# Would restricting video uploads be violating free speech?



## MarathonMike (Jul 8, 2016)

I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 8, 2016)

Well, f the company does it, there is no constitutional issue. If government does it, there is.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 8, 2016)

It would be a violation of the first amendment yes. And video removes any lying narrative that someone would want to put on an event so they shouldn't be restricted. All cops should wear video cameras. This will protect the professional cops who do their job properly and it will convict bad cops that don't. As will videos made by civilians.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2016)

yes, the govt limiting them, would be unconstitutional.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 9, 2016)

Yes...Posting stuff is speech..That includes posting music, movies, etc.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 9, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?



No.

Websites are like someone's home. It'd be like going into someone's home and demanding to show them a video they know they don't want to see. You don't have the right to do that.

Free speech isn't unlimited. If the govt prevents you doing it on ANY website then you'd have your free speech being violated. Individual websites can't prevent you showing your video on the internet, they can just prevent you doing it on their site.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 9, 2016)

Just to be clear: the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed.

Assuming the OP is referring to private entities such as Facebook, no free speech violation would occur should such an entity prohibit uploading video it considers offensive.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

So are universities, can't wait until we enforce the first amendment at those places


----------



## yiostheoy (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


I think that as usual you are wacko.

Any medium that is owned by someone does not have a free speech requirement.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?
> ...


True, but shouldn't that really apply to all constitutional amendments?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


every site that is privately owned can refuse to put up or delete anything.

you can bitch about it, but they can delete your bitching


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 11, 2016)

It's like the government forcing people to provide goods and services to people they don't want to except the dnc hasn't figured out how to spread it's tyranny that far.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 11, 2016)

cracks me up to see the leftist in here supporting the 1st when we all know damn well that the first site to deny gays the postings of their wedding vids is getting it in the ass.












pun intended.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



Well it does.    Right to bare arms, doesn't mean that you can walk on my private property and demand I allow you to keep your gun on your person.

Now I believe private people should allow such things, and I certainly support it.  But that doesn't mean that you can force, say a business owner to allow you to walk around armed, because you have the 2nd amendment.

What is always ironic is that people who think the freedom of speech is universal and unlimited, instantly contradict themselves when a Jehovah Witness or Mormon, get a step inside their front door, and start preaching.

If you truly believe that freedom of speech is universal and unlimited, then you should be consistent with your belief, and stand there and take all the preaching anyone wants to preach at you.

But when someone starts talking about anything you don't like, suddenly that freedom of speech goes out the window, and you demand they be prevented from speaking.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


No because anyone can get their own website and upload all the crap they want.

No one has to offer you a venue to exercise free speech


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Right, the constitution applies to the government, I never said take guns into a person's house, you are king of your castle, but according to the constitution, no government entities should restrict speech unless it causes an immediate danger (and never ever should restrict political speech). So I think professors that try to bar conservative speakers, should be brought up on violations of civil rights, unless they are at private schools.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?




Here we go!  There has been this duplicitous bs going on where people say that body cams would help.  In the next breath they tell you videos dont show the "whole story" whatever that means.

So what they are prepping you for is to claim that video or body cams WONT help at all and arent to be believed.  Neither are witnesses on the scene.

So who can you get the quote unquote "whole story" from?

The cops.  Only their word is good.  Not video, not eye witnesses, not body cams.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?
> ...


No dipshit, the problem is your brain is limited. Let's see what other information do they have? Hmmmm, maybe the dispatcher has them looking for someone with a similar description? Maybe, they have other information like where in the city it is, maybe it's a high crime area? Maybe there are all other kinds of information that you don't know just from a camera?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



Feel free to disagree with anything I said.  But I'm not interested in your game of maybes


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


depends on who is doing it


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


You didn't say anything, like usual. As for maybes, that's why we wait and don't rush to judgement, jesus I hope you're never on a jury. I can't help someone who takes videotape as gospel.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...




we would be weeded out first round


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



Then dont quote me.  Thanks, bye


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


That's what I thought, another lakhota and rdean, just posts shit, cant make an argument and doesn't listen to reason.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Actually I've been on a jury, it was a simple drug case, defendant pled.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



When you respond to what I said or disagree let me know.  You arent disagreeing with anything I said so there is no argument to have.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Again closed you said you always go with what the camera says, I disagree on relying on just a camera, no b context, if that doesn't make sense to you, then you have a very narrow mind and limited IQ


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



Sorry, nope.  Thats where you have me mistaken.  What I said is there is a push to claim body cams would help and at the same time a push to say video shouldnt count.  




> I disagree on relying on just a camera, no b context, if that doesn't make sense to you, then you have a very narrow mind and limited IQ



So do I.  The problem is the only context you believe is the story that comes from the Cop.  Not the video, not the audio, not eye witnesses....Just cops.

If thats incorrect feel free to let me know how.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


It's certainly incorrect, but I do believe in waiting for all information before rushing to judgement


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



Yeah, we all know how thats going to turn out.  Since very few cops are ever charged let alone found guilty this is like throwing a fish on shore and saying you're going to wait to see what happens.  You KNOW the fish is going to die but you pretend that MAYBE they'll be another result.

Again, no ones word and no video is good enough.  Only the Officers word because thats fair


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Wow you are an idiot. Everyone and everything is racist, you got with that.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 11, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't even know how you would monitor/restrict video uploads to social media but it seems that this relatively new phenomenon has some major side effects. If we had the technology to do it, would it be a violation of the First amendment to restrict video uploads especially containing violent/bloody images? What do you think?


Not if it is a copy written one that keeps you from using it....If there be no share license, tough shit..


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



I didnt mention race cry baby.  Want to try again?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


You implied it, you don't want to wait for facts, so again a liberal who says nothing


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 11, 2016)

buckeye45_73 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...


sorry  i meant "he"

--LOL


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jul 11, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


LOL, I think by weeded you have a double meaning there!


----------

