Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
accounts of patriotic Americans??
The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
unconstitutional act.
There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
American law, American society will soon follow.
Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
to usurp our unalienable rights.
Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
freedoms.
Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
terrorize you into mediocrity.
Do you have specific examples?
YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
things that YouTube takes seriously.
You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
the page:
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> accounts of patriotic Americans??
> The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> unconstitutional act.
> There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> American law, American society will soon follow.
> Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> to usurp our unalienable rights.
> Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> freedoms.
> Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> terrorize you into mediocrity.
> Do you have specific examples?
> YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> things that YouTube takes seriously.
> You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > unconstitutional act.
> > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > freedoms.
> > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
Also, the Constitution says "CONGRESS shall pass no LAW"....YouTube is
a private company, and as such has the right to decide what videos it
will allow and what videos it won't.
If it was CONGRESS, it could not. as a private company, it has that
right.
> Interesting how he doesn't mention exactly WHAT was in the videos he's
> talking about.
> If it was some whacko conspiracy theory about George Bush blowing up
> the World Trade Center, I doubt anyone sane would miss it.
> On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, epontius wrote:
> > Do you have specific examples?
> > YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> > Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> > things that YouTube takes seriously.
> > You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> > the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> > There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> > parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> > it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> > On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > > unconstitutional act.
> > > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > > freedoms.
> > > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
You are absolutely right, Congress shall pass no law, but wait, they
already have. The USA patriot act is such a law, and now congress is
trying to pass another one HR 1955, and SR 1959, strip us of our
rights to protest ANYTHING the government says. THEY WILL DEEM OUR
PROTESTS AS TERRORISM.
That means no more vigorously standing up for your rights, no more
writing campaigns to your congressmen or senators if you take a strong
counter position, no more creating and posting videos that disagree
with the government, no more questioning authority. NO MORE!
Is this a good idea, is it good for America?? Of course not!!
You are also absolutely right about YouTube being a private company,
and having the right to decide what videos go on their site. I am just
concerned that YouTube may be afraid of government repercussions, if
and when this unconstitutional, un-American, and patently unlawful law
is passed. Just to be clear here, I am not talking about copyright
infringement, racism, or any thing else. I am talking of information
that the main stream media ignores.
Therefore I again implore YouTube not to cave in to any deplorable
behaviour or pressure by factions of our government.
Oh yeah, here is a list of members whose videos have been removed:
acebryan,
nightfallproject, rodneykingman, teabowbraine,heartofdrakn
NafrikaKorps
vormeggio, mayorofcydae, and wildtonic. These peoples videos are gone
as of yesterday morning, poof... just gone. They depicted, among other
things, acts of terror committed by our government, and the sorrow of
the unlawful wars we are waging, and the protesting of these things.
One last thing. Do I believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center?
Quite frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that 1. It's been
proven that the FBI provided the explosives for the first WTC bombing,
they admitted it. 2. They cleaned up the site of the second attack on
9-11 way too fast for any forensic evidence to be recovered, thereby
rendering any investigation worthless. 3. The "hijackers" were from
Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq. 4. We sure invaded those other
countries fast, with no substantial or substantiated evidence,
evidence now known to be lies. And 5. I see no end of our unwarranted
aggression in sight, with talk of Iran and Korea as possibly next on
the "hit" list. There are many, many other items too numerous to go
into here that lead me to believe that our government is corrupt to
its very core, and certain factions are willing to do anything to
seize power and usurp our rights. Of course, if you feel that nothing
is wrong, you are in good company, the people of Germany circa 1936
felt similarly, and we all know how well that turned out.
Those who do not learn from the past, are sure to repeat it.
I hope this has clarified my position and concerns.
> Also, the Constitution says "CONGRESS shall pass no LAW"....YouTube is
> a private company, and as such has the right to decide what videos it
> will allow and what videos it won't.
> If it was CONGRESS, it could not. as a private company, it has that
> right.
> On Sep 16, 6:05 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > Interesting how he doesn't mention exactly WHAT was in the videos he's
> > talking about.
> > If it was some whacko conspiracy theory about George Bush blowing up
> > the World Trade Center, I doubt anyone sane would miss it.
