Connect with us

Tech

YouTube Bans Navy SEAL Vet Who Helped Expose Nathan Phillips’ Military Record

The YouTube account responsible for exposing stolen valor is one of the latest casualties of Big Tech’s censorship campaign.

Published

on

YouTube Bans Don Shipley

The Big Tech Giant banned the veteran and YouTuber who helped break the story about Native American activist Nathan Phillips being a refrigerator repairman who never left the United States, and not a “Recon Ranger” who served in Vietnam.

Don Shipley’s YouTube account “Buds131” was banned by the platform citing years old videos, but Shipley considers the act to be retribution for his recent videos revealing that Phillips was a refrigerator repairman who routinely went AWOL, and not a Vietnam veteran.

Shipley used his YouTube channel to expose stolen valor in the United States military.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

From PJ Media:

“I have been in YouTube Prison before when phony SEALs would cry to them about being posted,” Shipley said via email. He said his posting privileges in the past had been restricted for six months.

“This time I was told/emailed I was banned from a video I had posted several years ago about a phony SEAL, but after several years I doubt that caused it,” he said. “If you ask me, it was because I outed Nathan Philips. That Indian who masqueraded as a Vietnam vet,” Shipley added. “THAT video got a lot of attention and a lot of big lawsuits pending from it.”

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The veteran is still active on Facebook, and has a separate website where he is still uploading videos exposing stolen valor.

Well we're booted off YouTube again…..par for the course! Join us on our other site..https://videos.extremesealexperience.com/index.php

Posted by Extreme SEAL Adventures on Thursday, February 21, 2019

While Phillips technically served and does not fit the criteria of stolen valor, it is a serious crime in which a member of the public produces “fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of” honors reserved for veterans of the United States military.

It was largely because of Shipley and others like him that led mainstream media outlets, including the Washington Post, to amend their stories about Phillips to specifically state that he was not a Vietnam veteran.

Big League Politics reported:

The Washington Post, one of the first mainstream news publications to seize on the narrative of racist teenagers harassing an elderly veteran, published a correction to its story today, noting that Phillips is not a Vietnam veteran.

Many began questioning the media’s reporting that Phillips served in Vietnam when his age, 64, became known. Assuming he enlisted at 17, Phillips would have had to be deployed to Vietnam in 1972, and the last Marines left Vietnam in 1971.

YouTube has offered no explanation for its decision to ban Shipley.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending