Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Youtube Now Censoring Radical Political Videos?


Recommended Posts

This article on the censoring of 9/11 videos on Youtube cought my eye because I had started experiencing serious problems with my Youtube account about six months ago. My account has only a couple of 9/11 videos but a lot of others on the CIA and its terrorism. Now my Youtube account is completely gone.

http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com/mail/In...mp;n=2144990315

u Tube Expands 9/11 Truth Purge

Jump to Comments

If you're new here and like what you read, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed to get the latest news. Thanks for visiting!

Deletes user account which featured BBC WTC 7 videos that had over 1 million views

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Friday, January 23, 2009

You Tube has permanently suspended another major 9/11 truth account in a continuation of the purge that began following efforts by the establishment to smear the 9/11 truth movement as terrorist propaganda.

You Tube has previously been caught blocking 9/11 truth videos from entering into top ranking charts for both views and comments despite their enduring popularity.

It also has a record of wanton censorship in deleting videos that are artistically crafted compilations and the furthest possible thing from copyright violation, such as the "Question Your Reality" video.

You Tube has now completely deleted the "OneDeadDJ" user account, which was used to display videos on Prison Planet.com, and in particular video clips relating to the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes in advance.

Upon attempting to login to the account, one is met with the message, "Your account has been permanently disabled". No explanation as to why is given.

One of the videos deleted by You Tube, which features in the article "BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell," had over 1 million views and nearly 45,000 comments before it was pulled this week.

The same clip can still be found on You Tube by using the search function, but the deletion of the original means that the video will now be dead on thousands of websites and blogs that picked it up when the story first broke.

When one attempts to play the clip, the message "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation" is displayed. No doubt that the BBC has demanded You Tube remove the video in an attempt to hide its embarrasment at the WTC 7 fiasco, which it clumsily attempted to resolve by producing two seperate hit piece documentaries against 9/11 truth.

The fact that the video is brief, is implicitly newsworthy, and has been used for the purposes of an article which is inherantly in the wider public interest, precludes any notion of copyright violation. This is blatantly an example of "fair use".

You Tube users started noticing an increase in account suspensions and videos being removed following a demand from Senator Joe Lieberman that You Tube remove all content deemed "terrorist propaganda".

As we saw at a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" in November 2007, questioning the official 9/11 story behind 9/11 is now being classified as aiding terrorist propaganda by some sectors of the establishment.

During the hearing, representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center showed images of WTC 7 and a screenshot from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site in an attempt to link 9/11 truth with violent jihadists.

Please take a moment to complain to You Tube about the deletion of the "OneDeadDJ" user account and demand it be reinstated. To make a complaint call +1 650-253-0000 (please be polite).

Watch a clip about previous examples of You Tube censorship below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that YouTube, and by extension its parent company are censoring 9/11 “truth” videos they host tens of thousands of them; “documentaries” like ‘Loose Change’ and ‘9/11 Mysteries’ became “hits” there despite infringing copyrights. Indeed the movement would be a lot smaller if it weren’t for the films and videos hosted on those sites. As for clips about the BBC’s reports concerning building 7 as of a few minutes ago the search "wtc 7" OR wtc7 bbc early OR 4:54 OR 4:57 OR before generated 137 hits on youtube and 182 on Google Video. “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and B) the intense fires on the south side of the building.

Google was of course sued by Viacom so I would imagine are understandably touchy about copyright infringement. I doubt they have a lot of staff to police all posted videos and imagine only look at clips that draw complains or generate large numbers of hits. Copyright law is very complicated musicians who sampled a few seconds of songs by others have been sued. I don’t think Watson’s points about non-commercial use apply because Google is a profit making company, Alex Jones’ sites etc are also revenue generating operations and they have in fact generated enough profit for him to buy a comfortable home.

As for Nate and Peter’s allegations they had their accounts suspended for no apparent motive; perhaps it’s true but I remember that both had difficulty voting in a poll I posted here and falsely accused me or “fixing” it, something obviously beyond the powers of an ordinary member. “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’” comes to mind.

Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that YouTube, and by extension its parent company are censoring 9/11 “truth” videos they host tens of thousands of them; “documentaries” like ‘Loose Change’ and ‘9/11 Mysteries’ became “hits” there despite infringing copyrights. Indeed the movement would be a lot smaller if it weren’t for the films and videos hosted on those sites. As for clips about the BBC’s reports concerning building 7 as of a few minutes ago the search "wtc 7" OR wtc7 bbc early OR 4:54 OR 4:57 OR before generated 137 hits on youtube and 182 on Google Video. “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and B) the intense fires on the south side of the building.

Google was of course sued by Viacom so I would imagine are understandably touchy about copyright infringement. I doubt they have a lot of staff to police all posted videos and imagine only look at clips that draw complains or generate large numbers of hits. Copyright law is very complicated musicians who sampled a few seconds of songs by others have been sued. I don’t think Watson’s points about non-commercial use apply because Google is a profit making company, Alex Jones’ sites etc are also revenue generating operations and they have in fact generated enough profit for him to buy a comfortable home.

As for Nate and Peter’s allegations they had their accounts suspended for no apparent motive; perhaps it’s true but I remember that both had difficulty voting in a poll I posted here and falsely accused me or “fixing” it, something obviously beyond the powers of an ordinary member. “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’” comes to mind.

Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even

restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc.

----

What Len accuses me of here is false AS I CURRENTLY REMEMBER IT. I remember having some difficulty with the voting process, but AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me before lumping me in a blanket accusation, I was once from the Show Me State. Also my Youtube account, Len was red34birds. Please find it. Perhaps you can. You will note that I stated my case in the form of a question and in a conditional mode.

Len's smears were unconditional, but then its good to see commitement once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that YouTube, and by extension its parent company are censoring 9/11 “truth” videos they host tens of thousands of them; “documentaries” like ‘Loose Change’ and ‘9/11 Mysteries’ became “hits” there despite infringing copyrights. Indeed the movement would be a lot smaller if it weren’t for the films and videos hosted on those sites. As for clips about the BBC’s reports concerning building 7 as of a few minutes ago the search "wtc 7" OR wtc7 bbc early OR 4:54 OR 4:57 OR before generated 137 hits on youtube and 182 on Google Video. “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and B) the intense fires on the south side of the building.

Google was of course sued by Viacom so I would imagine are understandably touchy about copyright infringement. I doubt they have a lot of staff to police all posted videos and imagine only look at clips that draw complains or generate large numbers of hits. Copyright law is very complicated musicians who sampled a few seconds of songs by others have been sued. I don’t think Watson’s points about non-commercial use apply because Google is a profit making company, Alex Jones’ sites etc are also revenue generating operations and they have in fact generated enough profit for him to buy a comfortable home.

As for Nate and Peter’s allegations they had their accounts suspended for no apparent motive; perhaps it’s true but I remember that both had difficulty voting in a poll I posted here and falsely accused me or “fixing” it, something obviously beyond the powers of an ordinary member. “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’” comes to mind.

Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even

restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc.

----

What Len accuses me of here is false AS I CURRENTLY REMEMBER IT. I remember having some difficulty with the voting process, but AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me before lumping me in a blanket accusation, I was once from the Show Me State. Also my Youtube account, Len was red34birds. Please find it. Perhaps you can. You will note that I stated my case in the form of a question and in a conditional mode.

Len's smears were unconditional, but then its good to see commitement once in a while.

--

ALSO IT SHOULD BE REEMPHASIZED THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY VIDEOS ON MY NOW INACCESSIBLE (TO ME) CHANNEL WERE NOT ABOUT 9/11 BUT WERE ON GENERAL TOPICS OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATION, CIA MEDIA OPS (FOR EXAMPLE THE EXCELLENT ONE ON MKULTRA WITH PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER SIMPSON OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, AND OTHER CIA OPS) SO LEN.S LUMPING TOGETHER EVERYTHING WITH HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Len accuses me of here is false AS I CURRENTLY REMEMBER IT. I remember having some difficulty with the voting process, but AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me before lumping me in a blanket accusation, I was once from the Show Me State.

That's a fair call, Len. Are you able to show where Nathaniel said such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Len accuses me of here is false AS I CURRENTLY REMEMBER IT. I remember having some difficulty with the voting process, but AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me before lumping me in a blanket accusation, I was once from the Show Me State. Also my Youtube account, Len was red34birds. Please find it. Perhaps you can. You will note that I stated my case in the form of a question and in a conditional mode.

Len's smears were unconditional, but then its good to see commitement once in a while.

"...AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me..."

I just voted and the results did not reflect my vote.

About what Id expect from someone so low as to post together quotes and unstated assumptions ( in the j'accusers head) to imply things dealing with violence about another member.

Sleaze. Period

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=145345

Despite having falsely accused me of unethical behavior a few times (and never apologized when shown to be wrong) I have never made similar accusations against you. I don’t think you are a bad person just one whose recollection of events can be a bit confused. The part about me “post(ing) together quotes and unstated assumptions” was based on yet another misunderstanding on your part.

As for your Youtube account I have no idea, you might just have pushed the wrong button like you did on the poll perhaps it was cancelled for violating the ToS - I imagine some of your content was copywritten by others.

ALSO IT SHOULD BE REEMPHASIZED THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY VIDEOS ON MY NOW INACCESSIBLE (TO ME) CHANNEL WERE NOT ABOUT 9/11 BUT WERE ON GENERAL TOPICS OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATION, CIA MEDIA OPS (FOR EXAMPLE THE EXCELLENT ONE ON MKULTRA WITH PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER SIMPSON OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, AND OTHER CIA OPS) SO LEN.S LUMPING TOGETHER EVERYTHING WITH HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING.

I'm unsure of the relevance of this The emphasis of the thread was on Youtube’s supposed suppression of "Truther" videos. The same would apply however to videos on any topic. They are well with in their rights to take down any video that violates their ToS and delete the accounts of repeat offenders. It's not Google's fault you didn't have copies of some of your videos stored elsewhere. No where did I imply in my inital post that "truthers" suffer from "PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT".

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predicatably, Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the """"""""""""""""""""""""Truther"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" movement"""" in general.

Le plus ce slash... le plus same slush.

I hereby acknowledge my mistake in the dependent clause.

Yes, that WILL pass for magnanimity arount here!

(emoticon difficulty) More monotonous pith to follow...sigh. Not everyone has the capital to stay FULL TIME on 9/11 threads!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will also be noted Len's a priori rejection of the possibility that political censorship of Youtube might actually be taking place... for reasons other than violations of posted policies. This in spite of numerous accounts of internet censorship of vehicles like Youtube, and even by the New York Times.

This knee jerk defense of the Corporate Media owners who have gotten nearly everything of imporatance wrong for the last fifty years save perhaps ninety percent of the boxscores, is what should alert us to Len's uniquly focused scepticism

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predicatably, Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the """"""""""""""""""""""""Truther"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" movement"""" in general.

Le plus ce slash... le plus same slush.

I hereby acknowledge my mistake in the dependent clause

.You asked me to show you where you had “accuse[d me] of fixing the vote” and I complied. I did not link this to the“inaccuracy of the """"""""""""""""""""""""Truther"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" movement""""” but now that you brought it up I don’t think it’s a coincidence someone whose recollections are so consistently wrong believes the claims of a movement so consistently inaccurate. Your recollection of what you said at the time of the poll (only a few months ago was highly inaccurate, just as your understanding of what went wrong was inaccurate (you clicked the wrong button), just as your understanding of comments I made on the Amy Goodman thread were inaccurate, just as your recollection of media accounts of the Cole and Anthrax attacks were inaccurate, have you noticed a pattern yet?- The boy who cried wolf’s shoes seem to fit you quite well.

PS - You understanding of the term "dependent clause" seems to be innaccurate as well

It will also be noted Len's a priori rejection of the possibility that political censorship of Youtube might actually be taking place... for reasons other than violations of posted policies. This in spite of numerous accounts of internet censorship of vehicles like Youtube, and even by the New York Times.

Please post links to the “numerous” NY Times or other media accounts of “political censorship of Youtube…for reasons other than violations of posted policies” in the US or other advanced democracies (even in Thailand and Turkey they CLAIM to only exclude video which violate local law or their ToS). It could be true, I have yet to see convincing evidence that it is. Why would they censor you but allow Loose Change which 'converted' thousands of people to the movement and Alex Jones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first an initial comment that was centered on your mudslinging becomes three inaccuracies after about pushing a button. Did you count Ohio in 2004 by any chance? Then you turn your current interpretation of the Amy Goodman thread into the objective truth making whatever I said "inaccurate" then you contort your innane comparison of the degree of media saturation of Cole coverage to the POST 9/11 DEGREE OF MEDIA SATURATION OF THE ANTHRAX LETTERS (apples and oranges indeed! but not even a variable in Mr Accuracy's analysis)...into the objective truth without even outling what the original point of disagreement was about...

Why yes Len I notice a pattern of odious comparisons that terminates with stupid name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you did ask Nathaniel, and Len was able to show that your recollection was not as accurate as you thought. And I don't see where he made any accusation against "truthers" in general. A bit unfair towards Len, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you did ask Nathaniel, and Len was able to show that your recollection was not as accurate as you thought. A bit unfair towards Len, IMO.

----

Well then, that pretty much settles it. The Moderator-- of Len's cut pastings-- has spoken!

Anyone who wants to -- and I'm afraid I will pitty the citizen-- can go back and examine the ENTIRE THREADS from which Len has from the very beginning chosen so selectively from. At this stage of world capitalism I have better things to do. However, since the economy will undoubtedly have fully recovered by May 20th, when I have a bit more time after my 3 grad classes are over, I shall be happy to fill in Len's pastings.

Until then I leave anyone with any toxic-curriosity in this pettyness to ponder the following statement by Moderator Evan:

"And I don't see where he made any accusation against "truthers" in general."

Really?

Evan please get your goggles checked before you go jumping from planes with flyPappy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny in every one of your posts trying to rebut my contention you are prone to getting things wrong you’ve gotten something wrong, almost as if you are subconsciously trying to prove me right.

first an initial comment that was centered on your mudslinging becomes three inaccuracies after about pushing a button.

The “initial comment” was just the first of a series of 4 errors.

1) I said your more tolerant reaction to the Goodman death threat when you discovered it was really from a “truther” was “reminiscent” of the tolerant reaction to a death threat against Mark Roberts (a prominent “debunker”) by a “truther” on the Loose Change Forum. You misinterpreted that as me saying you advocated violence. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144945 (see also the following posts)

2) You pushed the wrong button on my 9/11 poll causing your vote to be nullified.

3) Unable to figure what went wrong you accused me of fixing the poll and dragged in your miscomprehension of my above cited comment on the Amy Goodman thread.

4) You forgot you had accused me of fixing the poll

…then you contort your innane comparison of the degree of media saturation of Cole coverage to the POST 9/11 DEGREE OF MEDIA SATURATION OF THE ANTHRAX LETTERS (apples and oranges indeed! but not even a variable in Mr Accuracy's analysis)…

You specifically asked me “What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001?” and made absurd statements like “"but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event”

Why yes Len I notice a pattern of odious comparisons that terminates with stupid name-calling.

Quite ironic that the guy who just labeled me “slusher Len” and recently called me “sleaze” considers comparing him to Chicken Little “stupid name-calling”, where else have I ever called you "a name"

Until then I leave anyone with any toxic-curriosity in this pettyness to ponder the following statement by Moderator Evan:

"And I don't see where he made any accusation against "truthers" in general."

Really?

Evan please get your goggles checked before you go jumping from planes with flyPappy!

Funny that you of all people would make sarcastic comments about someone else's supposed factual errors sorta like Hervé Villechaize getting on someone’s case about their height. But let’s look at all my comments about “truthers” on the thread.

  • “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and B) the intense fires on the south side of the building." (post #4)
  • "Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc." (post #4)
  • "...a movement so consistently inaccurate..." (post #11)

The only one that comes close to being a “accusation against "truthers" in general." Was the last but he seems to have been referring to comments I made before posts #6 and #9 in which you said “HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING” and “Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the…”"Truther"…" movement" in general.” The first 2 are statements of fact. Can you point too and truther accounts of the BBC report that include what I say they omitted or any truther forums that allow free debate?

Word to the wise Nate, check and make sure you have your facts straight BEFORE you click the ‘"Add Reply’ button.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny in every one of your posts trying to rebut my contention you are prone to getting things wrong you’ve gotten something wrong, almost as if you are subconsciously trying to prove me right.
first an initial comment that was centered on your mudslinging becomes three inaccuracies after about pushing a button.

The “initial comment” was just the first of a series of 4 errors.

1) I said your more tolerant reaction to the Goodman death threat when you discovered it was really from a “truther” was “reminiscent” of the tolerant reaction to a death threat against Mark Roberts (a prominent “debunker”) by a “truther” on the Loose Change Forum. You misinterpreted that as me saying you advocated violence. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144945 (see also the following posts)

2) You pushed the wrong button on my 9/11 poll causing your vote to be nullified.

3) Unable to figure what went wrong you accused me of fixing the poll and dragged in your miscomprehension of my above cited comment on the Amy Goodman thread.

4) You forgot you had accused me of fixing the poll

…then you contort your innane comparison of the degree of media saturation of Cole coverage to the POST 9/11 DEGREE OF MEDIA SATURATION OF THE ANTHRAX LETTERS (apples and oranges indeed! but not even a variable in Mr Accuracy's analysis)…

You specifically asked me “What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001?” and made absurd statements like “"but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event”

Why yes Len I notice a pattern of odious comparisons that terminates with stupid name-calling.

Quite ironic that the guy who just labeled me “slusher Len” and recently called me “sleaze” considers comparing him to Chicken Little “stupid name-calling”, where else have I ever called you "a name"

Until then I leave anyone with any toxic-curriosity in this pettyness to ponder the following statement by Moderator Evan:

"And I don't see where he made any accusation against "truthers" in general."

Really?

Evan please get your goggles checked before you go jumping from planes with flyPappy!

Funny that you of all people would make sarcastic comments about someone else's supposed factual errors sorta like Hervé Villechaize getting on someone’s case about their height. But let’s look at all my comments about “truthers” on the thread.

  • “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and :lol: the intense fires on the south side of the building." (post #4)
  • "Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc." (post #4)
  • "...a movement so consistently inaccurate..." (post #11)

The only one that comes close to being a “accusation against "truthers" in general." Was the last but he seems to have been referring to comments I made before posts #6 and #9 in which you said “HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING” and “Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the…”"Truther"…" movement" in general.” The first 2 are statements of fact. Can you point too and truther accounts of the BBC report that include what I say they omitted or any truther forums that allow free debate?

Word to the wise Nate, check and make sure you have your facts straight BEFORE you click the ‘"Add Reply’ button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...