Connect with us

News

YouTube’s War on InfoWars: Forced Speech And The First Amendment

Published

on

YouTube is reportedly going to take down the channel for the controversial website InfoWars on Monday, reports right-wing investigator and provocateur James O’Keefe.

I won’t delve into (nor link to) the content of InfoWars. Readers can access it (and often do so without warning) by going to The Drudge Report, which lists it twice (once as InfoWars, once as Alex Jones) among its newsfeed channels.

Presumably, this action is taken because of some violations of the YouTube terms, guidelines, etc. YouTube is a private service and as such, has its own rights to set its terms. Let’s simply look at YouTube’s stated policies, which I found with some difficulty.

First, from the Policies and Guidelines webpage:

You might not like everything you see on YouTube. If you think content is inappropriate, use the flagging feature to submit it for review by our YouTube staff. Our staff carefully reviews flagged content 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to determine whether there’s a violation of our Community Guidelines.

And those Guidelines say, in relevant part:

Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line. (Emphasis added.)

Now, from a lawyer’s perspective,

Within the Guidelines is YouTube’s Hate Speech policy:

We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don’t permit hate speech.

Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:

race or ethnic origin
religion
disability
gender
age
veteran status
sexual orientation/gender identity

There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

Also, under the heading of “Threats” is the following:

Things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use are taken very seriously. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.

Now, taking all of this language, there are some flaws. In short, its because the terms and guidelines are too brief. They fail to give enough warning to users as to what “crosses the line.” That’s because there is too much ambiguity in a lot of single words.

You can criticize this as “overlawyering” and criticize me for being one of those subhuman lawyers. However, almost every subject, verb, adjective and adverb in the terms requires a definition. Look again at just this one sentence. I’ve put in bold what I think is each and every term which has an unclear or ambiguous meaning.

For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

Each term I’ve highlighted is susceptible to multiple meanings, which in turn exposes YouTube to criticism that it is being arbitrary, unfair or “political” in exercising its own rights.

But here is what you’re missing. YouTube has its own rights of free speech, including the right of free association. Remember the infamous-on-the-Left Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United?

Before the “right wing” cues up the faux outrage machine and further embarrasses conservatives, let’s remember a few general principles.

YouTube is a private company. YouTube is an affiliate of the Google empire, which includes the publicly-traded company known now as Alphabet. But that doesn’t mean the customers, the public, or the government get to tell a private business how to run its business.

The people saying that “YouTube has no business…” or accusing it of “censorship” don’t realize they are arguing for a private business to be controlled by an outside group. Rational people have to think about two questions: First, who would that group be? Second (and more importantly), who decides the first question?

This, my friends, is the road to government oversight and control. Under the rubric of “free speech,” this is the march towards Soviet-style Marxism. Not because YouTube is “censoring” content which is both within its right

So, the critics of YouTube and defenders of (in this case) InfoWars, who want to force YouTube to carry certain content are not defenders of free speech here. They are its attackers. This confusion, and deception are the next steps in paving the road towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Published

on

Anti-Semite Tom Wright-Piersanti is the true heart of the NY Times

Progressive journalism is a double-standard wrapped in hypocrisy and served on a plate with no self-awareness. That’s why revelations that NY Times senior staff editor Tom Wright-Piersanti posted several racist and anti-Semitic Tweets in the past came as absolutely no surprise to me when Breitbart broke the story this morning.

The Tweets insulted Jews, Native-Americans, and Hispanics and date back as far as 2009. But even as he scrambles to remove official record of his feelings, the remnant of them remain. Some have grabbed screenshots. We’ll go ahead and post the text from some of his Tweets so the words remain in text-form indefinitely.


CINCO DE DRINKO aka CINCO DE STINKO aka STINKO DE DRINKO aka DRINKO DE STINKO, what upppp, who out there mexican can verify

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) May 5, 2011


@douggpound I like to make it rain when I perform at my authentic Native American dance strip club

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) June 6, 2010


I think I just heard him say “Hoes, Hoes, Hoes! Merry Cripmas!” Does anyone know who it could be???

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) December 24, 2009


http://bit.ly/QCGfF WEIRD. This woman’s Spanish jumps back and forth between a pleasant Mexican “distinción” and a halting Spanish “ceceo.”


Is Wright-Piersanti a unique case? No. Progressive journalists such as the vast majority on staff at the NY Times have been shielded from scrutiny. It’s not that anyone is actively trying to cover up for the racism or anti-America sentiment that flows freely in newsrooms across the country. It’s that the people who normally engage in investigating people’s history on public sites like social media are searching for conservatives to bash. This is a leftist technique, one that more conservatives should adopt as the cries of “Republicans are racists” continue to be bellowed out by mainstream media.

The saddest part is the NY Times is unlikely to act and leftist media is unlikely to report on this much. If these Tweets were posted by someone at Breitbart or One America News, it would be the top story in the news cycle and every Tweet supporting President Trump by the journalist would be used as evidence for the racism narrative the left is trying to paint about the right. But Wright-Piersanti is not a Trump supporter and neither is the NY Times.

Tom Wright-Piersanti isn’t a one-off case. He’s indicative of the hypocrisy that’s rampant throughout mainstream media as they seek evidence that conservatives are racist while ignoring the racists in the mirror.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions, Gillette quietly ‘shifts’ away from social justice

Published

on

After indignant virtue signaling costs billions Gillette quietly shifts away from social justice

Social justice backfired for Gillette. Despite innumerable complaints and an exodus of customers, the razor maker remained fervently proud of their ad campaigns attacking “toxic masculinity” to the point that CEO and president Gary Coombe said it was a “price worth paying.” They’re standing by their ads and are claiming they helped them reach a younger millennial audience, increase brand awareness, and put forward the type of company message they want portrayed.

If losing $8 billion was worth the message, they’re stronger activists than most.

“P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year,” Reuters reported, “P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.”

Despite the massive loss over the controversial ads. they claim to have no regrets. This claims were made three weeks ago and delivered with bluster in multiple interviews for damage control. This week brought a different tone as they’re now “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes.”

The new campaigns have already launched in Australia with a slow rollout in the United States expected next month. Here’s the local Australian hero they’re focusing on. Needless to say, he’s not representing a social justice cause, nor is he worried about exuding toxic masculinity.

This is an unambiguous attempt to escape the controversial corner they painted themselves into that cost them billions, but don’t let progressive media know because they’re certain the social justice campaign was wonderful. They’re so certain about this that they’re blaming the loss on men suddenly loving beards. Seriously.

Companies like Gillette are learning being “woke” makes you broke. That’s how business works; alienating half of your customers for the sake of politics is never a good move. Stick to business. Leave social justice to the basement warriors.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

‘Breastfeeding’ illegal alien Maria Domingo-Garcia charged with identity fraud

Published

on

Breastfeeding illegal alien Maria Domingo-Garcia charged with identity fraud

An illegal immigrant arrested in an early August ICE raid made national news this week when her lawyers claimed she was nursing mother who needed to breastfeed her 4-month-old daughter. But her claims have been contested by ICE as medical examinations show she is not lactating and she answered “no” when initially asked if she was breastfeeding. The narrative was created after the fact, according to ICE, and progressive legacy media pounced on it.

But Maria Domingo-Garcia’s situation is getting worse. She has now been charged with identity fraud stemming from willfully using someone else’s social security number to create a false identity. She is now in the custody of U.S. Marshals while awaiting federal trial.

Legacy media coverage of this story has been shoddy at best. They’re heavily reporting the story from the lawyers for Domingo-Garcia and reporting it as rock-solid evidence. But they’re splashing cold water on statements from Homeland Security that show all indicators point to Domingo-Garcia lying in order to gain her freedom. Considering she (1) Entered the country illegally to begin with, (2) Lied about her identity to illegally acquire documents that allowed her to work, and (3) Didn’t make her claims about breastfeeding until long after she was apprehended, it’s a safer bet that she’s lying, not ICE.

This is all about building a pro-open-borders narrative, and it’s the reason NOQ Report needs help in fighting that narrative. Donations are used to provide and promote truthful pro-American content to the masses. We appreciate every dollar we receive.

As Domingo-Garcia’s lawyers press their story, her family has become the focus of media reports. It tugs on the heartstrings that this mother-of-three is separated from her husband and children, and it’s good that the community and their church have stepped up to help them. But the law is the law, and when you break the law, there are consequences for everyone involved. If identity fraud can be dismissed because the alleged criminal has a family, the law is meaningless.

As the saying goes, if you do the crime, you do the time. If Domingo-Garcia is found guilty of identity fraud, progressive media and Democrats will cry foul because of her family. Would they do the same for an American citizen committing identity fraud?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending