🐷 Ethan Oliver Ralph / TheRalphRetort / Rad Roberts / Jcaesar187 / Rage Pig / "Killstream" / "Tequila Sunrise" - 5'1'' fat alcoholic, owner of a gunt, convicted felon and revenge pornographer, property of the ugly failed tranny pornstar Lucas Roberts. Has quadruple titties.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Baklava said:
It's strange to me that the Healstream money is returned (supposedly by St. Jude, but they probably didn't know about the 1488-posting until after Koh contacted their PR rep), but YouTube's policy on "hate speech" superchats is to donate them to charity anyway. I guess some bigots have nicer dollars than others.

How long do you guys think Ralph has before his Patreon or PayPal is shut down? They're not gonna ease up on him anytime soon if they're going as far as taking away his Streamlabs and whatnot already.
Click to expand...
If that happens? He has to join Alex Jones and sue them first before they take away his bank account and his house.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Rip_In_Pepperino and Baklava
Sheryl Nome said:
But they absolutely are. Lloyd Corp v. Tanner is the controlling ruling on free speech on private property, which is what these digital spaces are
Before that, the controlling ruling on free speech on private property was Marsh V Alabama, which wasn't overturned, but is no longer good law.
These rules are being applied. Llyod Corp v. Tanner protects malls, and therefore a vast number of other similar private properties open to the public, including websites, in their ability to kick people out for speech they don't like.
Click to expand...
Example of them being applied online though?
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Apteryx Owenii and Rip_In_Pepperino
last night, when all the ibs faggots on twitter were in a euphoric trance over ralph on dlive, i wanted to abort myself. i refused to see how a bunch of dumbshits could honestly believe that ralph moving to some bumfuck streaming outpost would destroy youtube. as today went on though, i really admire that opitimism. the msm isnt going away unless someone puts up a fight. and im really glad people are actually trying to put up that fight. it might not be today that the battle is won, but tomorrows tomorrow might bring victory to the war.
 
  • Feels
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
Reactions: The Caucasian Sensation, ChromaQuack, 女鬼 and 8 others
Sir Auroras said:
Aaah, now you killed the fun. It's already pretty obvious you're trolling. Male radical feminist, that's fucking great. :lit:
Click to expand...

Not sure what you think radical feminism is all about but there's always been a fairly healthy male minority in it. It's not that 'radical' an idea for a man to want his daughters to grow up in a world that considers them more than just a pair of tits and a hole.
 
  • Agree
  • DRINK!
  • Feels
Reactions: Mister Loser, DatBepisTho, Cthulu and 16 others
Marvin said:
Example of them being applied online though?
Click to expand...
its the basis of literally everyone suing over a website banning them in court being kicked out of it. 'Private property' doesn't necessarily mean you don't have any protection of your free speech under the law
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Rip_In_Pepperino
Sheryl Nome said:
No i don't have low tier court cases that get tossed out instantly to cite at you, nor would you care either way
Click to expand...
I'm not being rude. I've just never heard of people (successfully) suing over being banned from a website. The closest I've heard of was the Trump thing and it's a stretch to describe it like that.

The predominant model I've always seen is that internet publishing (or curating other people's content) is that it's speech. It's more like running a billboard than running a bar.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: registereduser and Rip_In_Pepperino
Marvin said:
I'm not being rude. I've just never heard of people (successfully) suing over being banned from a website. The closest I've heard of was the Trump thing and it's a stretch to describe it like that.

The predominant model I've always seen is that internet publishing (or curating other people's content) is that it's speech. It's more like running a billboard than running a bar.
Click to expand...
they've been protected as a public forum by recent rulings, which means they are more like a mall, not a billboard (social media specifically), nobody has successfully sued because the current precedent is very much against them, which is what i was getting at.

Sonork said:
It depends on the state but the rationale is the same. It's considered a public space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

This is the most relevant one, i believe there is a similar ruling in Minnesota? and a bunch of other states, not many though.
Click to expand...
Most states don't apply pruneyard because its specifically california controlling
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Informative
Reactions: Rip_In_Pepperino
Sheryl Nome said:
Most states don't apply pruneyard because its specifically california controlling
Click to expand...
I know, that's why i mentioned that other states do, it isn't the only state that has a similar ruling but they all apply the same reasoning, that they're considered public spaces. I think it's only like 5 or 6 states that do.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rip_In_Pepperino
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back