4 ms·

Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? Freedom of speech is meant to protect us from government censorship. Trump sanctions would fall into

Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? Freedom of speech is meant to protect us from government censorship. Trump sanctions would fall into that category, but a social media site censoring what they don't want to host seems like fair game.

the_af 1y ago
> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? The article answers this: > YouTube, which is owned by Google, confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I could see a court finding that to be a first amendment violation, but that isn't the same as the government directly requesting YouTube to take down videos. Sanctions were put in place and YouTube followed policy to not allow content from sanctioned groups. That sounds like a loophole, and could be found by a court to be a violation, but it isn't nearly as cut and dry as people here seem to be making it out to be.
latexr 1y ago
> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? Yes, according to the article. That argument is made over and over in it, it’s hard to miss. “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Of course, you can argue that Google could and should fight it, but that doesn’t change what the government is doing. > but a social media site censoring what they don't want to host seems like fair game. Again, the article makes it really clear they are doing this as the direct result of government actions.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  It doesn't seem that clear in my opinion. There is a lot of smoke there, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fire, but I didn't see the article specifically claiming the government directed YouTube to take down the videos. I saw multiple references there to the government sanctioning groups and that YouTube took down videos based on the sanctions. That very well could be a loophole and a court might deem that a first amendment violation, but it isn't as simple as finding communications where the government directly requested those videos to be taken down.
  - latexr 1y ago
    I’ll say it again: > “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Which is definitely what the current administration does. If you need an example, look at the recent Jimmy Kimmel case.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      And I would expect its up to the legal system to decide which of those examples were the government overstepping. I could see a court deciding this YouTube situation is a first amendment violation. I don't know of any law or precedent that makes it a clear cut case given what is described in the article.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > If you need an example, look at the recent Jimmy Kimmel case. Jimmy Kimmel is on the air today, having walked back his nonsense about the political allegiances of the Charlie Kirk killer. If the outcome is the political left in America is even fractionally less likely to incite violence against anyone they don't like the speech of, then that's a great outcome.
      - latexr 1y ago
        > Jimmy Kimmel is on the air today That it was even off, based on threats made by the government, is the point. Bad things by one party aren’t suddenly OK because a different party beat them.
gosub100 1y ago
If by "the government" you mean the Israeli government? Probably. They have unlimited control over the US, quite possibly due to a decades-long blackmail operation.

the_af 1y ago

> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? The article answers this: > YouTube, which is owned by Google, confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review.

_heimdall 1y ago
I could see a court finding that to be a first amendment violation, but that isn't the same as the government directly requesting YouTube to take down videos. Sanctions were put in place and YouTube followed policy to not allow content from sanctioned groups. That sounds like a loophole, and could be found by a court to be a violation, but it isn't nearly as cut and dry as people here seem to be making it out to be.

latexr 1y ago

> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos? Yes, according to the article. That argument is made over and over in it, it’s hard to miss. “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Of course, you can argue that Google could and should fight it, but that doesn’t change what the government is doing. > but a social media site censoring what they don't want to host seems like fair game. Again, the article makes it really clear they are doing this as the direct result of government actions.

_heimdall 1y ago
It doesn't seem that clear in my opinion. There is a lot of smoke there, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fire, but I didn't see the article specifically claiming the government directed YouTube to take down the videos. I saw multiple references there to the government sanctioning groups and that YouTube took down videos based on the sanctions. That very well could be a loophole and a court might deem that a first amendment violation, but it isn't as simple as finding communications where the government directly requested those videos to be taken down.
- latexr 1y ago
  I’ll say it again: > “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Which is definitely what the current administration does. If you need an example, look at the recent Jimmy Kimmel case.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    And I would expect its up to the legal system to decide which of those examples were the government overstepping. I could see a court deciding this YouTube situation is a first amendment violation. I don't know of any law or precedent that makes it a clear cut case given what is described in the article.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > If you need an example, look at the recent Jimmy Kimmel case. Jimmy Kimmel is on the air today, having walked back his nonsense about the political allegiances of the Charlie Kirk killer. If the outcome is the political left in America is even fractionally less likely to incite violence against anyone they don't like the speech of, then that's a great outcome.
    - latexr 1y ago
      > Jimmy Kimmel is on the air today That it was even off, based on threats made by the government, is the point. Bad things by one party aren’t suddenly OK because a different party beat them.

gosub100 1y ago

If by "the government" you mean the Israeli government? Probably. They have unlimited control over the US, quite possibly due to a decades-long blackmail operation.