'Violation of First Amendment' - Judicial Watch YouTube Video Censored at Request of California Government Officials

submitted by scrubking from (thegatewaypundit.com)

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The first amendment is unrelated.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    It restrains Congress. It has nothing to do with what States do.

    Article 1, Section 2 of California's Constitution is much more strict, but Constitutions are dead letters, which is why they don't even bring it up.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]thefirststone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      If courts had interpreted that to mean to enforce protection of a fundamental right at the greatest level afforded by any other State, it sure didn't do much good. And nobody cites it, instead preferring to twist the first into something it isn't. Doesn't sound very useful.

      Anyway, like I said, California's State Constitution is much more strict on protecting freedom of speech by any of its government apparatus. How's that working out?

      [–]Drewski 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it does not compel companies such as Google / Youtube to host content against their will. Don't get me wrong, I think big tech censorship is abhorrent but more gov't control over private entities is not the solution.