trying to ignore it ugh
Great video. There's a small mistake at 11:54 though, where it should say regulation instead of reguation. It's always a nice touch to get the legal perspective to an otherwise politically charged (and thus oriented) debate
I really like the education from this show. I have to go back and watch more
OMG THANK YOU I TWEETED AT YOU ASKING FOR THIS!
oh I'm excited for this one
"Reporting the actual facts is silencing conservetive voices!!!"
Well, that says alot about conservative voices imo....
More like it says things about Progressives. Ignoring and censoring facts that damn their entire philosophy.
If you have to silence somebody to win, you probably shouldn't be proud of your ideas...
Reporting “facts”... silencing voices to win says a lot about your voice!
@@CWR1701 I think you failed to understand what was being said. It's not ignoring or censorship to simply state something is or is not factual. If you lie so much that everything you say gets labeled with a "false statement" warning, then that says more about you then the party labeling you.
yeah twitter totally fact checked him with a biased CNN article that was proven wrong.
It's pretty easy with Trump, if the question is 'does he understand' then the answer is no.
haha, hilarious...😐 Trump 2020
@@amertvyy Oh boy so 4 more years of whining over twitter? Great.
Also it's pretty funny how most people don't understand what freedom of speech really means
Nothing funny about it.
It's almost like our school system is more worried about standardized testing over teaching people real world info like your rights and laws
@@jacobcottom265 I think you might be on to something....
Although I would add that the drift towards extremism and oligarchy it has become increasingly dangerous for those in power to allow the populous to be fully educated. Can't tell if you're losing your rights if you don't even know what they are.
@@dozog well.., Not haha funny.., more like: stab, stab funny.
Funny because it is true, a tragical comedy....., sigh...., swear....., sigh again.., snif....
@@bibia666 Surely there are words to describe that.
Funny just isn't that word.
I am so happy I found your channel, I am learning so much! Thank you for making these videos and sharing your expertise with us.
It saddens me that I wanted to share with you some really funny SNL trial sketches that I would love to see you react to, but I feel it would be out of touch to do so at the moment :(
I hope things settle sooner than later and you show your good mood and vibes back again, in the meantime thanks for keeping people well informed.
Objection! At the point when you asked the question, "Does Trump understand...?" you should have finished the sentence there with the answer, "No."
End of video. Roll the credits.
Sustained hahaha imo anyways :p
Too good of a lawyer to put out a juicy slapp bait like that. #NotLegalAdvice
Great informational video! I really liked the history of CDAC all the way back to radio and t.v. times. You also made Curiosity and Nebula sound pretty amazing so I sign up for that. Hope to see more content like this!
So, Trump was "defending" his freedom of speech by stifling someone else freedom of speech and in the same period of time clearing protesters who were peacefully assembled in protest using their 1st Amendment right of assembly. Ahhh, what a spectacularly dumb idea.
"Are we the baddies?"
Trump isn't "stifling" anyone's freedom of speech, he's trying to restrict corporations' ability to censor people like Stalinist Russia.
@@damnumonkeyballs You know, that's an interesting question. Trump's as close as you can get to a perfect villain. He's spent his entire time in office revealing serious corruption issues, exploitable flaws in the system of checks and balances, making obvious the systemic race bias in our country, and demonstrating exactly why proper oversight is necessary for the police and arguably the government itself. He's easy to hate, easily argued against, demonstrates the flaws in his own rhetoric, unites disparate sides on common issues, and creates a situation where we as citizens are required to take the moral high ground in order to stop him from enabling (if not directly causing) any more entirely unnecessary pain and suffering.
@@damnumonkeyballs I don't laugh at that sketch like I used to. That shit's getting way too real.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 he's having peaceful protestors shot, I'd call that "stifling"
Dude, these dark times have giving you an opportunity to do some of your best videos. KEEP FIGHTINGNTHE GOOD FIGHT. And plz accept my greatest respects, for it is the law that separates man from beast
Thanks for the Nebula / CuriosityStream offer!
“Does he understand the First Amendment?” There isn’t much he DOES understand, so I’ll guess no.
For Trump, it's not about understanding. It's about power. He would support whatever interpretation of the law lets him do exactly what he wants.
Doesn't matter if he understands if he doesn't care.
@drew pedersen i had considered those vices, but I see your point.
"Does he understand the first amendment?" You are talking about a person who is amazed that the water is wet.
@safe space Explaining facts and providing evidence is liberal now?
@@soakyarchive8788 You know the saying. Reality has a liberal bias.
@safe space yeah yeah shut up. He's educated and objective. I'd trust him over the president
@safe space he gives citations for everything lol.
A lawyer is a lawyer, no matter if they post TH-cam videos.
Soaky Soup a certain "facts and logic" obsessed someone would be very upset at this news, at least if he were literate-
I really appreciate all your Insight!
21:31 Fairness Doctrine, hehe, It's amazing to think that anyone would believe their are only two sides to any subject, or even just two parties...
At least they tried
The BBC has a similar policy, especially during election campaign times. There was a lot of controversy around who should be included in TV debates for the last election as ultimately the top two parties received a lot more air time than the other 4 parties who held/hold parliament seats in Great Britain (Northern Ireland is a whole different ball park with different parties I don't know enough to comment on)
Another issue is that it can make one side seem to have equal weight, when it clearly is nonsense. For instance, giving equal time to creationism and evolution.
6:20 - I remember CompuServe and Prodigy. I was too young to know about the lawsuits, though.
I've been waiting like a week for you to make this video!
You mentioned the one thing that was making me chuckle everytime i thought abt it and this is why Trump more than ever baffles me. He is attempting to incentivize Twitter into BLOCKING him. He is too stupid, isn't there someone who tells him this🤔
Like most of his rhetoric, it is not to be assumed that he would want to remove the entire CDA. That's just his trademark way of overstating everything. Fair to assume he'd simply promote amending it.
Anything to promote the narrative that he and his party are "persecuted." Meanwhile, why is my feed filled with conspiracy videos on fb *when I never watch that kind of thing??*
"Free speech only applies when I agree with it" - Donald Trump
@Matt Davis Twitter isnt the left, and all they did was fact check him. Sorry bud thanks for playing.
If you mean flagging and removing of channels from private entity platforms, you see both camps doing this. But if you aren't a partisan hack, you have to be honest and call out the blatantly obvious: and this administration has blatantly been transgressing the constitution and civil rights.
@Matt Davis I reject both your premise and your conclusion. Your response to Torres was just plain silly though, at least you seemed to put some amount of thought into mine so thanks for that I guess.
I can't believe this channel doesn't get more views.