MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

YouTube Won't Host Our Homemade Gun Video. So We Posted It on PornHub Instead.

Our video is awesome. But nothing in the First Amendment says YouTube has to run it.

This article is part of Reason's special Burn After Reading issue, where we offer how-tos, personal stories, and guides for all kinds of activities that can and do happen at the borders of legally permissible behavior. Subscribe Now to get future issues of Reason magazine delivered to your mailbox!

Reason has a new video out today explaining how to put together a homemade handgun using some very simple tools and parts you can buy online.

But you won't find it on our YouTube channel. After the March for Our Lives rally, YouTube announced that it would no longer allow users to post videos that contain "instructions on manufacturing a firearm."

Our video and its accompanying article are part of a package of stories in Reason's "Burn After Reading" issue. It includes a bunch of how-to's, including how to bake pot brownies, how to use bitcoin anonymously, how to pick the lock on handcuffs, and how to hire an escort.

The whole issue is a celebration of free speech and our way of documenting how utterly futile of all kinds of prohibitions can be.

We made a video showing how easy it is to DIY a Glock because we wanted to show how the First Amendment reinforces the Second Amendment. If a bunch of journalists can build a handgun in their kitchen, we can assume it'll be pretty hard to keep guns out of the hands of motivated criminals.

If YouTube prevents us from uploading the video, have they violated our First Amendment rights?

"YouTube of old days was this amazing thing that has become the digital library of Alexandria on the Internet," says Karl Kasarda, the co-host of InRangeTV, a weekly YouTube show about guns. The show used to survive on ad revenue, until YouTube started de-monetizing certain forms of content. Once YouTube made it impossible for Kasarda to make money on its platform, he started posting his content to other places, including PornHub.

Last October Prager University, a conservative video production shop, sued YouTube, saying it had restricted the audience for content and alleging that the company was "unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech."

But here's the thing: YouTube is a private platform. There is nothing in the First Amendment (or the Second) that requires them to host our gun video. Reason can turn down articles for any cause that we choose. We can do it because we don't like the color of the author's hair, or because we don't like the font she used in her pitch email. We wouldn't be violating a single constitutional right by doing so.

We wish YouTube would run our video. It's awesome. But equally awesome is YouTube's right—our right—not to run content we don't like.

Karl Kasarda is correct that YouTube is the closest thing we have to the Library of Alexandria. It still doesn't mean they have to carry our video.

YouTube is hardly the first to test this principle. In 1972, a teachers union president who was running for state legislature sued The Miami Herald, insisting it run an editorial he had written after he was attacked in its pages. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that ordering a newspaper to print an editorial violates the First Amendment. After all, a newspaper is "more than a passive receptacle."

Prager University argued that YouTube isn't entitled to the same editorial discretion as The Miami Herald because it advertises itself as a "platform for free expression" that's "committed to fostering a community where everyone's voice can be heard." A federal judge, thankfully, dismissed the Prager lawsuit, rejecting the company's argument that YouTube is comparable to a "government entity" and thus must be open-access. A slew of other judges have arrived at the same conclusion.

YouTube deserves the same editorial latitude those judges gave to The Miami Herald in the 1970s and that Reason enjoys today.

And that's one of the things our new gun video is celebrating. If YouTube doesn't want to post it to their site, its loss. We'll just post it to another platform. That's what the free and open internet is all about. So if you want to see our video, you can watch it here at Reason.com—or head over to PornHub and see how to make your very own unregistered firearm.

Edited by Todd Krainin. Narrated by Katherine Mangu-Ward. Written by Jim Epstein and Katherine Mangu-Ward. Cameras by Meredith Bragg.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Awesome. I may have to check out this Pornhub site.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Google "Philip Luty, The Home Gunsmith" Luty, a UK resident, designed a submachine gun which can be constructed of common hardware components, and published a book, 'The Home Gunsmith' describing how to do so. There is no First Amendment in the UK, so Luty was charged under UK anti-terrorism laws for writing the book. Sadly, Luty died of cancer awaiting trial. 'The Home Gunsmith' can be downloaded, but the few existing hard copies are pricey.

  • mtrueman||

    "Awesome. "

    Jerking off to girls and guns! That's all these homemade guns are good for, I suspect. You'd have to be crazy to rely on such a gun for anything else.