> > On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, epontius wrote:
> > > Do you have specific examples?
> > > YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> > > Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> > > things that YouTube takes seriously.
> > > You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> > > the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> > > There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> > > parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> > > it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> > > On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > > > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > > > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > > > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > > > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > > > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > > > unconstitutional act.
> > > > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > > > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > > > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > > > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > > > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > > > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > > > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > > > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > > > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > > > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > > > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > > > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > > > freedoms.
> > > > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > > > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
Well, Alex Jones' account is still alive...
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel He's got over 800 videos, but the difference maybe that he actually
*creates* his own content and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.
A popular misconception is that you can record any news broadcast,
documentary, photograph, music, etc.. and then edit together your own
video and post it on YouTube without the respective copyright holder's
permission. Then when the video is removed and the account suspended
people accuse YouTube of trying to squash their freedom of speech.
Most likely the accounts you mentioned were not suspended for having
views counter to any political agenda but probably for using
copyrighted material without permission.
> You are absolutely right, Congress shall pass no law, but wait, they
> already have. The USA patriot act is such a law, and now congress is
> trying to pass another one HR 1955, and SR 1959, strip us of our
> rights to protest ANYTHING the government says. THEY WILL DEEM OUR
> PROTESTS AS TERRORISM.
> That means no more vigorously standing up for your rights, no more
> writing campaigns to your congressmen or senators if you take a strong
> counter position, no more creating and posting videos that disagree
> with the government, no more questioning authority. NO MORE!
> Is this a good idea, is it good for America?? Of course not!!
> You are also absolutely right about YouTube being a private company,
> and having the right to decide what videos go on their site. I am just
> concerned that YouTube may be afraid of government repercussions, if
> and when this unconstitutional, un-American, and patently unlawful law
> is passed. Just to be clear here, I am not talking about copyright
> infringement, racism, or any thing else. I am talking of information
> that the main stream media ignores.
> Therefore I again implore YouTube not to cave in to any deplorable
> behaviour or pressure by factions of our government.
> Oh yeah, here is a list of members whose videos have been removed:
> acebryan,
> nightfallproject, rodneykingman, teabowbraine,heartofdrakn
> NafrikaKorps
> vormeggio, mayorofcydae, and wildtonic. These peoples videos are gone
> as of yesterday morning, poof... just gone. They depicted, among other
> things, acts of terror committed by our government, and the sorrow of
> the unlawful wars we are waging, and the protesting of these things.
> One last thing. Do I believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center?
> Quite frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that 1. It's been
> proven that the FBI provided the explosives for the first WTC bombing,
> they admitted it. 2. They cleaned up the site of the second attack on
> 9-11 way too fast for any forensic evidence to be recovered, thereby
> rendering any investigation worthless. 3. The "hijackers" were from
> Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq. 4. We sure invaded those other
> countries fast, with no substantial or substantiated evidence,
> evidence now known to be lies. And 5. I see no end of our unwarranted
> aggression in sight, with talk of Iran and Korea as possibly next on
> the "hit" list. There are many, many other items too numerous to go
> into here that lead me to believe that our government is corrupt to
> its very core, and certain factions are willing to do anything to
> seize power and usurp our rights. Of course, if you feel that nothing
> is wrong, you are in good company, the people of Germany circa 1936
> felt similarly, and we all know how well that turned out.
> Those who do not learn from the past, are sure to repeat it.
> I hope this has clarified my position and concerns.
> On Sep 16, 10:28 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > Also, the Constitution says "CONGRESS shall pass no LAW"....YouTube is
> > a private company, and as such has the right to decide what videos it
> > will allow and what videos it won't.
> > If it was CONGRESS, it could not. as a private company, it has that
> > right.
> > On Sep 16, 6:05 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > > Interesting how he doesn't mention exactly WHAT was in the videos he's
> > > talking about.
> > > If it was some whacko conspiracy theory about George Bush blowing up
> > > the World Trade Center, I doubt anyone sane would miss it.
> > > On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, epontius wrote:
> > > > Do you have specific examples?
> > > > YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> > > > Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> > > > things that YouTube takes seriously.
