YouTube Silences Conservative View as Hate Speech!

reply to post by Kacen


Here's a point to prove the "arbitrarity" (my word) of 'hate speech'.

By saying that anybody who announces a hateful or threatening message about any one group, culture, or ideology should be silenced - you are thereby threatening to silence said announcer. In turn, you are also threatening every firm believer in the real essence of free speech. Following this circle, you should - by your own decree - be silenced. However, since those you've threatened are the same that will uphold the doctrine of free speech and free expression - you will not be silenced and your are free to carry on.

Climb the staircase; they're just shadows.

I don't care if you like Christopher Hitchens or not. Watch this video:

'Free Speech' by Christopher Hitchens

If you don't agree with the thesis and points of that speech, then you've completely failed to understand what 'free speech' really means and all it implies.

reply to post by merryxmas


On a side note, you are absolutely correct. YouTube is a private company and if you're going to use their product, you must follow their rules outlining said use of said product. Actually - Google owns YouTube, and they're a public company. If you really don't like it, by some stock and change it.

My previous post was a bit off topic I suppose, and I apologize for that. It was directed completely at those who would silence anybody for anything. An I apologize if I seem rude or 'unhinged'... The topic of freedom of speech to me is like gasoline on a usually mellow campfire. If you don't like it, you can just click the 'ignore' button and stop listening to me.

Originally posted by GoolsIs there something in the water today? Full moon? Not everything is a personal attack up on the reader you know.

I didn't take it as an attack I just wasn't sure how to address the point.

As to grover's point: why do we need to censor what anyone says as long as it isn't a direct public nuisance (yelling fire in a theater or being loud and disruptive)? Why shouldn't nazis say whatever stupid thing they want - - for the most part they can and do and nobody listens). We already have laws addressing slack-jawed KKK members burning crosses in people's yards. If you find it offensive, don't listen.

Originally posted by memoir
On a side note, you are absolutely correct. YouTube is a private company and if you're going to use their product, you must follow their rules outlining said use of said product. Actually - Google owns YouTube, and they're a public company. If you really don't like it, by some stock and change it.

Hmm, I didnt know that google owned both Youtube and Google Video... seems more and more like the really good services on the Internet are getting bought and developed by one company. Thats never good....

Hate speech CAN hurt people if worked into a frothing frenzy (witness any historical example of mob mentality). But if one side is still spewing it, they have no business silencing the other side. Plain and simple.

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You tube is just acclimating the public to our new Hate speech laws ADL is ramming down the throat of america. The key is the mind control trigger "hate speech". Youtube is showing there true colors with this. Its just like the acclimation of "lockdowns", and "Martial law "Mind control trigger words.This is all getting us ready for the new world order and the world court where you will be tried by foreign government for hate speech infringements however and whenever they feel like it, no jury and who knows what else. I believe the world court will be in Israel at there very occult rothschild funded senate building that was just recently completed.It looks like a scene strait outta hell, there court is like a huge chamber.Sick.ADL is a virus that has infected america IMO. I am sure they will export me and try me for hate speech in the future for this post. Like im really scared, im shakin.NOT.
What Would Jefferson Do with the ADL building in NYC and its Hate speech lobbist pushers?

DWT

[edit on 12-10-2007 by dntwastetime]

Originally posted by Copernicus

Hmm, I didnt know that google owned both Youtube and Google Video... seems more and more like the really good services on the Internet are getting bought and developed by one company. Thats never good....

Oh yes, be prepared to welcome our new Google overlords.
All our bases are belong to them.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jjohns

 

Don't give me that crap you know damned good and well what hate speech is.

Call in your thought police, if you will. But really, only libs seem to know what hate speech is - they use it all the time when someone trumps one of their thinly veneered ideas with real thought and logic. The rest of us only know free speech.

Originally posted by Gools
reply to post by jjohns

 

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point for me.