  • ||

    You'd have to be crazy to rely on such a gun for anything else.

    Because that's how the gun and DIY communities work; "I just bought/fabricated this awesome artifact! Now all I have to do is sit around and wait for the right situation to come along for me to use it. No testing or practicing because that would only ruin the novelty and suspense."

  • mtrueman||

    You wanna rob a bank or shoot a president? My advice: use a real gun.

  • ||

    You've clearly never bought a lemon from anyone anywhere ever and, presumably, every gun you've ever fired discharged and cycled without fail and without regard to manufacture or maintenance.

    Those of us not so divinely blessed, OTOH, have had all manner of discharge and cycling errors from a variety of sources and an array of manufacturers. Personally, I've never robbed a bank or shot a president and I don't have plans to. If I did have plans, they wouldn't end with "and then hope the gun goes off." and no part of my "make sure the gun goes off" plans would include a statement like "Only guns made by [manufacturer list] go off."

    If I need a gun I'd take even a semi-reliable gun without a manufacturer label over a non-working gun with a manufacturer label and I'm pretty sure you'd do the same.

  • mtrueman||

    "and I'm pretty sure you'd do the same."

    I'm hard at work mastering the art of the vibrating palm.

  • ||

    I'm hard at work mastering the art of the vibrating palm.

    Which explains why you probably can't machine metal or shoot for shit.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The gun I own is a bad choice for robbing a bank or shooting a president. It shoots rainbow confeti instead of bullets.

  • mtrueman||

    As long as it helps your jerking off sessions, that should be enough for you and the Reason commenters.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    What's your reason for commenting?

  • Flinch||

    Good lord. Watch the video yet? Those are real glock parts, being fitted and assembled by hand after purchasing separately. The only issue I have with it is they could have used a drill press to ensure the pins were drilled square to the frame while preventing ovaling the holes via human error. Also missing is a key piece of fitment: headspacing. Getting that right helps control gases and prevents stupid brass failures. Pistol tolerances are generally more forgiving than a rifle on account of lower powder charge, but it still deserves attention. Unfinished lowers by definition are not yet a legal firearm, and can be shipped without a serial number.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Nope. Most of the parts are factory Glock parts.

  • mtrueman||

    Homemade? Was it the video that the headline was referring to? I assumed it was the gun. My bad.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yes, it was the gun.

    The serialized part of a Glock is made of plastic. You buy an "80%" version and drill out the last bits. Then you install factory Glock steel hardware.

    End result can be more custom than factory and therefore "better." Or it can be a sloppy mess and then you start over.

    Watch the video.

  • Flinch||

    I don't like the 'girls with guns' thing. I'm never in the mood for both at the same time, and for that reason suspect those who do are just... weird.

  • apedad||

    Soooo...what's point of this article then?

    To show everyone you're butt-hurt because of another company's policies?

  • DaveSs||

    The purpose is to demonstrate the futility of censorship.

  • apedad||

    There's no censorship involved here.

  • DaveSs||

    Sure there is

    Censorship is not exclusive to government.

    While Google, having a property right in Youtube can decide what can and cannot be uploaded to Youtube, in doing so they are engaging in censorship.

  • Zeb||

    Private companies can censor. It's not a first amendment violation, but it's still censorship.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    If you want to make a fine distinction between official censorship and mere suppression of certain opinions by powerful non-governmental actors, then sure.

  • Citizen X||

    You didn't read the whole article, huh.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The answer to that is always yes. For every single person who posts here it is yes.

  • Citizen X||

    I didn't read the whole article either but I READ THAT PART.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    So Reason is like Playboy, huh.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Full disclosure: I only read Reason for the Stossel photos.

    Sometimes the stock photos, but mostly Stossel.

  • Aloysious||

    Hint: FREE MARKETS

  • ||

    To show everyone you're butt-hurt because of another company's policies?