> > > > You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> > > > the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> > > > There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> > > > parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> > > > it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> > > > On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > > > > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > > > > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > > > > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > > > > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > > > > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > > > > unconstitutional act.
> > > > > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > > > > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > > > > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > > > > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > > > > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > > > > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > > > > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > > > > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > > > > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > > > > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > > > > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > > > > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > > > > freedoms.
> > > > > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > > > > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
Hate to inform you, the IV Amendment from The Bill of Rights was
redacted with H.R.6043, FISA/retroactive immunity. The III, V, VI,
VII, VIII, IX all gone. Better read a darn Constitution. Your so
called president, The Murderer, rewrote CAT3, of Geneva, also Title
18, Section 2441, in effect by releasing a PDD on 20 July 2007 in
essence makes Torture legal.
Get thee top a Constitution and READ!!!!
> Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> accounts of patriotic Americans??
> The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> unconstitutional act.
> There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> American law, American society will soon follow.
> Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> to usurp our unalienable rights.
> Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> freedoms.
> Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> terrorize you into mediocrity.
On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
» the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
» and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.
> They depicted, among other
> things, acts of terror committed by our government, and the sorrow of
> the unlawful wars we are waging
I'm going to ask about this part. Was any violence or carnage shown?
If so, that would be against YouTube's community guidelines -- not for
political reasons, but because most people find it offensive and
distasteful, and YouTube would be opening a can of worms if they made
exceptions for certain types of video but not others.
The fact that the movie "Fitna" is still online is PROOF that
legitimate films with themes critical of religion are acceptable
(within the limits of being flagged for graphic content)
> > They depicted, among other
> > things, acts of terror committed by our government, and the sorrow of
> > the unlawful wars we are waging
> I'm going to ask about this part. Was any violence or carnage shown?
> If so, that would be against YouTube's community guidelines -- not for
> political reasons, but because most people find it offensive and
> distasteful, and YouTube would be opening a can of worms if they made
> exceptions for certain types of video but not others.
> You are absolutely right, Congress shall pass no law, but wait, they
> already have. The USA patriot act is such a law, and now congress is
> trying to pass another one HR 1955, and SR 1959, strip us of our
> rights to protest ANYTHING the government says. THEY WILL DEEM OUR
> PROTESTS AS TERRORISM.
> That means no more vigorously standing up for your rights, no more
> writing campaigns to your congressmen or senators if you take a strong
> counter position, no more creating and posting videos that disagree
> with the government, no more questioning authority. NO MORE!
> Is this a good idea, is it good for America?? Of course not!!
> You are also absolutely right about YouTube being a private company,
> and having the right to decide what videos go on their site. I am just
> concerned that YouTube may be afraid of government repercussions, if
> and when this unconstitutional, un-American, and patently unlawful law
> is passed. Just to be clear here, I am not talking about copyright
> infringement, racism, or any thing else. I am talking of information
> that the main stream media ignores.
> Therefore I again implore YouTube not to cave in to any deplorable
> behaviour or pressure by factions of our government.
> Oh yeah, here is a list of members whose videos have been removed:
> acebryan,
> nightfallproject, rodneykingman, teabowbraine,heartofdrakn
> NafrikaKorps
> vormeggio, mayorofcydae, and wildtonic. These peoples videos are gone
> as of yesterday morning, poof... just gone. They depicted, among other
> things, acts of terror committed by our government, and the sorrow of
> the unlawful wars we are waging, and the protesting of these things.
> One last thing. Do I believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center?
> Quite frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that 1. It's been
> proven that the FBI provided the explosives for the first WTC bombing,
> they admitted it. 2. They cleaned up the site of the second attack on
> 9-11 way too fast for any forensic evidence to be recovered, thereby
> rendering any investigation worthless. 3. The "hijackers" were from
> Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq. 4. We sure invaded those other
> countries fast, with no substantial or substantiated evidence,
> evidence now known to be lies. And 5. I see no end of our unwarranted
> aggression in sight, with talk of Iran and Korea as possibly next on
> the "hit" list. There are many, many other items too numerous to go
> into here that lead me to believe that our government is corrupt to
> its very core, and certain factions are willing to do anything to
> seize power and usurp our rights. Of course, if you feel that nothing
> is wrong, you are in good company, the people of Germany circa 1936
> felt similarly, and we all know how well that turned out.
> Those who do not learn from the past, are sure to repeat it.
> I hope this has clarified my position and concerns.
> On Sep 16, 10:28 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > Also, the Constitution says "CONGRESS shall pass no LAW"....YouTube is
> > a private company, and as such has the right to decide what videos it
> > will allow and what videos it won't.
> > If it was CONGRESS, it could not. as a private company, it has that
> > right.
> > On Sep 16, 6:05 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > > Interesting how he doesn't mention exactly WHAT was in the videos he's
> > > talking about.
> > > If it was some whacko conspiracy theory about George Bush blowing up
> > > the World Trade Center, I doubt anyone sane would miss it.
> > > On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, epontius wrote:
> > > > Do you have specific examples?
> > > > YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> > > > Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> > > > things that YouTube takes seriously.
> > > > You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> > > > the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> > > > There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> > > > parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> > > > it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> > > > On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > > > > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > > > > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > > > > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > > > > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > > > > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > > > > unconstitutional act.
> > > > > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > > > > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > > > > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > > > > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > > > > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > > > > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > > > > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > > > > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > > > > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > > > > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > > > > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > > > > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > > > > freedoms.
> > > > > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > > > > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
@Merlin1940
My apologies if it appeared that I was insinuating something. That was
not my intention. I was merely suggesting that a very common reason
for videos (of any sort) being removed from YouTube is not because of
what is being said in the video but *often* that the videos contain
copyrighted material that has not been cleared for use with the
copyright holder.
I don't think that YouTube has any intention of limiting free speech
or anyone's rights.
YouTube should provide a better explanation for each case where a
video has been removed rather than the very vague "inappropriate
content."
> On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> » the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> » and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.
OK...youtube is a private company and can censor at their discretion,
but why did it take a congressman to cause you to look into removing
certain videos?
The youtube spokesman said they would be using common sense to
determine what should be removed, no lawyers would be needed.
But whose common sense? What if you took a poll and the majority of
the people polled agreed that a certain video should stay, but some
'common sense' body on the youtube board disagreed...
To me this is definitely something for lawyers...even if it is a
private company.
> Also, the Constitution says "CONGRESS shall pass no LAW"....YouTube is
> a private company, and as such has the right to decide what videos it
> will allow and what videos it won't.
> If it was CONGRESS, it could not. as a private company, it has that
> right.
> On Sep 16, 6:05 pm, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
> > Interesting how he doesn't mention exactly WHAT was in the videos he's
> > talking about.
> > If it was some whacko conspiracy theory about George Bush blowing up
> > the World Trade Center, I doubt anyone sane would miss it.
> > On Sep 16, 5:57 pm, epontius wrote:
> > > Do you have specific examples?
> > > YouTube is also obligated to obey and uphold other laws and rights.
> > > Copyright infringement, hate speech, racism, privacy concerns are all
> > > things that YouTube takes seriously.
> > > You might check the guidelines and look at the tips at the bottom of
> > > the page:http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
> > > There are plenty of videos on YouTube that cover all topics, political
> > > parties, political stances, religions, beliefs, anti/pro, you name
> > > it... But you have to play within the guidelines.
> > > On Sep 16, 7:31 pm, xxxchaindrive wrote:
> > > > Why is youtube removing important political videos that depict the
> > > > crimes that our current U.S. regime are committing, and suspending the
> > > > accounts of patriotic Americans??
> > > > The first amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,
> > > > and makes any law attempting to abridge that freedom an
> > > > unconstitutional act.
> > > > There is currently no law abridging that freedom, but if venues such
> > > > as youtube cave to the possibility of such an unconscionable and un-
> > > > American law, American society will soon follow.
> > > > Youtube, Google, MSN, Yahoo, and all the other internet giants may be
> > > > our last defense against the traitors in our government who are trying
> > > > to usurp our unalienable rights.
> > > > Remember, our Constitution is still intact. No amendments have been
> > > > passed that revoke the first amendment, or for that matter the fourth,
> > > > fifth or any other amendments. Any laws passed that violate these
> > > > sacred ideals are patently unlawful, (read patriot act, and executive
> > > > orders), and must be challenged by any means available, along with the
> > > > people or entities who author these deplorable attacks on our
> > > > freedoms.
