US YouTube Suspends Steven Crowder After Interview With Kari Lake - In a tweet, Steven Crowder wrote, “Wow. Won’t be able to steam [sic] to [YouTube] because of comments from a CURRENT GUBERNATORIAL candidate. On a show with all references provided. If this isn’t suppression of political speech, then nothing is."

1000.png
DALLAS, TEXAS - AUGUST 06: Republican nominee for Arizona governor Kari Lake speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Hilton Anatole on August 06, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. CPAC began in 1974, and is a conference that brings together and hosts conservative organizations, activists, and world leaders in discussing current events and future political agendas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

YouTube has suspended the account of a conservative commentator after he interviewed Arizona Republican gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Steven Crowder wrote, “Wow. Won’t be able to steam [sic] to [YouTube] because of comments from a CURRENT GUBERNATORIAL candidate. On a show with all references provided. If this isn’t suppression of political speech, then nothing is.”

He shared an email he received from the video streaming service that stated, “Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our misinformation policy.”

The email added that Crowder’s interview with Lake had been removed from YouTube.

1001.png

The email explained that content that “advances false claims widespread fraud, errors, or glitches, changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.”

That’s a pretty clear policy to understand.

And given that Lake has claimed that the country’s election system is “rotten to the core” and vowed that she will not “stop talking about it until our elected official stand up and do something,” the chances were high that she would say something which violated the platform’s policy.

Crowder should have been aware that there was a good chance the video would have been taken down.

A post on Crowder’s site explained that he will be “unable to live stream on YouTube for the next two weeks.”

Despite claims that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, several recounts and legal challenges failed to find evidence to substantiate them or alter the outcome of the election.

YouTube should be able to moderate content on its platform. It’s not a government agency. It can decide what kind of content it wants to host.

But it’s a rather silly policy to ban accounts that interview candidates for elected office who repeat unfounded claims about the election.

Words are not violence, and people should be able to hear what they have to say — even if it’s crazy, ridiculous theories.

And if candidates want to repeat conspiracy theories and lies, voters deserve to know that about them.

Rather than take down the video and suspend Crowder’s account, it would have been better to add a link that would include facts about the election to dispute Lake’s claims.

The action YouTube took will prevent users from hearing the claims on its platform. But Crowder has been sharing the interview on streaming services and sharing links to it on Twitter. So it is not shutting down Lake’s claims.

Instead, taking this action increases the chances that people will abandon YouTube and start using services that only feed them the content they want to see and hear without countervailing information, which might lead them down crazier and crazier rabbit holes on other platforms with less moderation.

Article Link

Archive
 
A phone company could refuse service to you because you're a racist, commie, nazi, or whatever reason they want.
They literally can't because of common carrier communication regulations. Phone companies are utilities and can't refuse service for any political reasons.

And corporations can't do anything they want when it comes to contracts and terms of service, it's just that the US has completely stagnated on enforcing antitrust related law for the past 40 years.
 
Imagine wanting to take away from free speech from someone because of your bullshit Liberal cuck ideals. Pure projection to say Republicans are bad. Liberals are wannabe Nazi's,
Yeah. "Wannabe Nazis". *Me blinking slowly*

The wholly disingenuous comments by HHH are pure comedy, though. There is no way he actually believes them. It's simply not possible, so I suggest just ignoring his nonsense, lest he get ass-blasted again and we lose our tendies stickies. What he has been saying is nonsense. You cannot ban someone for any reason. If any online community based in the US wanted to find out how quickly, just start openly banning niggers, and see how well that would go.
 
Only thing I can really say about this is that at least Carlos Maza and his ear piercings are not making this bit all about himself.
 
I will not be using the quote function, but at least one person is trotting out the "it's a private company" and legalistic "First Amendment only prohibits government censorship arguments."

I will only mention Section 230 in passing, which should be used more proactively, because one when monopolistic platforms like twitter and youtube censor so much, and so on a "one way" basis, they do become publishers it seems to me.

