Candace Owens suspended from YouTube over Kayne interview

LTC Eugene Chu Exactly, and Private or Public forum, I still won't miss her.

SFC (Join to see) Yes it is, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to the village idiot.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - It means everyone has the right to be the village idiot AND listen to the village idiot if they want to. That's what the USA is all about. It's say Progressives want to so away with our Constitutional Republic. Maybe that's why they talk so much about making us into a Democracy, that would take away everyone's protections under our Constitution.

SFC (Join to see) Progressives aren't the ones who have suggested doing away with our Constitution. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63851751

That comment from someone who supports all the recent book banning from the right is extremely amusing.

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth - What a hoot about being business!!! Thanks for my afternoon chuckle. Some will make any excuses for their favorite sons or daughters.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unprecedented-positive-media-for-harris-89-negative-for-trump/ar-AA1p44yn

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Jack my issue exactly. A small business owner speaks out about their beliefs against LGBTQ or any other title or moniker you put in front of it and they get sued because they refuse their business based on their policies of the company...if this is a private business and can do what and censor what they want then it should apply to all businesses...regardless of subject matter.

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth But your comparing apples to oranges with the LGBTQ example. That was about equal rights, not free speech. While similar they have different requirements under the law and Constitution.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - NOPE...it is about the business owners expressing their right to speak up against what they don't beleive in. Same for YouTube...they have standards of what they will publish based on the owners subjective standards...no different...except it doesn't fit the narrative...free speech is free speech. Whether we like it or not. So, if a Hamas backer owns a bakery and an American Israeli or someone walks in supporting Israel with a shirt and they refuse service cause they support Hamas and not Israel is that not free speech, as disgusting as that sounds, or does that fall into your definition of law and constitution? Or if a redneck wants to take his wife out to a "nice" restaurant and he wears his best overalls and a T-shirt and they turn him away because he doesn't meet their dress code is that discrimination or their free speech as established by the owners? Not apples and oranges it is nitpicking by a censoring social media site only promoting what they believe in.