> > > > Youtube I implore you, do not let the criminals in government
> > > > terrorize you into mediocrity.- Hide quoted text -
Let me respond to each person who posted a response to my posts.
epontius:
I subscribe to Alex Jones channel, but he is not the only one telling
the story of corruption in our government, and lets face it some of
his ideas, which may be perfectly valid and true, are really out
there. I do not believe anyone, let me say that again, not anyone,
should rip off any copyrighted material, and proclaim it as their own.
That said, I do not believe footage in the public domain has any
inherent copyright protection. If it did, a very large percentage of
YouTube posters would have their videos pulled. Further, I am not
claiming that YouTube is violating anyone's rights or freedom of
speech, I am just genuinely concerned that YouTube is being unduly
pressured by factions within our government to remove certain videos
that they do not want seen. I am merely stating my beliefs, and
imploring YouTube not to bow down to these criminals.
peacnik1956:
The current regime in Washington may have you fooled into believing
that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been revoked, but
that would take very special powers indeed. Those powers are
specifically enumerated in the Constitution. None of the amendments to
the Constitution have been revoked, it just seems like it. You see,
our current government is operating outside the scope of our
Constitution. In other words, without a specific, properly introduced
and ratified amendment revoking a right, that right cannot legally or
Constitutionally be taken away. Of course that does not mean that the
traitorous criminals in office will not try to convince us all that
they are right. Until the Constitution is properly amended, it remains
intact. It just means the laws are unConstitutional as passed, and
must be challenged in court. It's too bad that the current court
system is just as corrupt as the criminals passing the laws. We can
only overcome this insanity with unity and education, which is a
further reason for YouTube not to bow down to the pressures of
government.
Meriln1940:
Thank you for your support, my regret is that due to financial
restrictions, I am not a poster on YouTube, only a concerned watcher
of videos.
rewboss:
I do not believe any carnage worse than that found on television was
displayed, but the violence was that of troops against civilians in
their own country, and police against our citizens. Those are the
unlawful wars our government are waging.
RedwoodTheElf:
I had to save you for last because you seem to keep missing the point
entirely. You say that I am "blathering" and "obfuscating issues
behind a wall of text". Had to think about that for a while. I thought
I had been very succinct and precise in what I posted because, as you
may or may not know, words mean things, and precise use of those words
properly convey a persons thoughts and meanings. Perhaps I am
"blathering" again, but in a nutshell I am asking YouTube not to bow
down to government pressure to censor videos!! YouTube can and will do
whatever it wants. I am not accusing YouTube of doing anything
unConstitutional, I am merely imploring YouTube, along with other
Internet giants, not to be intimidated by government terrorists who
want them to bow down to their whims.
If that was not clear enough, I simply do not know what to tell you.
Perhaps you should get some sort of education, or seek medical help to
improve your attention span.
> @Merlin1940
> My apologies if it appeared that I was insinuating something. That was
> not my intention. I was merely suggesting that a very common reason
> for videos (of any sort) being removed from YouTube is not because of
> what is being said in the video but *often* that the videos contain
> copyrighted material that has not been cleared for use with the
> copyright holder.
> I don't think that YouTube has any intention of limiting free speech
> or anyone's rights.
> YouTube should provide a better explanation for each case where a
> video has been removed rather than the very vague "inappropriate
> content."
> > On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> > » the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> > » and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.- Hide quoted text -
@Merlin1940
I did some research and I can provide some proof to my earlier
assumptions.
The majority of YouTube user accounts the OP listed are have closed or
suspended accounts. So I am relying for the most part on residual
thumbnail caching around the web.
From what I can see 3 of the 9 users had videos posted with
copyrighted news footage and what could possibly be copyrighted movie
content.
Two account are still open and have been unused for 1 year or more.
Two result in 404 errors when using www.youtube.com\{username} perhaps
the OP misspelled them. Very little is found on the web in general for
these usernames.
One had content about homemade and improvised silencers for firearms,
lockpicking, etc..
So I do think that many of these users accounts were closed or
suspended for reasons other then their political stance and beliefs.
> On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> » the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> » and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.
xxxchaindrive, the best thing that could ever happen is that they put
you in a nuthouse, asylum or sanatarium. 99% of your assertions are
completely false.
your like a dog chasing it's own tail, it's entertaining for the first
60 seconds, after that, it's just sad to watch.
epontius wrote:
> @Merlin1940
> I did some research and I can provide some proof to my earlier
> assumptions.
> The majority of YouTube user accounts the OP listed are have closed or
> suspended accounts. So I am relying for the most part on residual
> thumbnail caching around the web.
> From what I can see 3 of the 9 users had videos posted with
> copyrighted news footage and what could possibly be copyrighted movie
> content.
> Two account are still open and have been unused for 1 year or more.
> Two result in 404 errors when using www.youtube.com\{username} perhaps
> the OP misspelled them. Very little is found on the web in general for
> these usernames.
> One had content about homemade and improvised silencers for firearms,
> lockpicking, etc..
> So I do think that many of these users accounts were closed or
> suspended for reasons other then their political stance and beliefs.
> On Sep 17, 7:07 am, Merlin1940 wrote:
> > Unless you back it, don't assume YouTube right and their victims wrong
> > ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
> > epontius, you are implicitly (yet clearly) suspecting xxxchaindrive
> > (or the people he defends) of uploading contents they did not own or
> > of violating other legitimate rules. Please, if you maintain these
> > insinuations, back them with more facts and proofs. So far I saw no
> > proof that YouTube's rules were legit, or that someone had violated
> > or YT rules. Sure xxxchaindrive provided little precision, yet at
> > least he provided more than you did.
> > Versailles, Wed 17 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0200
> > On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> > the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> > and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.
MerryChristmas2You:
Please enumerate precisely which of my assertions are false. I will be
more than happy to discuss and provide proof, at least proof I have
reviewed and found credible, for each and every assertion.
What I find sad to watch is my beloved country being destroyed by our
government, and the citizens who think it's OK. It's not entertaining,
just painful
If you think a belief in freedom and our Constitution is something
that qualifies me for an asylum, then I pity you and want to know
what government agency you belong to and/or why you feel this way. I
have been, and always will be a Patriot...what are you??
> xxxchaindrive, the best thing that could ever happen is that they put
> you in a nuthouse, asylum or sanatarium. 99% of your assertions are
> completely false.
> your like a dog chasing it's own tail, it's entertaining for the first
> 60 seconds, after that, it's just sad to watch.
> epontius wrote:
> > @Merlin1940
> > I did some research and I can provide some proof to my earlier
> > assumptions.
> > The majority of YouTube user accounts the OP listed are have closed or
> > suspended accounts. So I am relying for the most part on residual
> > thumbnail caching around the web.
> > From what I can see 3 of the 9 users had videos posted with
> > copyrighted news footage and what could possibly be copyrighted movie
> > content.
> > Two account are still open and have been unused for 1 year or more.
> > Two result in 404 errors when usingwww.youtube.com\{username} perhaps
> > the OP misspelled them. Very little is found on the web in general for
> > these usernames.
> > One had content about homemade and improvised silencers for firearms,
> > lockpicking, etc..
> > So I do think that many of these users accounts were closed or
> > suspended for reasons other then their political stance and beliefs.
> > On Sep 17, 7:07 am, Merlin1940 wrote:
> > > Unless you back it, don't assume YouTube right and their victims wrong
> > > ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
> > > epontius, you are implicitly (yet clearly) suspecting xxxchaindrive
> > > (or the people he defends) of uploading contents they did not own or
> > > of violating other legitimate rules. Please, if you maintain these
> > > insinuations, back them with more facts and proofs. So far I saw no
> > > proof that YouTube's rules were legit, or that someone had violated
> > > or YT rules. Sure xxxchaindrive provided little precision, yet at
> > > least he provided more than you did.
> > > Versailles, Wed 17 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0200
> > > On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> > > the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> > > and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.- Hide quoted text -
OK, this isn't a political forum (there are plenty of those out
there); and MerryChristmas2You, that was in any case an ad hominem
attack, which has no place in political debate or technical support
forums.
Flawed logic defeats its defender
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
» On Wed 17 Sep 2008 07:55:48 -0700, RedwoodTheElf wrote:
» The fact that the movie "Fitna" is still online is PROOF
» that legitimate films with themes critical of religion are
acceptable
» (within the limits of being flagged for graphic content)
The "Fitna" film http://www.fitnathemovie.info is apparently fighting freedom,
from inside by ridiculing it with a stupid apology,
from outside by calling for its suppression
in at least one important cases ("a ban on the Qur'an").
And being fair to it would be, for a society,
a PROOF of being fair to freedom?
Even if Fitna was anything else, Goebbels could have used your
reasoning, after promoting just one anti-nazi, to hype it everywhere
and then, as a PROOF that the nazis were respectful of freedom...
Sure everyone should avoid speaking politics more than needed. But by
definition and construction, politics touches everything; more,
YouTube is about exchanging information (in form of videos), and the
obvious determined will form some powers to deprive the people from
their rights to freely exchange information DOES, and STRONGLY,
concern everyone here around.
Grave attempts have been made outside this thread, and supported
inside, so I think appropriate to reply - so will I. In case you are
not foe of freedom and justice, I am sure you will warmly support me.
Versailles, Mon 22 Sep 2008 23:17:20 +0200
» On Thu 18 Sep 2008 13:16:21 -0700, rewboss wrote:
» OK, this isn't a political forum
In the 9 user accounts xxxchaindrive cited in the middle of his
2nd message (Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:21:11 -0700), none is alive or has
a single video: 2 are "not found", 1 closed, 4 suspended (duration
untold), 2 were last logged 1 and 2 years ago and have zero video.
One of the suspended accounts has been, not reinstated, but replaced,
on 16 Sep, with a new account, which received 150 videos so far,
same sort as before. Let me say up front that in all that,
nothing justifies YouTube's conduct, which can't be motivated, as I
will explain later, by anything else than a widely organized
fraudulent
operation. Meanwhile here are the results, including the older videos
that you found on the net and that can be attributed to them
(in xxxchaindrive's initial order, see channels
http://www.youtube.com/user/acebryan and so on):
Now for the comments: the only fault that seems probable from those
accounts, is possible unauthorized use of copyrighted materials
from big news channels. But if this was the reason, YouTube would have
sent for each a mail to the uploader saying (I included fictive
invented data in this example to show the precision required):
« the video that we uploaded Fri 19 Sep 2008 16:43 -0700
under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abcdefghijk after your submission
of Fri 19 Sep 2008 07:26 -0700, has been removed on demand from
[email address] because 2min23sec of its 4min36 total were
apparently copied from the most important parts of the 5min42s video
aired by CNN from Tue 16 Sep 2008 20:08:12 to 20:13:54 and posted
by CNN on http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/2008/09/16/123456789.CNN You may eventually fight that decision as told in our
http://www.youtube.com/copyright/law guide. »
Also, before some hypocrite supporters of wrongdoers trying to deprive
citizens from their most vital rights (e.g. about "homemade and
improvised silencers, lock picking, etc"), I recall that being armed
is the 1st of all rights and freedoms, even before the rights
to inform, to express, to go and move, to gather; only *informing*
about bearing, using or making arms is even more clearly in citizens'
rights.
A people, or an animal species, is doomed if deprived from arms.
None can want attempt at these fundamental citizens' rights
if not with a wide and deep criminal will.
xxxchaindrive, all the accusations in your first post have NO basis in
fact.
if you want to make any accusations, supply some facts or don't bother
making
the accusation to begin with.
i'm 100 times more patriotic than you EVER could be.
> MerryChristmas2You:
> Please enumerate precisely which of my assertions are false. I will be
> more than happy to discuss and provide proof, at least proof I have
> reviewed and found credible, for each and every assertion.
> What I find sad to watch is my beloved country being destroyed by our
> government, and the citizens who think it's OK. It's not entertaining,
> just painful
> If you think a belief in freedom and our Constitution is something
> that qualifies me for an asylum, then I pity you and want to know
> what government agency you belong to and/or why you feel this way. I
> have been, and always will be a Patriot...what are you??
> On Sep 18, 4:38 am, MerryChristmas2You wrote:
> > xxxchaindrive, the best thing that could ever happen is that they put
> > you in a nuthouse, asylum or sanatarium. 99% of your assertions are
> > completely false.
> > your like a dog chasing it's own tail, it's entertaining for the first
> > 60 seconds, after that, it's just sad to watch.
> > epontius wrote:
> > > @Merlin1940
> > > I did some research and I can provide some proof to my earlier
> > > assumptions.
> > > The majority of YouTube user accounts the OP listed are have closed or
> > > suspended accounts. So I am relying for the most part on residual
> > > thumbnail caching around the web.
> > > From what I can see 3 of the 9 users had videos posted with
> > > copyrighted news footage and what could possibly be copyrighted movie
> > > content.
> > > Two account are still open and have been unused for 1 year or more.
> > > Two result in 404 errors when usingwww.youtube.com\{username} perhaps
> > > the OP misspelled them. Very little is found on the web in general for
> > > these usernames.
> > > One had content about homemade and improvised silencers for firearms,
> > > lockpicking, etc..
> > > So I do think that many of these users accounts were closed or
> > > suspended for reasons other then their political stance and beliefs.
> > > On Sep 17, 7:07 am, Merlin1940 wrote:
> > > > Unless you back it, don't assume YouTube right and their victims wrong
> > > > ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
> > > > epontius, you are implicitly (yet clearly) suspecting xxxchaindrive
> > > > (or the people he defends) of uploading contents they did not own or
> > > > of violating other legitimate rules. Please, if you maintain these
> > > > insinuations, back them with more facts and proofs. So far I saw no
> > > > proof that YouTube's rules were legit, or that someone had violated
> > > > or YT rules. Sure xxxchaindrive provided little precision, yet at
> > > > least he provided more than you did.
> > > > On Tue 16 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700, epontius wrote:
> > > > the difference maybe that he actually *creates* his own content
> > > > and plays within the guidelines of YouTube.- Hide quoted text -
rewboss, learn how to mind your own fucking business.
my comments weren't directed towards you, therefore what
was said doesn't concern you at all.
unless you're an American citizen, the discussion
doesn't concern you anyway.
get your head out of your anal cavity, just once.
> OK, this isn't a political forum (there are plenty of those out
> there); and MerryChristmas2You, that was in any case an ad hominem
> attack, which has no place in political debate or technical support
> forums.
When All IPs Are Monitored, Logged, And Records Kept In Google
Servers. You Cant Stalk People. And Realize Technology And Quit Being
Duped Over By A Bunch Of People Who Have No Idea Of How Computers
Work. Get A Grip People And Stop Believing Everything You Hear. All My
Accounts Have Been Proven And Gmail Tracks All IPs Now. If You Use
Gmail, And Scroll All the way to the bottom, and you will notice your
ip information being logged. People Record Their Own Crimes and
actions now online.
Have Narrowed It Down To Three People Who Are The Issue.
Trevor Reiger
Trever K
/user/Eire138
I Have Sent This Info To Google As Well, And Will Update The IC3
Report
MerryChristmas2You
Since you will not provide me with precisely which "accusations" you
think are not supported by facts, there is no way to refute your
stupidity. I can understand that, why would anyone want their
stupidity proven beyond any doubt, when they can call people names
I certainly hope you aren't an American, if you are, and there are
others like you, our Country is indeed in very deep trouble.
Again, and for the last time, if you will provide me a list of the
things you think I am wrong about, I will be more than happy to
provide facts to support my views, point by point. If you are
unwilling to do this very simple thing, you will have proven you have
as much credibility as Santa Claus and his tiny flying reindeer.
> rewboss, learn how to mind your own fucking business.
> my comments weren't directed towards you, therefore what
> was said doesn't concern you at all.
> unless you're an American citizen, the discussion
> doesn't concern you anyway.
> get your head out of your anal cavity, just once.
> On Sep 18, 4:16 pm, rewboss wrote:
> > OK, this isn't a political forum (there are plenty of those out
> > there); and MerryChristmas2You, that was in any case an ad hominem
> > attack, which has no place in political debate or technical support
> > forums.- Hide quoted text -
