YouTube Demonetizes Comedian Over Vox Columnist Feeling Insulted. Free Speech Advocates Are Furious.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The Daily Wire Staff


https://i.imgur.com/f7NR1r4l.png

On Wednesday, one day after they stated that the videos of comedian Steven Crowder did not violate their policies, YouTube suddenly shifted and decided to demonetize Crowder’s videos, a chilling decision that engendered fierce criticism from defenders of free speech. YouTube was prompted to take a look at Crowder’s videos by Vox's Carlos Maza, who reported the comedian for making jokes about his ethnicity and sexuality.
1134263774591037441
1134264395717103617
1134264641482362880
That prompted YouTube to respond on Tuesday:


Thanks again for taking the time to share all of this information with us. We take allegations of harassment very seriously–we know this is important and impacts a lot of people. Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies. We’ve included more info below to explain this decision: As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint. There are other aspects of the channel that we’re still evaluating– we’ll be in touch with any further updates.
1136055311486210048
1136055351885815808
1136055805545857024
1136055959476817921
But then, on Wednesday morning, this shift: “Update on our continued review–we have suspended this channel’s monetization. We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.”
1136341801109843968
After YouTube stated Crowder would have to remove the links to his T-shirts, they decided to look at his whole channel, saying, “Sorry for the confusion, we were responding to your tweets about the T-shirts. Again, this channel is demonetized due to continued egregious actions that have harmed the broader community. To be reinstated, he will need to address all of the issues with his channel.”
1136363701882064896
The Washington Post was unhappy with YouTube initially avoiding punishing Crowder, tweeting, “A right-wing YouTuber hurled racist, homophobic taunts at a gay reporter. The company did nothing.”
1136114558093942785
Maza doesn’t seem to have a problem encouraging assault on people he disagrees with:
1136368470331990018
Free speech advocates were furious with YouTube's decision:

Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro: "Okay, if this is the game now, let's play. This nonsense works both ways. Please explain why it doesn't harm the broader @YouTube community when Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a 'feckless c***,' when Colbert calls Trump a 'c*** holster' for Vladimir Putin."
1136345097837076481
There were others:
1136352313587748866
1136350669013704705
1136349347254284288
1136347943001370625
1136345659810836480
Crowder had his own response:
1136353788107710464

[DemonGeminiX]

It's not a free speech issue. Youtube is a privately owned and operated platform. They set the rules. The freedom of speech only applies to government intervention, hence why the 1st amendment starts of with "Congress shall make no law...".

I don't think Crowder and Co. was making any money off of Youtube to begin with. They've got subscribers to a pay website that keeps them alive.

And also, that gay prick started it to begin with. (I watch Crowder's podcast).

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It's not a free speech issue. Youtube is a privately owned and operated platform. They set the rules. The freedom of speech only applies to government intervention, hence why the 1st amendment starts of with "Congress shall make no law...".

I don't think Crowder and Co. was making any money off of Youtube to begin with. They've got subscribers to a pay website that keeps them alive.

And also, that gay prick started it to begin with. (I watch Crowder's podcast).

It may not technically fall under a 1st Amendment issue, but it is a blatant double standard and hypocritical stance taken by all these media giants. The far left says MUCH worse things (some pointed out in the OP) and nothing happens, but if one person on the right so much as hurts the feelings of a liberal in any form, they are immediately punished. It happens on YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, the platforms that rule social media.

[DemonGeminiX]

It may not technically fall under a 1st Amendment issue, but it is a blatant double standard and hypocritical stance taken by all these media giants. The far left says MUCH worse things (some pointed out in the OP) and nothing happens, but if one person on the right so much as hurts the feelings of a liberal in any form, they are immediately punished. It happens on YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, the platforms that rule social media.

You're right, it is a double standard. But there's no law against that. It's their playground, they can be as unfair as they like. We need to create our own platform.

[RBP]

It's not a free speech issue. Youtube is a privately owned and operated platform. They set the rules. The freedom of speech only applies to government intervention, hence why the 1st amendment starts of with "Congress shall make no law...".

Hmmmmm... I'll have to think this through...

I hear you on the strict interpretation, but government entities routinely give a pass to social media language as free speech. Namely liberal professors. And social media companies are under enormous pressure to control speech that is intended to influence elections (particularly from foreign entities) and hate speech (definition unclear). So it may or may not be a constitutional issue, but it certainly a free speech principle issue.

[RBP]

You're right, it is a double standard. But there's no law against that. It's their playground, they can be as unfair as they like. We need to create our own platform.

So you see it as MSNBC v FNC. Hmmmmm.... but it's the public. I'm just not sure I see it that way.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/nQENABml.jpg

[RBP]

I have a good vocabulary, but had to look up "virulently censorious". It means viciously critical.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEgvT1DsHnE

[DemonGeminiX]

You can get the Socialism is for Figs t-shirt on Etsy. It's on Ebay too.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

You're right, it is a double standard. But there's no law against that. It's their playground, they can be as unfair as they like. We need to create our own platform.

So what about these bakers that are forced to make cakes for gay weddings

[lost in melb.]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Okay, if this is the game now, let's play. This nonsense works both ways. Please explain why it doesn't harm the broader <a href="https://twitter.com/YouTube?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@YouTube</a> community when Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a &quot;feckless c***,&quot; when Colbert calls Trump a &quot;c*** holster&quot; for Vladimir Putin. <a href="https://t.co/6ecL2SKDTM">https://t.co/6ecL2SKDTM</a></p>&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1136345097837076481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


My limited understanding is those individuals were attacked due to a (supposed) individual characteristic - not one based on sex, gender, sexual orientation.

If you do the latter in public it's considered 'hate'

[lost in melb.]

I watched a bit. He definitely crossed a line - albeit an arbitrary one defined loosely by our modern mainstream society. Youtube had to do something.

[DemonGeminiX]

So what about these bakers that are forced to make cakes for gay weddings

I disagree with the ruling. Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. That's been the way things have been for a very long time. Government overstepped it's boundary on multiple fronts in that case.

Instead of suing them, the gay couple should have done what every other red-blooded American knows to do: take their money somewhere else. They could have slammed the business on review sites and social media. Maybe it would have effected the shop's business stream. Maybe it would have inspired another baker to open a shop down the street that openly serves LGBQTWTFBBQ people, and given the other shop competition. In short, the courts should have stayed out of it and allowed the free market to decide what to do about it.

[DemonGeminiX]

I watched a bit. He definitely crossed a line - albeit an arbitrary one defined loosely by our modern mainstream society. Youtube had to do something.

No, he didn't. Not even close.

[lost in melb.]

I disagree with the ruling. Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. That's been the way things have been for a very long time. Government overstepped it's boundary on multiple fronts in that case.

Instead of suing them, the gay couple should have done what every other red-blooded American knows to do: take their money somewhere else. They could have slammed the business on review sites and social media. Maybe it would have effected the shop's business stream. Maybe it would have inspired another baker to open a shop down the street that openly serves LGBQTBBQ people, and given the other shop competition. In short, the courts should have stayed out of it and allowed the free market to decide what to do about it.

Liberals are afraid Gay people followed by minorities and other races will be abused and demonized because of this kind of thing. Followed by slippage back to the Nazi Era and then the Dark Ages.

[lost in melb.]

No, he didn't. Not even close.

He didn't cross YOUR line. If one of my psychologist peers pulled something like that in their spare time they would be disbarred. It could be considered a line under that circumstance.

[DemonGeminiX]

Liberals are afraid Gay people followed by minorities and other races will be abused and demonized because of this kind of thing. Followed by slippage back to the Nazi Era and then the Dark Ages.

Well then maybe they shouldn't support stifling other people's ability to express an opposing point of view, because that, in fact, is Fascism. Maybe they shouldn't support groups like Antifa, who uses violence to silence voices that they don't like, because that, in fact, is Fascism. Just like the Nazis, just like in the Dark Ages.

And maybe that could be possible happening in other countries, but it would never happen here. We are still the brightest light of liberty and freedom in this world.

[DemonGeminiX]

He didn't cross YOUR line. If one of my psychologist peers pulled something like that in their spare time they would be disbarred. It could be considered a line under that circumstance.

You clearly have no concept of the history of comedy. Comedians always have crossed a line. That's what they do. Lenny Bruce. Richard Pryor. Andrew Dice Clay. Eddie Murphy. George Carlin. Whoopi Goldberg. Etc etc etc. They all pushed boundaries.

No. Your example is apples and oranges. It's not the same thing and cannot be held to the same standards, and you damn well know it.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW0PuRIErkU

[RBP]

I disagree with the ruling. Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. That's been the way things have been for a very long time. Government overstepped it's boundary on multiple fronts in that case.

Instead of suing them, the gay couple should have done what every other red-blooded American knows to do: take their money somewhere else. They could have slammed the business on review sites and social media. Maybe it would have effected the shop's business stream. Maybe it would have inspired another baker to open a shop down the street that openly serves LGBQTWTFBBQ people, and given the other shop competition. In short, the courts should have stayed out of it and allowed the free market to decide what to do about it.

How do respond to the whites-only lunch counter argument?

[RBP]

This thread is a good argument. We used to debate more but it ended up taking too much moderator time. :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FsXDGfW4O4

[DemonGeminiX]

How do respond to the whites-only lunch counter argument?

Back in the day, we weren't exactly equal. But it's different today. If somebody pulled that junk today, I'd fully expect that the owner would get torn to pieces over it by the general public, but still, government shouldn't have to step in. The people would probably deal with it effectively by running the bastard out of town, or at the very least, not frequenting his establishment. That's the beauty of the free market: people vote with their dollars whether or not they agree with a business's social and/or political stances.

I don't expect that people would be that stupid today.

[RBP]

Back in the day, we weren't exactly equal. But it's different today. If somebody pulled that junk today, I'd fully expect that the owner would get torn to pieces over it by the general public, but still, government shouldn't have to step in. The people would probably deal with it effectively by running the bastard out of town, or at the very least, not frequenting his establishment. That's the beauty of the free market: people vote with their dollars whether or not they agree with a business's social and/or political stances.

I don't expect that people would be that stupid today.

It's illegal. 1964 civil rights act ended, but only covered race, color, religion or national origin. The right to refuse service was eliminated. The "right to refuse" as a principled stance is not very valid since it's been illegal for now 55 years. The only reason the cake shop was even open for debate was because they refused to make a gay cake, not a black-people cake. Which became a religious freedom argument...

[DemonGeminiX]

Whether it's illegal or not isn't the point, whether it should be illegal or not is. How are we, the people, ever going to be equal if we keep laws on the books that partition the people?

[RBP]

Whether it's illegal or not isn't the point, whether it should be illegal or not is. How are we, the people, ever going to be equal if we keep laws on the books that partition the people?

Not following. 1964 sought to eliminate partitions. You disagree with the civil rights act? So the lunch counter argument (this is no different than allowing white only lunch counters) is valid based on your objection?

[DemonGeminiX]

Not following. 1964 sought to eliminate partitions. You disagree with the civil rights act? So the lunch counter argument (this is no different than allowing white only lunch counters) is valid based on your objection?

It's not 1964 anymore. We're not looking at black people as lesser human beings anymore... well, the majority of us aren't. There are still some racist pricks out there. Anyway, black Americans don't really need special laws in their favor anymore. Laws should be passed that apply equally to every one, barring no one. Justice should be blind.

Don't you make this same argument when it comes to women?

[RBP]

It's not 1964 anymore. We're not looking at black people as lesser human beings anymore... well, the majority of us aren't. There are still some racist pricks out there. Anyway, black Americans don't really need special laws in their favor anymore. Laws should be passed that apply equally to every one, barring no one. Justice should be blind.

Don't you make this same argument when it comes to women?

Perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't argue for the repeal of equal protection laws. They are redundant with constitutional protections. So back to the point. If it's illegal (or not relevant as you stated) then why is it okay for a public service business to deny a gay couple a cake? Ironically, the answer is because 1964 prohibited discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but did not include sexual orientation.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm saying, forget the government, let the free market decide. Leave it up to the consumers. They're going to find out whether or not they agree with the philosophies of the people running the businesses that they're patronizing. If they're sympathetic to the gay couple who was denied a cake, they'll stop buying cakes from the guy who refused them. If they disagree with the idea of a white's only lunch counter, they'll eat somewhere else. Ideally today, on a conscious and subconscious level, most people will know these things are wrong, and the discriminators will lose business and money. They'll suffer for their positions.

[RBP]

I'm saying, forget the government, let the free market decide. Leave it up to the consumers. They're going to find out whether or not they agree with the philosophies of the people running the businesses that they're patronizing. If they're sympathetic to the gay couple who was denied a cake, they'll stop buying cakes from the guy who refused them. If they disagree with the idea of a white's only lunch counter, they'll eat somewhere else. Ideally today, on a conscious and subconscious level, most people will know these things are wrong, and the discriminators will lose business and money. They'll suffer for their positions.

Man, that's tough. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you'd support repeal of the ADA? I don't support requiring preferences, like affirmative action, but anti-discrimination laws and reasonable accommodations just seem, well, reasonable. I make the same case for late term abortion. "It never happens" is a dumb argument. If it never happens, then there's nothing to object to in banning it.

[DemonGeminiX]

Man, that's tough. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you'd support repeal of the ADA? I don't support requiring preferences, like affirmative action, but anti-discrimination laws and reasonable accommodations just seem, well, reasonable. I make the same case for late term abortion. "It never happens" is a dumb argument. If it never happens, then there's nothing to object to in banning it.

I knew this was gonna come up.

Believe it or not, the ADA does not actually benefit me a whole lot where I'm at. I suppose that it's nice that it's there. I'm gonna say that it makes a bigger difference in cities rather than small towns. Yeah, you could talk about curb cuts and ramps and such, but in reality, around here, people were gonna do that regardless of any law. They were doing it before the law was passed. It's a small Southern town. People actually care. That's the way things are here. Anyway, back in the day, I used it several times and got absolutely nowhere with it. And it really is pulling teeth trying to get somebody in compliance, getting someone to investigate them, yadda yadda, yadda. It's a big shit storm, and I just don't want to deal with it.

Would I support repealing the ADA? No. Because there are people that actually need it. It's not about discrimination based on differences of appearance. It's about enabling people with disabilities to survive. That's a whole different ballgame compared to what we've been talking about. It's on a whole different level. Apples and... concrete bricks.

Anyway, nowadays, if I see a business that's not compliant, I look at it this way: I'm a potential customer, my money's just as green as everybody else's. If I can't get into your business, and if you won't help me, then you don't want my money. I will take my money somewhere else. Maybe your business will suffer for it, maybe it won't, but if you have any scruples whatsoever, then you'll feel the daggers my eyes throw at you as I'm rolling back to my car and you won't forget about it.

It really is jumping through flaming hoops to start action on a non-compliant business now, and honestly, I don't have the energy for it anymore. If it's a restaurant, I can eat somewhere else. If it's a store, whatever it was I was looking for, I can probably buy it online. Most places around here have competition, even in a small town. And honestly, I have nothing to worry about where I'm at. Nor in the towns close to around where I'm at. They don't have to be told. They just know. Around here, everybody knows somebody that's disabled and they think about it.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Not to mention the fact that the ADA law(s) are badly abused. There's those shady fucking lawyers that hire disabled people and have them visit a business one time, find a minor infraction, and then slap them with huge lawsuits but are really hoping that the business will settle. There's been multiple stories posted here about those scum.

As for the Civil Rights Act? I don't think I would be for repeal. Is DGX right about the free market should be able to decide? Partially, but unfortunately there are a LOT of racist fuckers out there still and in some parts of the country, businesses that were openly allowed to discriminate would thrive, not go out of business. I don't think this country really is that much less racist than it used to be back in the 40's and 50's and 60's, I just think (most) people hide it better now because they know it's not a PC position to take.

And as far at the bakery here that refused to make the gay couple a wedding cake, he gets a pass and the gay couple (at least one of them) was just looking for attention. It was a local story as well as national, so his face was in front of every news camera he could find whining about how they were wronged and how awful it was yada yada yada. The baker didn't refuse to make them a cake, he refused to make them a wedding cake because it was against his religious views. He offered to make them any other cake they wanted, just not a wedding cake. He said in multiple interviews that he won't do Halloween themed cakes either for the same reason. Colorado has become a very progressive state since I've lived here (fucking Californians moving here :x ) and there are dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly made a cake for them, but that wasn't their purpose, they were on a crusade against one guy and his business because he wouldn't make them a wedding cake. Should a devout Catholic doctor be forced to perform abortions because it's legal in the state he practices medicine in but it's completely against his deeply held religious views? Same issue IMHO and the answer for me would be no.

[lost in melb.]

He didn't cross YOUR line. If one of my psychologist peers pulled something like that in their spare time they would be disbarred. It could be considered a line under that circumstance.


You clearly have no concept of the history of comedy. Comedians always have crossed a line. That's what they do. Lenny Bruce. Richard Pryor. Andrew Dice Clay. Eddie Murphy. George Carlin. Whoopi Goldberg. Etc etc etc. They all pushed boundaries.

No. Your example is apples and oranges. It's not the same thing and cannot be held to the same standards, and you damn well know it.

I have the worlds greatest response in my head, but I am too tired to type. You win. :meh:

[RBP]

Great debate, guys! :tup: