YouTube’s hate speech policies now forbid users from discussing the immigration status of individuals, causing some to wonder whether news coverage mentioning illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals or suspected of committing crimes will result in a ban.
Yesterday YouTube relented to gay Vox journalist Carlos Maza’s ceaseless ranting and agreed to demonetize Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel, because according to Maza, Crowder was mean to him. Now, YouTube’s hate speech policies are under increasing scrutiny, and social media professionals are wondering whether illegal immigration will become a taboo subject.
Derek Utley, a social media professional who created X Strategies, a social media company representing several prominent conservatives, wrote on Facebook that “If you discuss or criticize someone’s immigration status, YouTube will Demonetize you as it is now hate speech to discuss someone’s immigration status.”
If you discuss or criticize someone’s immigration status, YouTube will Demonetize you as it is now hate speech to discuss someone’s immigration status.
It is unclear if this is a new change, prompted by YouTube’s reexamination of its hate speech policies provoked by Maza and his legions of supporters. It is also unclear what this may look like in terms of enforcement.
Big League Politics contacted Google, the parent company of YouTube, for comment regarding whether users will be allowed to question or reference the immigration status of criminals or suspects, or whether this will too be considered hate speech. Google did not provide an immediate response.
Maza was unhappy that YouTube allowed popular conservative comedian Steven Crowder to call Maza a “gay Latino” and a “lispy Latino” while deriding his journalism. The big tech platform initially claimed that Crowder’s videos did not violate its hate speech policies, prompting Maza to use colorful language to bash the company. YouTube eventually gave in and demonetized Crowder’s channel, and started what some are calling the “Vox Adpocalypse” by demonetizing and banning dozens of channels and videos.
Still, this was not enough to please Maza.
YouTube gave in, but that still was not good enough for the leftist, anti-First Amendment activist at Vox.
“So the fuck what. Basically all political content gets ‘demonetized.’ Crowder’s revenue stream isn’t from YouTube ads. It’s from selling merch and “Socialism Is For Fags” [sic] shirts to millions of loyal customers, that [YouTube] continues to drive to his channel. For free,” he said.
Perhaps Maza – like an adult – should simply logoff if Crowder’s content offends him so much. Maybe he should consider a less public career, as public figures – especially those who work in politics – are typically faced with similar situations.
This latest wave of censorship will hopefully raise eyebrows within the Trump administration and inspire action on the big tech campaign to censor conservative voices.
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!
Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court
Loomer will have her day in court.
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.
“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.
Trending on BLP
Big League National Security4 days ago
FLASHBACK: Italian Media Exposed Chinese Experiments to Infect Humans with Coronavirus in 2015
Deep State4 hours ago
ACCOUNTABILITY: President Trump Fires Deep State Snitch Who Triggered Impeachment Hysteria
News4 days ago
Democrat Who Gave Husband Fish Tank Cleaner and Blamed Trump Had History of Domestic Abuse
Violent Left3 days ago
ANTIFA Terrorists Give Tips on How to Break Into Homes During Coronavirus Pandemic
Hollywood3 days ago
Hollywood Abuser Amber Heard Fired From ‘Aquaman 2’ After Domestic Violence Admission
Tech4 days ago
Facebook Censors Project Veritas Video, Keeping Coronavirus Hysteria in High Gear
Big League National Security4 days ago
Jeff Sessions Calls for Select Committee on China To Investigate Coronavirus Coverup
Big League National Security4 days ago
18-Wheel Truck’s Supply of Toilet Paper Goes Up in Flames in Texas Crash