Alt-right vs. YouTube?

[mr6666]

“Alt-right” vs. YouTube: Hitting white supremacists where it hurts

"........ YouTube is probably the "alt-right's" "most important social network for growth," said Melissa Ryan, a visiting fellow at Media Matters. "They’re freaking out, and with good reason. They’re freaking out differently than when they’re banned from Twitter." .....

 

..... YouTube allows white nationalists to hide in plain sight. Few liberals have the stomach or time to actually watch and respond to right-wing videos that spread fabricated theories or outrageous falsehoods. Social media in text form, as on Twitter or Facebook, attracts far more criticism, but videos can transmit far-right ideas far more widely while encountering relatively little pushback.  ....

 

.... But while YouTube could certainly do more to slow down the "alt-right" invasion, this entire debacle should be a warning sign to journalists and activists as well. While the political class has been chattering about the impact of Facebook and Twitter — services those people are more likely to use on a regular basis — the "alt-right" has been quietly using YouTube to recruit, raise money and grow. The service provides both a robust and rapt audience of young people, while remaining nearly invisible to those who could best debunk the lies and offer counter-arguments. It's a space that liberal and progressive commentators could and should enter more aggressively to disrupt the "alt-right's" hegemony, because the best remedy for lies is always truth. "

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/08/alt-right-vs-youtube-hitting-white-supremacists-where-it-hurts/

[jamesjazzguitar]

Doesn't the alt-right have 1st Amendment rights like the rest of society?  

Seeing young folks with 'ban the NRA' signs makes me wonder if they were taught about the 1st Amendment in school.     

Also,  to me there are a few alt-right members using this forum.   Should the moderator deny them access to this forum?      

[LawrenceA]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Doesn't the alt-right have 1st Amendment rights like the rest of society?  

Don't start confusing what the 1st Amendment protects. You have usually been good about delineating the difference between legal constraints on free speech and those practiced by privately owned businesses. The First Amendment protects your free speech from legal ramifications or government censorship, not from private businesses who do not wish to provide an outlet for speech or other materials that either violate their terms of use or in some way hamper their bottom line.

The use of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are not constitutional rights.

[jamesjazzguitar]

2 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Don't start confusing what the 1st Amendment protects. You have usually been good about delineating the difference between legal constraints on free speech and those practiced by privately owned businesses. The First Amendment protects your free speech from legal ramifications or government censorship, not from private businesses who do not wish to provide an outlet for speech or other materials that either violate their terms of use or in some way hamper their bottom line.

The use of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are not constitutional rights.

Good point that what these companies are doing may not be related to the 1st Amendment but discrimination by privately owned businesses is against the law.    E.g. a business can't refuse to sell products to blacks, Muslims etc..   So I could see white men filing a lawsuit against these companies for practicing discrimination if they don't censor content equally.    

In addition the 'baker doesn't wish to made a cake for gays' case that the SC is about to hear is a 1st Amendment rights case (based on the baker's legal angle in this case).   Therefore a case could be made that if these companies are censoring content because of government pressure (and there is evidence government authorities have done this) that the government is than violating citizens' 1st Amendment rights.   

[LawrenceA]

I would much rather people follow the suggestion in Mr6's post, and that is to refute any viewpoints that one views as erroneous or dangerous by using the same format the "offender" does, with videos, Facebook posts and comments, or Tweets. It's best to fight speech with speech. 

It's been repeated ad infinitum that the true test of Free Speech is protection of speech that one doesn't agree with. I agree with that sentiment. But I also wonder if there should ever be boundary lines, and if so where? When does political speech tread into the "incitement to violence"/"shouting fire in a crowded theater" territory? Is there even a way to measure such a thing?