    Or economic/social signalling on behalf of like-minded journalists and entrepreneurs. I didn't watch or read the whole thing but there's a slight distinction that Reason... omits when placing themselves alongside other YouTube contributors and that is that the other contributors developed a business (model) around their agreement with YouTube that Youtube subsequently, and whimsically, changed. Had YouTube, from the get go or upon acquisition by Google said, "We don't allow gun videos don't submit any more of them, you've got 90 days to move your content to another provider." it might have made some sense. Instead, they said "Surprise! We don't serve gun videos any longer. Wait, our lawyers tell us that's a problem. Surprise! We're demonetizing content we were previously OK with but now don't like. Because *our* lawyers say that's not a breach of contract."

    Reason has every right and arguably an economic signalling and journalistic charge or duty to point to the pro-2A channels that Youtube booted, tell Youtube it treated those channels unfairly, and then take its content to a competitor. Especially when it doesn't appear that Youtube has any intention of taking videos like this or this down.

  • SIV||

    I'm not seeing anything objectionable in the St Landry Parish Sheriff's Office Captain Higgins video.

  • ||

    I hear now-Representative Higgins's followup video Live From Auschwitz wasn't such as big a hit.

  • KevinP||

    YouTube is owned by Google, so this is not surprising. It's interesting to read this:

    Class Action Complaint against Google for Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation


    Actual quotes from Google managers and employees:

    George Sadlier ("Sadlier"), a Director, sent out a mass email condemning James' essay as "repulsive and intellectually dishonest" and promising an HR investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier's organization: "You're a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F*** you."

    Adam Fletcher ("Fletcher"), L6 SRE Manager stated in reference to conservatives as "hostile voices," "I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don't care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I'll communicate why to your manager if it comes up."

    Kim Burchett ("Burchett"), L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google.
  • Robot Centaur||

    "use Bitcoin anonymously" that's stupid. Use Monero instead, it's the only anonymous currency.

  • Ron||

    Just wait until you have to go to the local newspaper stand to get your permission slip to watch pornhub just like in England

  • Just Say'n||

    That should be fine. So long as they don't call those permission slips a 'tariff' or anything, I'm sure most will just smile and learn to love Big Brother because he's 'woke'

  • TxJack 112||

    The only part of any gun considered to be a firearm is the lower receiver. In this case, unless the receiver was an 80% lower, then the lower has a serial number and is "registered". This is no different than building an AR. There are a number of companies no making 80% lowers for ARs and 1911 style 45s. You have to purchase a milling jig and a couple of other tools but you can make what is referred to as a ghost gun. A ghost gun is legal so long as it is for your own use and you never attempt to sell it. If you attempt or actually do sell it, you are engaged in arms trafficking. However, 80% lowers can be mailed directly to your home just like all the other parts needed to make a working firearm.

  • sarcasmic||

    Easier said than done.

  • dave b.||

    A ghost gun is legal so long as it is for your own use and you never attempt to sell it. If you attempt or actually do sell it, you are engaged in arms trafficking

    Completely and utterly wrong and false. The gun cannot be made with the intent to sell, but it's perfectly legal to sell them. The gun has to be originally intended for personal use, it's only arms trafficking if you buy 80% lowers with the intent to manufacture and sell them, circumventing ATF regulations.

  • ||

    Considering that the 80% lower is a bit of an "I'll know it when I see it." definition, trafficking gets applied now to people who aren't even buying/selling, I'd say split the difference: If you plan on selling a weapon you made without an ATF stamp, you might want to contact your/a lawyer first.

    I'm well aware that there is an actual functional criteria for an 80% lower. I'm also aware that certain regions of the country where they give precisely zero shits about the functionality of any given weapon when it comes to trafficking charges.

  • dave b.||

    "Certain regions of the country" makes no sense in this context because this is subject to federal regulations and not state. CA is now forcing them to be serialized, but other than that you can sell them legally in all 50 states, even if it's not a good idea to do it.

  • ||

    "Certain regions of the country" makes no sense in this context because this is subject to federal regulations and not state.

    Somebody should inform the 9th Circuit then. Maybe the 7th too. I'm sure federal assurances of the legality to possess a firearms are warm comfort to the people sitting in jail for no crime other than 'weapons possession'. Maybe you can assure us that Freddy Gray's knife was legally possessed as well.

  • dave b.||

    Possession and trafficking are two separate issues

  • LarryA||

    "Certain regions of the country" makes no sense in this context because this is subject to federal regulations and not state.

