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.
Jones says YouTube is taking down his videos tomorrow. Wow. https://t.co/2s1TUzB0h9
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 4, 2018
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
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:
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.
Chris Christie’s new book hits President Trump’s advisers hard, especially Jared Kushner
Democrats’ lies about border wall and shutdown are building a permanent radical progressive base
Sasse thinks Democrats like Barr but still won’t vote for him because of politics
Gang of Eight grows to 20: DACA amnesty for border wall pretty much a done deal
Most in society don’t realize the creeping occultism that surrounds us
As media, Democrats turn to other topics, we need to keep up the pressure for the wall
As progressive tariffs continue, China scores biggest trade surplus in history
3 reasons to build the wall despite polls showing it isn’t popular
Understanding the real crisis at the border and how to frame it properly
Opposition to the border wall is 100% fueled by spite for President Trump
Art Laffer on why a trade deficit is a good thing
Thomas Sowell isn’t a fan of tariffs
Rand Paul didn’t like the Democrats raising foreign aid as the border wall goes unfunded
Voddie Baucham on sifting religion and how it applies to the news
John Cornyn knew how to handle government shutdown temper tantrums
Media24 hours ago
Fitting: John Kasich joins CNN
Culture and Religion12 hours ago
What Areva Martin accusing David Webb of ‘white privilege’ says about progressives’ identity politics
Guns and Crime9 hours ago
Bill Barr on immigration: Open the front door, but don’t let them crash through the back door
Guns and Crime13 hours ago
The real threats to gun owner rights aren’t on Capitol Hill
Democrats23 hours ago
Kirsten Gillibrand to announce her White House bid on Stephen Colbert’s show tonight
Culture and Religion14 hours ago
Why true liberals should embrace limited government
Foreign Affairs21 hours ago
Iran and the Taliban: A tactical alliance?
Automotive23 hours ago
2020 Volkswagen Passat will make the midsize sedan stylish again