Hello,
We've reviewed your request, and we didn't find grounds to restrict the URL(s) at issue under our legal policies. For more information, please visit our help center.
We encourage you to try to resolve any issues directly with the creator of the content in question. Some users list ways they can be contacted in their channel. Learn more about how to contact other users here.
If you choose to pursue legal action against the content creator, note that we may be prepared to comply with an order requiring the content creator to remove the posting in question.
For more information about our removal processes, please visit our Reporting and Enforcement Center.
Regards,
The YouTube Legal Support Team
This was the original complaint credit to u/ol_Gravy_Leg for providing case law information
Specific law: Case 18-1691-cv Knight First Amendment Institute, et al v. Donald J. Trump, et al
Hyperlink of specific law: https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/a07ecc2a26/2019.07.09_ECF-141-1_Opinion.pdf
video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSHrXLm9-Tc
How does content violate law: In July of 2019 the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "by preventing critics from accessing his feed, the president is barring them from participating in what the judges deemed a public forum." Since this channel is the official White House channel, and is used "to conduct official business and to interact with the public", it cannot have it's comment section turned off. This is a US government content provider . By blocking comments, they/YouTube are violating first amendment rights.
Has to be taken to court. Which is often done pro-bono by activist lawyers. Find one and get them interested. It's a slam dunk too, because this has already been ruled on against Trump. It would be very difficult for them to backpedal on the precedent they set. I feel like Robert Barnes should be already handling stuff like this, maybe he's not caught on yet, but I can imagine him being a type that would jump at cases like this.
“NO STANDING”
translation:
"We decide what laws we want enforced"
Selective standing...
Some standings are more equal than others.
Orange standing baaaad. Dem standing good
No thank you your honor, I'll sit.
One other thing I might be wrong but I think the Whitehouse.gov removed petition the Whitehouse from the menu
They've completely changed their site. No longer can you see EOs in chronological order. Just have to search executive orders and you get to go through them
I had several of Trumps EO’s opened in different tabs and now they no longer load.
The court has already decided, in Trump's case. There is no need to try the same case again, the precedent was set by the original ruling.
Precedent works because courts operate on the assumption that other (usually higher) courts will follow the precedent they set in prior rulings, so they generally rule in line with that precedent and other groups (from businesses to law enforcement) change their behavior to comply with what they expect a court to rule.
If those other groups just start ignoring that precedent, then it needs to be tried again. Of course at that point you're assuming the courts will follow the precedent, and as we all know Trump was a special case. No rulings that applied to Trump will apply now that he is gone.
Don't underestimate leftist shamelessness, and their voting base being faux-information voters.
US supreme court official ruling: "sorry we're all pedos and we're all blackmailed with photos of us fucking kids so, we're ruling in favor of the libs. the libs are gods and therefore above the law."