Beyond, that it is important to consider:

- The history of the corporation, formerly known as the Corporate Charter, never gave corporate entities or their historical predecessors carte blance license to do as they will. See eg East India Company, Hudson Bay Company. These entities were given a charter by the crown, and allowed to do business on certain conditions. I highly recommend the book Gangs of America, a history of Corporations in America, which discusses this at length. It takes a more or less lefty perspective but is nonetheless well researched and persuasive in its arguments.

- The tradition of the corporate charter still persists today, although not as absolute as it ought to. Civil Rights laws barring "muh private companies" from refusing service for any reason are an example. A more instructive example are common carrier laws that regulate railroads, telephone companies, and the like. Thomas Clarence's concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute is very illuminating on this.


- The First Amendment is a legal prohibition against government censorship. But it is also represents a societal value championing freedom of expression. In this way, allowing a handful of tech oligarchs and monopolists to dictate what can be uttered in the public is contrary and anathema to the underlying values that justify the existence of the prohibition of government censorship. I am not alone in submitting that allowing twitter, youtube, etc to do as they will is more chilling to free speech than a government ban.
The Civil Rights Act does a complete end run around the 1A anyway. It's illegal for a corporation to tolerate speech on its premises or among its workforce that upsets women or black people. This results in the rather odd situation that a company can hold a discussion session to ask why there aren't more black programmers, but giving the correct answer is against the law. I can't believe anybody in America thinks the federal government can't regulate businesses.
 
Niggas be forgetting monkey torture and CSA playlists on YouTube i see. Apparently baseless conspiracy theories that are so heinous that they can’t be heard aloud are less pressing than the actual illegal content that stayed up until someone raised a stink.

Don’t know what i expected from the bot.
Anyone who remembers House of Air?
 
If any online community based in the US wanted to find out how quickly, just start openly banning niggers, and see how well that would go.
There hasn't been a case yet involving Section 230 of CDA and the Civil Rights Act but the current legal theory is that since 230 is newer law it may actually supersede the Civil Rights Act.
Which means companies might be able to discriminate based on race, sex and more when it comes to access to websites. But nobody want to be the test case for the horrific clusterfuck that will be unless somebody want to ban all white people from some app or internet service, that might happen in the future considering how crazy some people are about race right now.
 
Yeah. "Wannabe Nazis". *Me blinking slowly*

The wholly disingenuous comments by HHH are pure comedy, though. There is no way he actually believes them. It's simply not possible, so I suggest just ignoring his nonsense, lest he get ass-blasted again and we lose our tendies stickies. What he has been saying is nonsense. You cannot ban someone for any reason. If any online community based in the US wanted to find out how quickly, just start openly banning niggers, and see how well that would go.
I dunno man I have my doubts about that. He has been remarkably consistent in spewing the usual lefty talking points with no sign of introspection for the past 2+ years. I too thought it was a gimmick or forum persona but the retard train does not stop with that man.
 
They literally can't because of common carrier communication regulations. Phone companies are utilities and can't refuse service for any political reasons.

And corporations can't do anything they want when it comes to contracts and terms of service, it's just that the US has completely stagnated on enforcing antitrust related law for the past 40 years.
What part have they broken and youtube is not a phone company.
 
He has been remarkably consistent in spewing the usual lefty talking points with no sign of introspection for the past 2+ years.
Is it really lefty talking points when he has to retreat to the position of conservatives 10+ years ago when it comes to megacorps?
And how he seethes and passes out tophats when someone makes a left perspective argument against his position.
 
They literally can't because of common carrier communication regulations. Phone companies are utilities and can't refuse service for any political reasons.

And corporations can't do anything they want when it comes to contracts and terms of service, it's just that the US has completely stagnated on enforcing antitrust related law for the past 40 years.
Pretty much. The whole 'there is no law against it, therefore they can do whatever they want!' is disingenous as fuck.

Oh it's 1900, there's a company town employing practical slave labour. Uh well, it's not illegal I guess there's nothing we can do.
Oh a company is dumping toxic waste into the lake but it's like 1960 and there's no law against it. I guess we'll all just get poisoned and die.
Oh we're in a banana republic and a company is breaking the law, but no one can enforce shit against them at the moment. I guess it's justified.

Fuck all that shit. If companies do horrifically harmful shit they need to be stopped.