    There's the letter of the law, and there's the way the law gets enforced. While it's true that California has the same federal laws as Texas, I sure wouldn't count on federal LEOs, judges, and juries working and living in California to treat me the same way those living in Texas would.

  • Bubba Jones||

    You have no idea what you are talking about. These 80% lowers are reviewed by the ATF prior to being offered for sale.

    If you had spent half as much time researching this as you have commenting, you would know these things.

    Step one. Watch the video.

  • Eidde||

    PorhHub will host anything that goes off.

  • ignorance=bliss||

    LOL

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Here's the thing: Libertarians focus on government attacks on freedom, because government is by far the largest concentration of coercive power. That doesn't mean we don't recognize a mugger, for instance, as somebody who's violating people's rights.

    What we're looking at here is something moderately new: Natural information monopolies, sustained by first mover advantage in the market, which chose to exploit their quasi-monopoly positions to infringe on rights.

    We may have to update our ideology to cope with a world where the most important threats to liberty no longer originate with government, but instead giant corporations having near monopoly status in an industry.

  • Mark22||

    What we're looking at here is something moderately new: Natural information monopolies, sustained by first mover advantage in the market, which chose to exploit their quasi-monopoly positions to infringe on rights.

    YouTube is sustained by government-granted rights-of-way, telecommunications monopolies, and the remnants of net neutrality; without those, its business model wouldn't work.

    We may have to update our ideology to cope with a world where the most important threats to liberty no longer originate with government, but instead giant corporations having near monopoly status in an industry.

    No, we don't; if we make our markets freer, it will take care of the problem.

  • Shirley Knott||

    The most important threats to liberty are always 'other people.'
    That's all government is — attempting to distinguish 'other people' and 'government' is to reify the abstraction.
    It is always people we must convince. It is always people who do ill.

  • Billy Bones||

    That has always been my thoughts on the matter. My rights are INALIENABLE...no one may take them away. Yes, the Constitution focuses on what the government may not do, because it was written by government to limit governments power. But that does not mean everyone else, whether individual or corporation, may take those rights away

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Luckily, without the help of the state, information monopolies won't start-- and they definitely won't last even if they enjoy a brief period of dominance. Youtube is not, in any way, an information monopoly.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    but instead giant corporations having near monopoly status in an industry.

    Without an open and neutral internet they can just block your websites if they wish to.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, goodie: Turd is back with his 'government price-fixing is freedom' idiocy!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    All it takes to break this monopoly is a competing search engine.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    When freedom-fighter and all around great American Larry Flynt was battling conservatives who labeled Hustler "porn" he published an issue which he claimed was the real pornography - mangled US Soldier bodies from Vietnam. To this day that is the one thing that is considered inappropriate porn (the Bushpigs would not even allow casket photos).

    So gun videos are fine.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    While the Obama administration gets credit for lifting the "ban" on casket photos of fallen soldiers, that policy was 18 years old in 2009, dating it to 1991.

    It became a problem during Bush II because, like 2016, the press was asleep from 1992 to 2000. They woke up for a few years, then went back to sleep again in 2008, then woke up again in 2016 and so on.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, no. The only thing banned are videos which defame the prophet Mohammed. That is a jailing offense.

  • ||

    That is a jailing offense.

    Which is a really unusual move for a white nationalist Christian caliphate.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And since you tube is exercising editorial discretion, it is no longer protected by safe harbor laws, right?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Correct

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The libertines aren't going to like that stifling responsibility.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Oh.....

  • Just Say'n||

    "But here's the thing: YouTube is a private platform. There is nothing in the First Amendment (or the Second) that requires them to host our gun video."

    Wait, so now you guys are going back to "hey, the private sector can silence any speech it wants" after going ape shit about the NFL?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    No, no, no, you don't get it: Colon Paperneck is the modern-day Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, junior, so he and his radical brothers should be exempt from this principle!

    If you were more enlightened, progressive, and woke, you would understand this like the Reason "libertarians" do.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Sorry, when I saw your username, I thought of the vibrating cockring I bought in Romainia so that I would have something potentially embarasing in my bag during my layover in Istanbul.

  • sarcasmic||

    The NFL thing was about ritualistic government worship. Not exactly the same thing.

  • Just Say'n||

    I wasn't aware that gun control was an anti-government position. I guess it's different for reasons or something

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I thought it was about "Don't interrupt my mindless entertainment with your politics."

