Thoughts on entertainment, politics, technology, and of course, The Dallas Cowboys


E-mail this post

Remember me (?)

All personal information that you provide here will be governed by the Privacy Policy of More...

re: freedom of speech, expression, blah, blah, blah

Dear YouTubers. I see that even Hollywood professional filmmakers get flagged for being conservative. You have orchestrated, either from YouTube itself, or the left leaning members, to censor David Zucker's North Korea Video as "inappropriate." It seems, that the flagging system is member based. Each member can flag any video with an inappropriate flag and I guess once it gets enough of them, the system sends it to the red light district.

What I'm curious about is, what reason was used by the membership, or what reason is YouTube hiding behind, to flag this film as off limits?

I went over to the Assasination of the President video on YouTube, which curiously hasn't been relegated to YouTube's redlight district, and saw that there's a "flag as inappropriate" option for a member to give feedback. YouTube then asks the member to choose a reason to justify such action:

So, let's go down the list, shall we?

"Pornography or obscenity."
Well, I don't see any flesh shown (thank God, since it's Madelline Albright there), nor sexual acts between any character in Zucker's film.

"Mature content (over 18) only."
Again, nothing there that would even be borderline. There's no harsh language. No graphic violence. No adult themes. Just good, ole fashioned satire - at the very least the kind that the characters of Aaron Sorkin's fantasy sketch dramedy hide behind in "Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip."

"Illegal acts."
Certainly, nobody breaks the law in this video. Unless you consider Kim Jong Il's deliberate and expected violation of this Carter/Clinton Agreement which gave him the tools to do so isn't cricket. Ironically, the Assasination of the President video, which shows a dramatic crime of murder fits this description more than anything in Zucker's video. But doesn't isn't considered "inappropriate."

Surely it's "Graphic violence." Nope. No "blood, gore or veins in the teeth," as anti-war icon Arlo Guthrie is famous for singing in Alice's Restaurant. Again, the Assasination video shows more violence, but doesn't get the flag.

The only one left is the race card ... "Racially, or ethnically offensive content." And from what I can see, showing the white female Secretary of State acting as Kim Jong Il's "stepnfetchit," wouldn't be offensive to anyone who isn't of that particular ethnic persuasion.

So, I'm at a loss for words. And I need your help. Here's the video to watch.

Please explain where in the video, did Zucker break the TOS for YouTube? Out of all the reasons you can give to flag it, which one even comes close?

Either YouTube is doing it themselves and hiding behind their TOS to accomplish this agenda, or there’s an organized, liberal, “Freeper-esque” movement to flag conservative videos so they get censored and a blind eye is being turned.

Either. Both. Doesn't really matter. It only proves that to a liberal, freedom of speech is a principle that is only paid lip service unless it serves an agenda.


Leave a Reply

      Convert to boldConvert to italicConvert to link


web site visitor counter
Fast Cash Advances
Excellent excellent excellent!
- Hugh Hewitt

About me

Previous posts



ATOM 0.3