Also yeah he believes the shit. He hides behind the retarded troll persona to make people not take him seriously, but he's every bit as dumb and as much of a liar as he comes off.

What part have they broken and youtube is not a phone company.
DelusionTree was responding to a post that went 'phone companies can decide to ban you based off your political opinions'. Which is incorrect.
 
The Civil Rights Act does a complete end run around the 1A anyway. It's illegal for a corporation to tolerate speech on its premises or among its workforce that upsets women or black people. This results in the rather odd situation that a company can hold a discussion session to ask why there aren't more black programmers, but giving the correct answer is against the law. I can't believe anybody in America thinks the federal government can't regulate businesses.
A big problem is the precedent holding that a corporation is a "person." The book Gangs of America discusses how this was just made up and then courts just ran with it. When you peel it down it is just layers of onion, with no real core or essence to it.

The point is this: presupposing that integration and multculturalism are laudable goals and legitimate government interests, there IS a difference between forcing a mom and pop restaurant to cater to customers they dont like, whether for race or a contentious gay couple that likes to start shit with people who do not like them, That is an entirely different proposition than forcing chain restuarants, hotels, etc to accomodate regardless of favor or disfavor. But right now, the body of laws does not acknowledge such a fundamental distinction in regards to race, sexual orientation, etc. The only exception I know of is the Mrs Murphy exception in housing law.
What part have they broken and youtube is not a phone company.
Read the concurring opinion by youtube. Many entities subject to common carrier restrictions were not originally. The argument is that youtube and twitter OUGHT to be subject to common carrier restrictions, because they meet all the conditions that traditonally apply to them.
Pretty much. The whole 'there is no law against it, therefore they can do whatever they want!' is disingenous as fuck.

Oh it's 1900, there's a company town employing practical slave labour. Uh well, it's not illegal I guess there's nothing we can do.
Oh a company is dumping toxic waste into the lake but it's like 1960 and there's no law against it. I guess we'll all just get poisoned and die.
Oh we're in a banana republic and a company is breaking the law, but no one can enforce shit against them at the moment. I guess it's justified.
This is so spot on. Just because something is presently legal does not mean it should be. There was a time when slavery was legal, and when prohibition was the law of the land....
Fuck all that shit. If companies do horrifically harmful shit they need to be stopped.
Precisely.
Also yeah he believes the shit. He hides behind the retarded troll persona to make people not take him seriously, but he's every bit as dumb and as much of a liar as he comes off.


DelusionTree was responding to a post that went 'phone companies can decide to ban you based off your political opinions'. Which is incorrect.
Correct again. I will only add the Elon Musk twitter fiasco exposed the lefty talking points about twitter (or insert whatever other tech monopoly) were disingenous. Part of it moral particularism, part of it is cognitive dissonance, part of it is double think.
 
Pretty much. The whole 'there is no law against it, therefore they can do whatever they want!' is disingenous as fuck.

Oh it's 1900, there's a company town employing practical slave labour. Uh well, it's not illegal I guess there's nothing we can do.
Oh a company is dumping toxic waste into the lake but it's like 1960 and there's no law against it. I guess we'll all just get poisoned and die.
Oh we're in a banana republic and a company is breaking the law, but no one can enforce shit against them at the moment. I guess it's justified.

Fuck all that shit. If companies do horrifically harmful shit they need to be stopped.

Then fucking vote people in who would change it. However, it would not happen as partisan radio. news and different organizations would be hit by this. So no one will do shit.
 
Then fucking vote people in who would change it. However, it would not happen as partisan radio. news and different organizations would be hit by this. So no one will do shit.
People are trying to do just that. Which is also why politician's and corporations increasingly tries to criminalize, suppress and control the exchange of information.
 
Then fucking vote people in who would change it. However, it would not happen as partisan radio. news and different organizations would be hit by this. So no one will do shit.
Radio is already heavily regulated under current law and has its own set of rules, news is barely touched because of 1st amendment Supreme Court rulings.
What we're talking about is telecommunications law and applying most of it to websites and apps.
 
And the little weiner doggie goes yap yap yap. I don't think you even read what I wrote, let alone understood it. The First Amendment is not just a.prohibition agaisbt government censorship, but a societal value of freedom expression.
Pedo fascist boomer is showing his lack of intelligence yet again. Not true at all. It's the same reason why Null can ban you for any reason he wants. Youtube and Twitter can ban you for saying the n-word, too. Or are you saying that you should be allowed to say anything you want on Twitter and Youtube and Kiwi Farms?

Also imagine thinking "it's a private company guise it can do whatever it wants" is a good argument after being shown to bitch at the mods whenever they do whatever they want.

Let me guess though. It's out of context guiseeeeeeeeee.
With no hint of irony whatsoever.
Lol when you sign up for Youtube or Twitter, you are agreeing to their terms of service. You violate that and they can ban you. Just like how if you prank call people on your phone or don't pay your bill, the phone company can stop giving you service.

I know you want to say the n-word on Twitter and Youtube, but they are allowed to enforce their TOS.
 
Pedo fascist boomer is showing his lack of intelligence yet again. Not true at all. It's the same reason why Null can ban you for any reason he wants. Youtube and Twitter can ban you for saying the n-word, too. Or are you saying that you should be allowed to say anything you want on Twitter and Youtube and Kiwi Farms?


Lol when you sign up for Youtube or Twitter, you are agreeing to their terms of service. You violate that and they can ban you. Just like how if you prank call people on your phone or don't pay your bill, the phone company can stop giving you service.

I know you want to say the n-word on Twitter and Youtube, but they are allowed to enforce their TOS.
I'm only briefly skimming your horseshit. I dont generally use the epithet "Nigger." I find it vulgar... I prefer "darkie" and blackie." In fact, I have an idea for an animated cartoon series lampooning and highlighting the worst of black behavior: The Blackie BLACK Show! Much more educational and enlightening than The Richie Rich Show ..

Know that calling me boomer, pedo other nonsense in no way rebuts what I and others have written.
 
I'm only briefly skimming your horseshit. I dont generally use the epithet "Nigger." I find it vulgar... I prefer "darkie" and blackie." In fact, I have an idea for an animated cartoon series lampooning and highlighting the worst of black behavior: The Blackie BLACK Show! Much more educational and enlightening than The Richie Rich Show ..

Know that calling me boomer, pedo other nonsense in no way rebuts what I and others have written.
I refuted what you wrote, but you even admit you didn't read my posts that you replied to. I think I won this one, boomer. Have a nice night
 
A big problem is the precedent holding that a corporation is a "person." The book Gangs of America discusses how this was just made up and then courts just ran with it.

Well, legal personhood is the entire point of corporations. If a corporation isn't a legal person, it can't own property or be represented in court.

The point is this: presupposing that integration and multculturalism are laudable goals and legitimate government interests, there IS a difference between forcing a mom and pop restaurant to cater to customers they dont like, whether for race or a contentious gay couple that likes to start shit with people who do not like them, That is an entirely different proposition than forcing chain restuarants, hotels, etc to accomodate regardless of favor or disfavor. But right now, the body of laws does not acknowledge such a fundamental distinction in regards to race, sexual orientation, etc. The only exception I know of is the Mrs Murphy exception in housing law.

The problem is the Civil Rights Act regulates speech itself. It requires an employer to take punitive action against an employee if the employee expresses an opinion the Congress has forbidden. It doesn't matter if multiculturalism is a laudable goal or a legitimate government interest, Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech, full stop.

Kennedy makes a very good point in his Citizens United decision - the First Amendment applies to speech, not speakers, and freedom of the press protects all methods of speaking. Congress cannot do an end-run around the 1aw by defining certain classes of speakers or ways of propagating information, and say the 1a doesn't apply to them because it only applies to a particular sort of speaker or method of speaking. Speech itself cannot be abridged; the means, origin, and method are absolutely irrelevant.

Of course, he never applies this to the Civil Rights Act. But the reality is a law requiring me to punish employees who express forbidden opinions is absolutely an abridging of speech. It's especially egregious because it can require me for punishing people who say true things. The 1a doesn't have exceptions for S-Corps or 501(c)s. It protects speech, which the Civil Rights Act infringes on.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo