Uploaded March 2007 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
This video provides a detailed response to Blunty3000 and his support of the censorship of "haters". The issue is not as simple as Blunty suggests, and legitimate free speech could be the inadvertent casualty of an anti-hater campaign. Such a campaign could also backfire and severely hurt Youtube.
Here is a link to Blunty3000's video
youtube.com/watch?v=mWG-zgaXH40
Blunty's blog where he discusses haters in general and Trevor Rieger in specific:
bluntmation.com/content
Utubedramaqueen's video, where Trevor describes why he thinks Youtube censored him:
youtube.com/watch?v=GEojLdCxDQo
Information about Richard Nixon's enemies list:
answers.com/topic/nixon-s-enemies-list
Michelle Malkin's "First They Came" video.
youtube.com/watch?v=jOb6Vh3qaAY
New York Times v. Sullivan—The seminal libel law case.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
The original passage from NYT v. Sullivan that I bent to fit this situation:
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions--and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount--leads to a comparable "self-censorship." Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
My video discussing the Nick Gisburne affair. Nick was originally told by Youtube that he was being censored for inappropriate content. Youtube later told him that he was being banned forever because of copyright infringement.
youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc
Youtube's bungling of the Gisburne affair earned it some really bad press. Watch Michelle Malkin's video and pay close attention to the comments underneath it.
hotair.com/archives/2007/02/21/banned-by-youtube-iii
This video by Ron, the Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer, discusses the Tur v. Youtube lawsuit. It is absolutely essential to watch this video for people to understand why Youtube should be careful not to get a reputation for censorship.
youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk
Update: Trevor's Utubedramaqueen account has been banished and he is now posting as Utubedramaking.
youtube.com/watch?v=jUUEczUFCsg
This video provides a detailed response to Blunty3000 and his support of the censorship of "haters". The issue is not as simple as Blunty suggests, and legitimate free speech could be the inadvertent casualty of an anti-hater campaign. Such a campaign could also backfire and severely hurt Youtube.
Here is a link to Blunty3000's video
youtube.com/watch?v=mWG-zgaXH40
Blunty's blog where he discusses haters in general and Trevor Rieger in specific:
bluntmation.com/content
Utubedramaqueen's video, where Trevor describes why he thinks Youtube censored him:
youtube.com/watch?v=GEojLdCxDQo
Information about Richard Nixon's enemies list:
answers.com/topic/nixon-s-enemies-list
Michelle Malkin's "First They Came" video.
youtube.com/watch?v=jOb6Vh3qaAY
New York Times v. Sullivan—The seminal libel law case.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
The original passage from NYT v. Sullivan that I bent to fit this situation:
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions--and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount--leads to a comparable "self-censorship." Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
My video discussing the Nick Gisburne affair. Nick was originally told by Youtube that he was being censored for inappropriate content. Youtube later told him that he was being banned forever because of copyright infringement.
youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc
Youtube's bungling of the Gisburne affair earned it some really bad press. Watch Michelle Malkin's video and pay close attention to the comments underneath it.
hotair.com/archives/2007/02/21/banned-by-youtube-iii
This video by Ron, the Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer, discusses the Tur v. Youtube lawsuit. It is absolutely essential to watch this video for people to understand why Youtube should be careful not to get a reputation for censorship.
youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk
Update: Trevor's Utubedramaqueen account has been banished and he is now posting as Utubedramaking.
youtube.com/watch?v=jUUEczUFCsg
