You tube banning supremacy and hate videos

[Brent S]

I just read this tonight. I’m all for some forms of censure in social media. It has been the Wild West for too long. Right now this country is so divided and hate filled that nothing seems to be able to be done anymore. Some of these far right and left groups just want to still up more discontent.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I like how you say it's both sides and it is, but you always imply it's about equal, when its 99% far left vs. 1% far right. Your denial of reality is most likely the reason for it. The standards for determining the bans are completely biased.

 

[tmttactical]

The problem with any form of censorship, is WHOM gets to decide. Censorship is a self feeding animal. Once allowed, it continues to fed and grow. It is welcome until it is your opinion or belief that gets censored!!!

 

[jontte]

that's gonna be the big question ;who decide and what..

 

[Brent S]

I like how you say it's both sides and it is, but you always imply it's about equal, when its 99% far left vs. 1% far right. Your denial of reality is most likely the reason for it. The standards for determining the bans are completely biased.

I completely disagree, there are as many far right nut jobs as there are far left. Unfortunately the extremes on both sides are the ones making the most noise. I personally believe they like to stir the controversy just so they stay in the spotlight a bit longer. So many now want there 15 minutes of fame. As far as who gets to set the standards, I will agree that I’m always wary of any one entity having that kind of power. Even with it not being a perfect system, I still feel it’s good to shut the extremest’s down. All they do is continually feed more hate and divisiveness.

 

[Arcticdude]

I just don't understand some people. If you don't like what's being posted DON'T read it! It's that f$&#n simple!
Censorship is always wrong. We all know the goal is to censor Conservatives, not the Leftist Socialists.

 

[jontte]

'cause all left violence is good violence...where ever you live.

 

[Brent S]

Just wish someone had tried to censure hitler early on. Some times stepping up before things get out of hand can be a good thing.

 

[tmttactical]

Brent, Hitler did censor after he came to power. Again that is the problem with any form of censorship. Too many think it will be the other side that gets censored.

 

[Kevin L]

I agree.

In principle, censuring the hate speech on Youtube seems like a good thing.....but what hate speech is.....well, it's like trying to define pornography for legal purposes.

How can we establish a definition of hate speech that doesn't lead to a censoring of uncomfortable ideas or religious beliefs?

I don't know.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Brent,

Look at how leftist all the big social media companies are... youtube, facebook, etc. Do you really think they are going to be remotely fair regarding left vs right censorship? As others have said, it'll be 99 conservatives punished vs 1 liberal.

Given that it will be impossible for these lefties to fairly restrict both conservatives and lefties, my opinion is that they should stand back & let them battle it out. Better to go back & forth with videos & texts than with knives and guns. Let the arena of ideas be the battleground. Lefties will lose badly like they always do, which is why they won't allow a fair battlefield.

And if you don't believe me, look at talk radio. Rush, Hannity, Levin, there are dozens and dozens of conservative talk radio guys. But lefties on the radio? Every effort has been an utter failure. Remember Air America? Crash and burn. It's because leftist ideas cannot stand up to debate and criticism.

 

[Brent S]

I think preaching hate and inflaming youth with it is a non productive game. I agree that letting one side dictate censureship is likely to be unfair, and I don’t agree with many of the far left ideas, but still feel stoping the extremes on both sides makes sense. Doing nothing just makes sure nothing changes. I feel more can get done with a moderate middle that can work together without the constant agitation from the extremists.

 

[Arcticdude]

The problem here is that what one person considers "hate" speech is just a point of view to another person.
So then, just who is going to be the censor?
To me, almost everything that spills of a Democrats mouth is hate speech. Even as disgusting, hateful and vile as most Democrats are, I wouldn't want them to be censored either.
Censorship of ideas is always wrong.

 

[tmttactical]

Those whose views are are too weak to with stand the light of debate, always want the other side censored and then banned. People cry about how the public needs to be disarmed but cannot debate the how or why. They simply scream and shout.

 

[TexasFreedom]

I agree that letting one side dictate censureship is likely to be unfair

"Likely"??? So you identify that this is a real problem, but you blow over it & still think it's a good idea?

I feel more can get done with a moderate middle that can work together without the constant agitation from the extremists.

You mention doing nothing changes nothing, yet you are 100% with the 'moderate middle'? That is the definition of "do nothing". An example, the Revolutionary War. 1/3rd of the people supported Britain. 1/3rd of the people wanted to separate. And 1/3rd of the people were your 'moderates', and they didn't want to rock the boat. Give me any scenario where the moderates fixed major problems?

We all agree things are on a path toward destruction. Moderates who will change nothing are not going to change that. Instead I believe we need to return to more of the origins of our Constitution. Get rid of all these federal complications. Let the States run their own programs. It's really that simple.

 

[tmttactical]

Here is a simple example for all. Most of you have read my posts, would you be happy if I was the person who decided what got censored? No, I thought not. Brent might be happy with kevin L but not with me or I might be happy with Last Outlaw but not with somebody else. That is the problem with censorship. Nothing complicated. Either do away with censorship or be prepared to lose your right to voice YOUR OPINION.

 

[Kevin L]

I don't agree with censorship, but still....I must play the devil's advocate.

Freedom of speech never entitled someone to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre just for the hell of it.

Freedom of speech never entitled people to deface public property with graffitti....which I could argue is a valid form of political and social protest for people who don't have a voice....and, please note that I consider graffitti to be the oldest art form, if one considers the 30,000 year-old art that covers certian cave walls in France.

So, can someone argue that this censorship is not much different than the laws against crying "fire" in a movie theatre?

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin,

There's a huge difference between freedom of speech and defacing property. If you own the wall, paint anything you want on there (outside of indecencies). But if the wall belongs to someone else, get lost. Screaming 'fire' is the same problem. It injures others.

This is part of the vast gap between the original 'rights' and all the baloney they call 'rights' today. The original ones where what you did and you lived with the consequences. Nobody else had to lift a finger for you to enjoy those Rights. Freedom of speech (other than 'fire). Freedom to assemble. Freedom of religion (not 'from' ). Today's rights are the exact opposite: one person has to pay/suffer for the second person to enjoy the 'Right'. The Right of health care involves another person paying. The Right of a living wage involves forcing another to pay the higher salaries. The Right of buying a wedding cake violates the religious beliefs of the second person who doesn't want to make it.

 

[Kevin L]

I may agree with you, but for different reasons.

I would say that with rights comes responsibilities.

It just seems to me--in this era where people have a sense of entitlement--that we've neglected the responsibilities that go along with freedom of speech.

People need to think about what they do, consider the consequences, and accept the results if the outcome is bad.

That's why I have so much respect for the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s. Martin Luther King Jr. was thrown into prison any number of times....yet never advocated violence (unlike Malcolm X).

He accepted the consequences of opening his mouth, so now there's real social change.

That's what freedom of speech was intended for.

 

[tmttactical]

The point is censorship. Vandalizing somebody property is not free speech, it is against the law. Saying I hate whites, of blacks or liberals or conservative or any other group, is free speech. If I walk into a black bar and spout the KKK mantra, I will probably get my butt kicked but I won't got to jail. When the voice of the people is silenced by censorship, not matter if it is for or against your political views, you have lost an irreplaceable constitutional right. Freedom of speech is the first Freedom to be stolen by government so they can steal the next constitutional right, to bear arms. Once the the public has been silenced and then disarmed, the government can and will do what every it wants, regardless of any moral or legal laws. Nobody will hear about these violation or be able to resist those in power. Yes, people must be accountable for their action but that accountability is not the result of censorship, just the opposite.

What would Dr. King or Gandhi have accomplished if they and been cast as hate mongers and all their work was censored and so nobody would know what they were trying to accomplish. You silence the opposition, not for the good of all but just for your own good. When you can't defend your position, then you censor the opposing opinion. Just another form of BOOK BURNING.