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you don't want your mindless entertainment interrupted with politics, you can always pay extra to get YouTube ad-free.

  • Just Say'n||

    It really doesn't matter what it was about. The market was punishing the NFL for the protests otherwise they wouldn't have imposed the rule. It's pretty clear that the people most critical of the NFL do not watch football, otherwise they would have seen stadiums booing the players. That wasn't good for the brand.

    There was an unhinged screed by Welch knocking the NFL, which is fair. But, this article doesn't even knock YouTube. Instead it defaults to the position that "private companies can make up their own rules and criticizing them for that is bad, because reasons".

    It's pretty clear that Reason is all about "principals" and not so much about "principles".

  • EscherEnigma||

    Let me quote myself, with the implicit text upgraded to explicit text.

    If you don't want your [YouTube] interrupted with [political ads], you can always pay extra to get YouTube ad-free.


    It was, as the kids say, a joke.

    That said, I absolutely agree that "Reason is all about "principals" and not so much about "principles"." Where I disagree is the implication that Reason commentators are different.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The politics in this case is the banning of content.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "hey, the private sector can silence any speech it wants"

    They said this about the NFL too. They also said that it was dumb.

  • Just Say'n||

    Hmmm...maybe I missed that part. I remember Soave mentioning that with a good article trashing censors on all sides, but I guess I missed the part where Welch mentioned that in his article. The Welch article seemed a little unhinged.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    In every article I read on the subject, the author made the point that they absolutely had the right and authority to do what they did even if it was a stupid decision.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm going to double check Welch's screed. Maybe I'm mistaken. Sorry if I don't accept your premise at face value, but you're kind of just a cheerleader here so I'm going to have to check for myself.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yup, Welch didn't mention that once in his article. I just double checked. The cheerleading is getting rather pathetic, man. Give it a rest already

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Liars gonna lie.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Liars gonna lie.

    Oh look, another useless cunt.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Post a link to the article that offends you so much. It's possible that I didn't read it and therefore am not "cheerleading" on behalf of Reason. The only ones I remember for sure are Soave and Shackford. If Welch's article was posted after 4:30 PM then I can guarantee I didn't read it.

    The cheerleading is getting rather pathetic, man. Give it a rest already

    Oh no, the useless asshole called me a pathetic cheerleader. What am I gonna do now?

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm going to post it, but you need to stop moving goal posts and using vulgar language. My statement was "Wait, so now you guys are going back to "hey, the private sector can silence any speech it wants" after going ape shit about the NFL?".

    It has nothing to do with me being "offended" and everything with me pointing out the fact that Reason is all about "principals" rather than "principles" when it comes to censorship (certainly in comparison between Welch's article and this one). Soave had a good article on the protests. I didn't read Shackford's. I specifically cited Welch's article from the get go.

    I understand that you are pissed when people identify you for what you are, but I'm not insulting you, so I don't expect you to do the same.

  • Just Say'n||

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I read the article and Matt doesn't say "they can do what they want, but...". This will be the first one I recall reading that doesn't follow that. I also saw why you're offended by it.

  • Just Say'n||

    I am not "offended" by it.

    This may surprise you, but I generally don't care about the anthem issue. What I do take issue with is the effort by some writers to redefine libertariansim as "soft progressivism". Which is basically what you become when opposing censorship hinges on the principals involved, which is undoubtedly true in the case of Reason at this point.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Well, what do you expect when you turn over a libertarian magazine from cranky white guys to chicks with purple hair?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    $park¥ leftist poser|5.31.18 @ 1:55PM|#

    In every article I read on the subject, the author made the point that they absolutely had the right and authority to do what they did even if it was a stupid decision

    Yeah, moving goalposts indeed.

    I understand that you are pissed when people identify you for what you are,

    Uh huh. And what is it that I am again?

  • Just Say'n||

    I suppose I missed that part. Well, you weren't missing much by not reading the Welch article.
    I agree that Soave had a good article. I didn't read Shackford's take.

    That is quite a bit of articles about the anthem protests, though, and this is the only article I've ever read about gun videos being censored on YouTube. Unless, I missed other articles on the topic. This article doesn't seem all that critical of YouTube's position, which is quite a departure from the opinions expressed on the NFL protests. If that's the impression that they want to make then that's on them, I guess.

    I hope you have a good day.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Unless, I missed other articles on the topic.


    You missed other articles on the topic.

  • ||

    KM-W is like a cross between a terrorist and a polar bear being treated for a skin infection.

  • sarcasmic||

    She has always reminded me of Jack Nicholson's Joker.

  • Just Say'n||

    KMW is not half bad (although she did write for the Weekly Standard). Polar Bears are pretty cool too.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A world where only porn watching gun fans know how to make and use guns is a world were we make love not war.

  • ||

    Right up until some alt-right, incel drives a car into a crowd of people with a gun in the glovebox. Not that they should stop, but it's entirely possible that Reason is practically digging its own grave here.

  • Just Say'n||

    "but it's entirely possible that Reason is practically digging its own grave here"

    No they're not. Reason won't be censored, because they are not a threat. The writers here have "adjusted" quite a bit of supposed "principles" in order to become controlled opposition. When is the last time anyone who writes here has had speaking events threatened by violence?

    You don't fight controlled opposition. They're useful at tarnishing everyone else. Just ask Walter Block how useful Gillespie's smear about him was for the NYT to paint all libertarians as confederate sympathizers.

  • Rich||

    YouTube announced that it would no longer allow users to post videos that contain "instructions on manufacturing a firearm."

    Not even if the video is prefaced with "Do not attempt", "For information purposes only", and "These statements have not been evaluated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives"?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yes, even then. They simple don't want the information spread around.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Except these statements HAVE been reviewed by the ATF. That is what is so infuriating. These products are reviewed by the ATF to ensure they are classified as 80%.

  • Tony||

    Sounds about right. To normal people, gun fetishists don't seem normal. They seem like people who masturbate to particular inanimate objects and expect us to respect them for it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Just Say'n|5.23.18 @ 5:00PM|#

    Hell yes!

    Now do social media platforms that censor.

    reply to this report spam
    Tony|5.23.18 @ 5:05PM|#

    I'm against censorship as a rule. People need to know just how disgusting the Twitter population is.

  • Just Say'n||

    LOL. Just like a said before- you have zero principles Tony. You Leftist soy boy authoritarian

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists have principles. Or rather one principle: might makes right. That's why they want everything to be done by government. Government has might on its side.

  • Tony||

    I said pornhub sounds like the right platform for things people jerk off to.

    Whether it's a good or practical idea to censor information that could be dangerous--not as easy a question as when we're simply talking about offensive speech.

    I tend to think it's probably futile, but what happens when you can make a nuke in your garage?

  • Zeb||

    what happens when you can make a nuke in your garage?

    I guess shit's gonna blow up. But we'll also be able to make indestructible robot mecha-suits in our garages by then and can use them to fly into space to escape the destruction.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Mine's almost half done. Have the rest of you been slacking?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "but what happens when you can make a nuke in your garage?"

    Of all the bull shit, straw man, pile of nonsense that really tired out trope is about the worst.

    Personally, I want an Ohio Class nuclear sub loaded up with ICBMs just for my shooting pleasure.

  • Naaman Brown||

    To make a nuke, you need to be able to refine uranium ore.
    This is the Y-12 plant built for that purpose by the Manhattan Project.
    Y-12 Plant Aerial Photo
    Kinda hard to fit that in a garage.
    And you would need trainloads of ore, too.

  • Zeb||

    Do you also refer to people who are interested in electronics and would be upset if owning smart phones were banned as "phone fetishists"?

    Make your point for gun control if that's your thing. But this continued implication that people interested in guns are fetishists getting sexually excited about guns just makes you look stupid and petty. Which maybe is because you are stupid and petty, but I'm a charitable guy and think you might be just a little less stupid and petty than most people here give you credit for.

  • Tony||

    I may be stupid and petty, but on this subject I mostly just want to belittle people who insist that owning instruments of mass death is some kind of hallmark of civilization, when plenty of societies in perfectly civilized places get along quite well--much better in fact--without a ruinous, obscene 2nd amendment as currently interpreted.

  • ||

    So we're all in agreement that you're stupid and petty.

  • sarcasmic||

    More people die from the flu than from guns in the US.

  • Rich||

    plenty of societies in perfectly civilized places get along quite well--much better in fact--without a ruinous, obscene 2nd amendment

    Do any of these societies enforce their civilizations by means of authorities owning instruments of mass death?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony doesn't like cops very much, yet he wants them to be the only ones with guns. Go figure.

  • Just Say'n||

    These "civilized places" do however severely censor speech, the press, and just about everything else. Is it a coincidence that the US is the only country with very liberal speech laws while also enjoying one of the more liberal gun laws in the world?

  • Tony||

    Yes, it's a coincidence.

  • Just Say'n||

    A pretty glaring coincidence, clearly. Can you name another country that enjoys such a liberal version of free speech, but has strong gun control?

    Hint: Nowhere in Europe or Canada, in case you were wondering

  • ||

    Do any of these societies enforce their civilizations by means of authorities owning instruments of mass death?

    They're so civilized you have to take guns away and ban their manufacture lest everyone suddenly start shooting each other.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    ^ stupid and petty. It is, after all, what you come here for, is it not?

  • Rich||

    "phone fetishists"

    I like it. "You fascis,uh,FETISHIST!"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, of course gun fetishists aren't normal. They're also a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Tiny tiny....please, define 'tiny tiny" for us.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    If you can't actually engage someone's argument, you can always score some cheap debate "points" by insulting them, eh?

  • KevinP||

    Tony: To normal people, gun fetishists don't seem normal. They seem like people who masturbate to particular inanimate objects

    Why are gun control advocates so obsessed with other people's genitals?

    Here is a gun owner who is compensating for impotence and sexual inadequacy:

    Woman tells intruder, 'If you take one more step I'll kill you'


    Quote:
    Laura Williams said she grabbed her pistol and held an intruder at bay while her teenage daughter called 911. She said the man kicked in the front door of her home and charged her with a shovel.

    "I aimed it at him and said, 'If you take one more step I'll kill you," she said.

    The man ran, but deputies later arrested him.
  • JeremyR||

    And what happens when Pornhub stops hosting gun videos?

    Taking away platforms is censorship, even when the government isn't doing it. Though realistically, tech companies are government

  • Wrath0fKahn||

    Does anybody of serious intellectual ability actually think that YouTube is violating rates over this stuff? I doubt it, but I feel like people waste a lot of energy refuting this unfathomable claim rather than criticize YouTube/Google for being censorious asshats, which is a point that is not made often enough.

  • Bubba Jones||

    As mentioned above, I think it will be interesting to start seeing enforcement actions against YouTube now that they have abandoned their safe harbor.

    Is there a class action opportunity? Where do I sign up?

  • Mr Happy Man||

    Porn sites will soon contain a lot of stuff that isn't porn. People are now finding ways to get around sites that exclude unpopular views. Indeed, there might be a market for something similar to YouTube that won't be constrained by corporate "social responsibility." And it means that corporate censorship will be essentially meaningless.

  • Flinch||

    Well, well. Who knew that Larry Flynt trotting off to the supreme court would give us a platform to fight against modern day fascism that has nested within the dot com industry? Crazy world, seeing... porn to the rescue of our bill of rights.

  • razersupport||

    24/7 Razer Blade Support by dial Razer Customer Service Number+1-800-688-0076 to fix and repair Mac Support by for Install, Re-install, upgrade, Setup, Configure, Change, Recover Password of Support our expert's technicians. Get Diagnose and Optimization Service by best r Razer Blade Laptop Support Number team. Our Razer Support Setup Support team help you to troubleshoot all kind of issues related to your Razer Supports.
    http://www.razerbladelaptopsup.....live-chat/

  • DarrenChaker||

    Censorship sucks. While I understand the Gun Debate, I do not understand regulating products that people use in nefarious ways. For example in 2017 ISIS had agents drive cars and even a rented Home Depot pick up into crowds of people, however no one is speaking up about banning cars. Likewise, per the CDC reports that "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day." Yet, given that fact, no one speaks up or marches about banning cigarettes. Guns are easy to demonize especially when the simple fact is people injure other people in a variety of methods and if the bottom line is to save lives, let's start with the 480,000 people who die each year in the USA first. Best to all, Darren Chaker

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online