I'm very curious. Exactly how did jjohns demonstrate your point? They said nothing hateful. Your response appears to me just a sidestep to their legitimate "free speech" question about your post.

By the way, I see your new around here.

Hopefully, this wasn't an attempt to intimidate a new user into silence.

On this forum mods have opinions and are free to express them.

But in reality need to be careful because mods also hold power over the rest of the members, which can be (intentionally or not) intimidating. Sort of like the problem of teachers passing on their political views to their students. How does a student disagree without feeling like they're taking a risk? IMO a much better system would have mods remaining neutral - at least on the threads they moderate.

You know... that whole free speech thing.

.

Exactly ...

[edit on 10/12/2007 by centurion1211]

Lets say that you owned youtube. this means you have complete control of all of its content (as presented in the user license agreement). If you did not want to deal with any "organization of moms against hate speech anti-defimation league" (or whatever), you could control the content such that it did not get out of hand with racist, sexist, and sexually explicit videos.

youtubes demographic is not just people over 18 (who in the US are adults that can make their own decisions). youtubes target audience is the ages of 13-XXX.

since they wish to maintain a higher standard of content (much like how the FCC is ILLEGALLY doing), they can deem that some videos are not holding up their end of the user license agreement and can remove them.

posting a video on youtube is a priviledge, not a right.

Its the fact that they are using the keyword"Hate speech" that really gets my red white and blue blood pumpin bruther!!!!You tube can silence or stop all the videos they want , but dont throw this mind control trigger word at me and expect me not to pull out my pocket constitution make a chinese star out of it and throw it in there face.

i agree with you dntwastetime. it is atrocious that they use the term hate-speech and uphold that attack on free speech, but it would be ENTIRELY different if the FCC did it rather than youtube.

youtube can silence anyone that broke their user license agreement the same as the Mods a ATS can silence someone who violates the terms and conditions of use. if one wants to discuss a topic like "why are(insert race here) people better than everyone else" than ATS is not the place. i am sure one can find a forum that is open to racist blatherings of (insert race here) people. ATS is not that place.

hate-speech and hate-crime legislation and government intervention is twisted and appauling to a society that endorses free speech and justice.

but

i would go a step further and say that youtube can silence anyone they wish, due to the fact that it is THEIR website. its free to use but that does not give you a legal right to post anything you want. just as ATS would silence a thread in the 9/11 conspiracy forum called "ATS is homosexual and the mods are addicted to meth and crack and heroine and meth"

if one wants to say such things, they can make their own web site called ATSisdruggiezzzorz.com and both of the morons that agree with said person can have a wonderful discussion about why they still wet the bed.

reply to post by dntwastetime


If your blood is red, white and blue I would go see your doctor as quickly as possible... it supposed to be just red.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by grover]

Man Grover rules!!!!!!Really funny yoho! Im for real though ill show ya!!!Im all American baby, Let it ring!!!!!

[edit on 12-10-2007 by dntwastetime]

All this malarkey and no one knows what this guy said.

What if... he actually was engaging in hate speech telling people go go out and fire bomb synagogues or mosques or advocating lynching blacks?

I doubt that he was but still.

And I'm all human and a citizen of the planet first and foremost.

Originally posted by grover
All this malarkey and no one knows what this guy said.

What if... he actually was engaging in hate speech telling people go go out and fire bomb synagogues or mosques or advocating lynching blacks?

I doubt that he was but still.

Exactly. It sort of reminds me of the times when posters come to ATS and create the most crude senseless post imaginable. Then they get banned and immediately head over to some rival forum to post that ATS is taking away their rights and is run by the government.

reply to post by dntwastetime


Except for a few things.

One, we don't know that her video was pulled because of hate speech. Or graphic violence. Or adult content. Or any of that other stuff.

Two, we do not have access to these videos to see for ourselves.

All we have is this person's word that her video was pulled for "hate speech" and her word that it wasn't. I don't know about you, but as we're in position of "judge" in this little event, I'd like to see evidence. A "you've been banned" notice, paired with a separate screenshot of a drop-down menu... doesn't cut it for me.

In particular, I'd be curious as to why the assumption is it was pulled as "hate speech". You've got some other options there, and the #1 reason stuff gets pulled off YouTube is over copyright material. Viacom in particular is rather hardassed about getting their material off of YouTube.

So, why the presumption of hate speech in the absence of evidence?

Here's what we have from the page that's linked that makes me scratch my head.

Is there any connection? Well, on Saturday, I sent an e-mail message to Ms U asking if she had received any explanation as to why she was banned, or if she had gotten any warning that she was about to have her account terminated if she didn’t cease an offending behavior. Her response: “Nope on all counts.. not at all.”

So, is it now not only verboten to express anti-terrorist sentiments at YouTube, but also to point out new procedures implemented by the portal to block such videos from being posted? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: In response to a question from our reader named "Sarcasmo," Ms U has sent me an e-mail message stating the following:

I posted that about "YouTube Is Up to Something" on the 19th. Because I can't access my YT account, I can't tell definitively if I have uploaded anything to YouTube, but my answer is "no." If I upload something to YouTube, I normally post about it at the same time. So my answer is "no" I didn't upload any more videos to YouTube after I made that post.

As such, it appears that Ms U's YouTube account was indeed terminated for pointing out the company's new flagging policy concerning hate speech. Stay tuned.

Those parts I bolded? That's Ms U saying she doesn't have a clue what it's actually about, followed by the other blogger pretending to know and drawing his conclusion, apparently, from the lack of evidence.

This is sort of like how some people around here insist that the reptilian overlords from the future are real, and hte lack of evidence proves it.

Originally posted by grover
All this malarkey and no one knows what this guy said.

What if... he actually was engaging in hate speech telling people go go out and fire bomb synagogues or mosques or advocating lynching blacks?

I doubt that he was but still.

Funny you failed to mention jihads against America or beating up white kids in your examples.

You define hate speech as speaking publicly, deriding somebody you hate?

Are you going to request all the posts about Bush and Cheney be removed immediately?

Get over it Grover. Like it or not, I have every right to publicly say I hate the Oakland Raiders, which I do. Or should there be a law against this too?

I guess we should round up all the members of MoveOn.org who contribute money to the haters over there who despise Bush and the Neocons. We might as well round up all the people who post on the DailyKos and the the writers for the Huffington Post too.

Come to think of it, I went to one game at Fenway Park and I really dislike the Red Sox fans too. And want some honesty? I absolutely cannot stand the cab drivers in NY city who do not speak English, drive like idiots, and treat me rude. I hope nobody arrests me for that comment.

You see, it seems like you bought into the idiotic liberal concept of Hate Speech because their intention is to silence speech you find offensive, and you fail to look beyond your own ideology.

The beauty of free speech is that the speech is put out there for the public to accept or reject.

Do you suggest we form a Federal Bureau of Hate Speech Enforcement to police what everybody says?

Admit it Grover, the whole concept of Hate Speech is ridiculous. The term hate speech is nothing more than a concoction of the far left to justify silencing speech that they do not approve of.

Speaking is a God given, inalienable right. Speaking is not a privilege granted to us by the government. If an inner city kid wants to rap about how he hates whites God bless him. I certainly would not approve of the government stopping him from expressing himself.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox
I am remarking on the public acclimation to the words "Hate Speech" this has been passed by the senate .Hate laws hate speech.mind Control trigger words to get you used to the fact that the US will soon have no free speech. Thats all, the video is a side issue, the label of Hate speech by youtube proves they are in on the destruction of our right to free speech.Thats all.if you cant figure it out from multiple posts Im sorry maybe you need to study the laws being railroaded on America more carefully.hate speech googleIts not me making this up. Soon you will not be allowed to say anything.Then what you gonna do gurl?

[edit on 12-10-2007 by dntwastetime]